study units v-viii - Research - Colonial Williamsburg

Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological ReportsTowaroward a ResourceProtection Process:James City County,York County,City of Poquoson,City of WilliamsburilliamsburgOLUME 1: ITUDY UNITSI-VIIIVOLUME1: INTRODUCTIONANDSTUDYEdited by Marley R. Brown III and Kathleen J. BragdonThird EditionOffice of Archaeological ExcavationDepartment of ArchaeologyColonial Williamsburg FoundationPO Box CWilliamsburg, Virginia 23187Marley R. Brown IIIPrincipal InvestigatorOctober 1986Third edition issued November 2001

TOWARD A RESOURCE PROTECTIONPROCESS: JAMES CITY COUNTY,YORK COUNTY, CITY OF POQUOSON,AND CITY OF WILLIAMSBURGVOLUME 1: INTRODUCTION ANDSTUDY UNITS I-VIIIThird EditionNovember 2001Office of Archaeological ExcavationThe Department of ArchaeologyThe Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

DISCLAIMERThe activity that is the subject of this report has been financed in part with federalfunds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. However, thecontents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Departmentof the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constituteendorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior.i

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITIONThe first edition of this report, completed in October 1985, was submitted to theVirginia Division of Historic Landmarks in fulfillment of a Survey and Planning Subgrant. Copies were also distributed to the planning departments of JamesCity County York County, the City of Poquoson, and the City oe Williamsburg, as wellas to appropriate libraries, institutions, and individuals.Because the original report was submitted in three volumes totalling over 1200 pges, itwas felt that a reorganization was necessary before it was distributed more widely. The secondedition was published in 1986 in a smaller typeface for wider distribution.This third edition, published in 2001, is designed for better readability and conversioninto digital formats. It has been divided into four separate volumes. Volumes 1 and 2 providethe introduction to the project and the “study unit narratives” that describe the background andcriteria 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3 contains a complete listing of archaeological and architectural sites included in theevaluation, as well as (now outdated) management plans for each jurisdiction. Volume 4 containssupplementary 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, hasnot been modified.The reader is referred to Resource Protection Planning Revisited: James CityCounty, York County, and the City of Williamsburg, a short 1991 update of this documentproduced by Meredith C. Moodey (now Meredith Poole) of the Department ofArchaeological Research of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. All comprehensivesite records and notes are on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources,Richmond.iii

PROJECT MEMBERSProject Director:Contributing Authors:Research Director andReport Coordinator:Consultants:Project Managers:Cartography:Drafting:Interns:Other Contributors:Marley R. Brown IIIKathleen J. BragdonGregory J. BrownLinda K. DerryThomas F. Higgins IIIRobert R. Hunter, Jr.Craig LukezicLisa RoysePatricia SamfordAnn Morgan SmartKathleen J. BragdonKevin KellySam MargolinJames WhittenburgLinda K. DerryAndrew C. EdwardsHannah GibbsVirginia CaldwellNatalie LarsonLouisa WallerEmerson BakerPatricia KandleChester KulesaMelanie LiddleJohn Sprinkle, Jr.Christine StyrnaJeff HollandLeslie McFadenCassandra NewbyDavid T. RobertsAlan StrangeKathrine WalkerJ. Thomas Wrenv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis project is indebted to a number of individuals and institutions who enerouslygave of their time, expertise, and resources. In particular, Drs. James Whittenburgof the College of William and Mary and Kevin Kelly of the Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation were indispensable in creating and refining the study units, and in providingsubstantial assistance in the preparation of the study unit narratives. Dr. DavidFredrickson of Sonoma State University shared his preservation planning experiencewith us, and helped to make our first workshop a success.A number of people have also provided us with information and advice. These includeMs. Mary Mowbray Branch and Mr. Fredrick Boelt of Toano; Mr. Edward Belvin, Mr.William Bryant, Dr. Ben McCary, Mrs. Fannie Epps and Dr. Janet Kimbrough of Williamsburg;Mr. James Haskett of the Colonial National Historical Park; Mrs. Thelma Hansford of Seaford;and Mr. Hugh Wornom and Mr. Vincent Watkins of Poquoson. Mrs. Marie Sheppard andMrs. Julia Boyce of the First Baptist Church of Williamsburg have also contributed a greatdeal to our knowledge of local black history, and Mr. and Mrs. Steven Adkins and Ms.Martha Adkins of the Chickahominy Tribe and Mr. Warren Cook of the Pamunkey Tribe havegiven us valuable information concerning Native American life in Virginia.Through their written comments, Dr. John Sands of the Mariner’s Museum, Drs. LorenaWalsh and Peter Bergstrom of the Research Department of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,Mr. Edward Chappell and Dr. Carl Lounsbury of the Architectural Research Departmentof the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Mrs. Martha McCartney of the Virginia ResearchCenter for Archaeology, Dr. David Holmes of the College of William and Mary, Dr.Thad Tate and Dr. Philip Morgan of the Institute of Early American Histor and Culture, and Dr.Helen Rountree of Old Dominion University provided us with valuable assistance in the preparationof the study units. Many of these scholars also attended our workshops, and they,together with the other professionals who participated in these sessions must be recognized forthe valuable assistance they provided to the project, assistance given without compensation.The planning departments of James City County, York County Williamsburg, and Poquosonave generously provided us with maps publications, and other information necessary to createsuccessful management plans. The involvement and contributions of local planners WilliamMettler, Elizabeth Haag, Kay Robertson, Nat Karns, and Ralph Rongstad, have been particularlyimportant. We are also grateful for the guidance received from the staff of the VirginiaDivision of Historic Landmarks, particularly Robert Carter and E. Randolph Turner.This has been a cooperative effort on the part of the Office of Archaeological Excavationof the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, and the entire staff has in one way or another contributedto the project. We particularly wish to thank cartographer Hannah Gibbs anddraftspeople Virginia Caldwell and Natalie Larson for their help in all phases of production.Interns Christy Vogt and Scott Stull helped with the site-by-site analysis of upcoming developmentprojects, while staff archaeologist Andrew Edwards handled all budgeting and financialaffairs. Peter Bergstrom of Colonial Williamsburg’s Research Department kindly assisted withthe history section of the York County management plan, while Patricia Samford andRobert Hunter of the O.A.E. did the same for the Williamsburg plan.vii

We are also indebted to the staff of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library,especially Mary Keeling and Susan Berg., for their help in identifying sources. LindaRowe and Lou Powers of Colonial Williamsburg’s Research Department and Mr. WayneRandolph of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Crafts Program were also mosthelpful. Suzanne Brown and the rest of the Audio-Visual Department at the Foundationprovided excellent support in finding and reproducing photographs from ColonialWilliamsburg’s collection. The Rare Book Room of the Swem Library at William andMary and the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks kindly gave us access to andallowed us to reproduce a number of rare photographs. The Colonial National HistoricalPark and the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology permitted us to copy severalunpublished site reports. The Valentine Museum generously allowed us to reproducephotographs from the Cook Collection. Finall Mr. Lyle Browning of the Virginia Departmentof Highways and Transportation, provided us with a great deal of useful informationon the state highways.We would also like to thank the staff of the Williamsburg Regional Library. for providingus with meeting space and technical assistance for both our professional workshop and publicmeeting.The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation’s Media Relations Department provided importantadvice and technical assistance and we would like to thank staff writers at the VirginiaGazette and the Daily Press for helping to bring our project to the public’s attention. We hopetheir interest in this process will continue.Amberet Green, of Manpower Inc., patiently typed hundreds of pages of text, and thousandsof site forms, and for this we thank her.Finally, we want to express our appreciation to Mr. Robert Birney, SeniorVice-President of Education, Preservation and Research at Colonial Williamsburg forhis support, interest, and advice throughout the project.viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Volume 1)PageDisclaimer.................................................................................................................... iPreface to the Third Edition....................................................................................... iiiProject Members ......................................................................................................... vAcknowledgments .................................................................................................... viiList of Plates ............................................................................................................... xList of Tables .............................................................................................................. xList of Figures............................................................................................................ xiList of Maps ............................................................................................................... xiPhoto Credits ............................................................................................................. xiSection 1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 1Introduction (MARLEY R. BROWN III AND KATHLEEN J. BRAGDON) ............................................. 3General Background to Study Unit Narratives ................................................. 19Prehistoric Archaeolop within the Study Area (ROBERT R. HUNTER, JR.) .....................19Historical Archaeology within the Study Area (MARLEY R. BROWN III) .....................22Architectural Research within the Study Area (LISA ROYSE) .......................................28Format of the Planning Document.................................................................... 30Bibliography ..................................................................................................... 33Section 2. Prehistoric Study Units ............................................................................ 39Introduction to the Prehistoric Study Units ...................................................... 41Study Unit 1: Early Hunters, the Area’s First Inhabitants(ROBERT R. HUNTER, JR. AND THOMAS F. HIGGINS III) .............................................................47Study Unit I: Operating Plan .................................................................... 52Study Unit II: Foragers in a New Environment(ROBERT R. HUNTER, JR. AND THOMAS F. HIGGINS III) .............................................................57Study Unit II: Operating Plan ................................................................... 62Study Unit III: Permanent Settlement and Population Growth(ROBERT R. HUNTER, JR. AND THOMAS F. HIGGINS III).........................................................67Study Unit III: Operating Plan.................................................................. 74Study Unit IV: Village Life and Agricultural Development(ROBERT R. HUNTER, JR. AND THOMAS F. HIGGINS III) .................................................. 79Study Unit IV: Operating Plan.................................................................. 83Study Units I-IV: Bibliography ........................................................................ 87Section 3. Native American Study Units. ................................................................. 93Introduction to Native American Study Units .................................................. 95Study Unit V: The Protohistoric Period (KATHLEEN J. BRAGDON) ..................................97Study Unit V: Operating Plan ................................................................. 108ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)PageStudy Unit VI: Powhatan Struggle to Retain Land, Power, andCultural Autonomy (KATHLEEN J. BRAGDON) ....................................................... 113Study Unit VI: Operating Plan ............................................................... 117Study Unit VII: Powhatan Cultural Change and Adjustment(KATHLEEN J. BRAGDON) ...................................................................................... 121Study Unit VII: Operating Plan .............................................................. 123Study Unit VIII: Reservation Indian and Citizen Indian(KATHLEEN J. BRAGDON) ....................................................................................................... 127Study Unit VIII: Operating Plan ............................................................. 130Study Units V-VIII: Bibliography .................................................................. 133LIST OF PLATESPlatePage3.1 John Smith’s Map of Virginia, 1612 ................................................... 1023.2 Close-up of John Smith’s Map of Virginia, 1612 ............................... 1023.3 Brafferton Hall .................................................................................... 128LIST OF TABLESTablePage1.1 Summary of Major Archaeological Surveys within theStudy Region ........................................................................................ 152.1 Classification Scheme for Prehistoric Study Units .............................. 422.2 Study Unit 11: Known Cultural Resources .......................................... 592.3 Study Unit III: Known Cultural Resources .......................................... 702.4 Study Unit IV: Known Cultural Resources .......................................... 813.1 Study Units V-VIII: Known Cultural Resources ................................ 1073.2 Selected l7th-Century Powhatan Population Figures ......................... 114x

LIST OF FIGURESFigurePage2.1 Generalized Settlement Model for Prehistoric Resources .................... 43LIST OF MAPSMapPage2.1 Study Units I-IV: Geographic Extent ................................................... 432.2 Study Units I-IV: Known Resource Distribution ................................. 432.3 Sensitivity Map for Prehistoric Resources ........................................... 443.1 Study Units V-VIII: Geographic Extent ............................................... 983.2 Study Units V-VIII: Known Resource Distribution ........................... 108PHOTO CREDITSPlate(s)Photographer/Owner3.3 Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.xi

Section 1.Introduction

IntroductionHistoric properties and archaeological sites within York and James City Counties, and the cities of Williamsburg and Poquoson, are increasingly threatenedby the quicken-ing pace of residential, commercial, and light industrial development.In the Williamsburg vicinity, tourism-related development poses a serious threat,particularly to neglected 19th and 20th century structures, overshadowed by the localemphasis on restoration of colonial buildings. Many of the archaeological sites in thearea are also threatened by development, and by shoreline erosion as well.Perhaps more serious than the destruction of individual sites in the area, however,is the distressing disappearance of the distinctive qualities of local settlement pattern,historic economic base, and community cohesion. It is these qualities, in combinationwith the rich inventory of historic structures, that contribute to the “presentness” of thepast in Tidewater Virginia, a quality which makes this region a national resource, aswell as a desirable place to live.Although it is clear that potentially significant cultural resources, both tangibleand intangible, have been lost or damaged as a result of relatively unrestrained development,no accurate assessment of this destruction has previously been available. Projectionsfor the study area indicate continued growth until the end of this century. Theformulation of cultural resource protection plans for James City County, York County,Williamsburg and Poquoson is thus both timely and critical.Cultural ResourcesCultural resources, for the purposes of the present study, include all those sites, structures,buildings, localities, and features that have been made, altered, or used by themen and women who have occupied the Lower Peninsula for at least eight millennia. Inaddition, these resources embrace those intangible aspects of culture which contributeto the distinctive historical or local ambience of the region. Included in this category arethe folklore and folk crafts of the area, community values, distinctive lifeways, localhabits and customs, as well as the cultural landscape.Prehistoric resources include archaeological sites ranging in date from 8000 B.C. to1560 A.D. These sites, which are the remains of occupation by the earliest inhabitantsof North America, can include large village sites, single campsites, single-function sitessuch as quarries and butchering sites, and burials. Generally these are sub-surface sites,although monuments, mounds, and caves are also potential site types in some parts ofVirginia. Prehistoric resources may also include large-scale man-made or -altered featuressuch as paths and weirs. These sites and features are thought of as prehistoric bothbecause they reflect Native American occupation before the settlement of the New Worldby Europeans, and because no written records were kept by their inhabitants.A sub-category of these resources are those known as proto-historic sites, whichrepresent occupation of the area by the immediate ancestors of the present-day VirginiaIndian groups, who came into contact with Europeans perhaps as early as the mid-16thcentury, and who were described in early accounts written by Europeans. Protohistoric3

sites may range in date from 1560 to 1607, the date of the first permanent Europeansettlement in Virginia.Historic resources include both sub-surface and above-ground sites, buildings,monuments, and large-scale features such as roads, earthworks, and bridges, reflectingthe occupation of this region since 1607. Although the historic resources that have receivedthe most attention have been those associated with 17th-, 18th-, and 19th-centuryEuro-American history, such resources include those sites and structures occupied orused by Native Americans and Afro-Americans since the 17th century, as well as significant20th century sites.The Planning ModelThe development of preservation plans has been encouraged by federal agencies concernedwith cultural resource planning and management at the state level (HeritageConservation and Recreation Service 1980). Guidelines prepared by these agencies recommendadoption of the Resource Protection Planning Process, hereafter to be referredto by its acronym RP3. In outline form, this model calls for the following steps:1. Division of the study area (in this case, James City and York Counties, and theCities of Williamsburg and Poquoson, Virginia) into “study units.”2. Identification of important or eligible resources for each of these study units.3. Formulation of ideal or preferred research, reuse, conservation, and interpretiveobjectives relevant to each study unit.4. Creation of operating plans which provide specific recommendations for prioritizingand treatment of property types for each study unit.5. In view of current land-use practices and other constraints, the specification ofmanagement or treatment strategies for study units and associated propertieslocated in jurisdictions charged with land-use planning.The Study Unit ConceptA study unit is defined as “a resource or cultural unit possessing geographical and timelimits...used to initiate the organization of information in historical terms” (HeritageConservation and Recreation Service 1980: 12). Central to the development of studyunits is the creation of a set of concepts or themes which ultimately serve to organize ormake sense of groups of prehistoric or historic cultural resources. Organization of theuniverse of archaeological sites and standing structures through the use of thesethematically-grounded study units in turn permits the development of resource evaluation,preservation, and management plans for the study area. At the same time, viewingthe existing information concerning the cultural resources of the study area through thestudy unit framework can serve to identify gaps in the data base, and to clarify futureresearch needs.Development of the study units is the first and most important step in the culturalresource management process. The second stage, development of operating plans, requiresthe synthesis of several sources of information into a specific set of recommendationsfor identification, evaluation, and treatment of property types for each study4

unit. The operating plans are in turn tailored to specific land use plans for each jurisdictionwithin the study area to create management plans for all cultural resources.Evaluating SignificanceSeveral factors are usually taken into account when evaluating significance. Guidelinesfor evaluating significance have been developed by the U.S. Secretary of Interior aspart of the National Register nomination process. The National Register is a Federalprogram “to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate andprotect historic and archaeological resources” (National Register of Historic Places 1983).The Register guidelines provide a uniform standard by which resources can be identifiedand evaluated. According to these longstanding guidelines, to be determined eligibleto the National Register, a site or structure must be:A. Associated with significant events in the broad patterns of national history.B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.C. Representative of a type, period, or method of construction, or the work of amaster.D. Capable of yielding important information about the past.The research design of the present study, and the results of that research, have ledthe project staff to emphasize criteria A and D when evaluating significance. In manyways, this is an emphasis created by the RP3 model itself. In view of its reliance uponthe study unit or historic context, which is defined in terms of an identifiable historicalpattern or process, it is only natural that properties associated with important historicalevents, trends, and developments would be singled out. Furthermore, to the extent thathistoric contexts are identified by scholars, based on scholarly or research criteria, itfollows that properties which can yield information about the historical patterns andevents comprising the study units would be given priority.An explicit statement of the relationship between the first and fourth National Registercriteria, with recognition of the others, is offered as follows:The quality of significance is present in properties that possess integrity of location, setting,and association, and that have yielded or may be likely to yield information necessary for afull understanding of and appreciation by the public of the persons, events, and processesthat have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history at the local,regional and national levels (Brown and Elling 1981: 119)Combining the National Register criteria in this way has the advantage of castingthe information content of a resource in terms of its potential to yield data regardingbroad historical patterns and processes-- the very same patterns and processes that havefigured directly in the definition of study units.The above integration of the National Register criteria also draws attention to theconcept of “representativeness,” whereby the significance of a property can be establishedin terms of the degree to which it is representative of events, activities, groups ofpeople, or processes which figured prominently in the historical development of a locality,region, or the nation as a whole.Following from the concept of representativeness is the idea of a property’s generalizingpotential, a quality which is measured in terms of the extent to which the data5

content of a property, when analyzed alone or more often in combination with othersources of information, permits generalizations regarding the nature of historical events,trends, patterns, and developments.Evaluation of significance according to the latter principle introduces the issue ofresearch design and the role that the kinds of questions being asked about the past playin assessing significance. Information becomes important when the right questions areasked. What are the right questions and are some questions more important than others?The primacy of the study unit or historic context in the RP3 model indicates that itis questions regarding the events and processes that have contributed to the broad patternsof history that are important, whether they be asked at the local, regional, or nationallevels. Therefore, identifying and defining historic contexts is the first and majorstep in specifying the important questions. Subsequent evaluation studies can have amongtheir goals the production of specific problem-oriented research designs (Raab andKlinger 1977).With research designs in hand, a further approach to evaluating significance ofmany types of properties can be implemented-- namely, the estimate of informationloss. This is a measure of the probability that data essential to answering the importantquestions, that is, to understanding the events and patterns contributing to processes ofhistorical development, will be lost if properties are destroyed without professionalstudy.Even once the important questions are identified, estimating information loss requiresa thorough knowledge of the extant primary historical record, and how this informationmay be biased or incomplete. Information loss must also be gauged in terms ofa realistic appraisal of the limitations inherent in the data afforded by different propertytypes, and in view of the degree to which important questions can be answered withoutbenefit of the contextual controls provided by historical records. For example, the absenceof historical documentation often reduces the value of archaeological data foraddressing many important questions, yet the very existence of certain kinds of historicaldocumentation can render archaeology more or less redundant.To paraphrase the Advisory Council:If a property can be used only to address unimportant questions, or questions that have beenor can be better addressed using other sources of information, then the property itself isunimportant from a research standpoint (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1980:7)Despite the RP3 model’s inherent bias in favor of using a combination of the firstand fourth National Register criteria, the other two must be seen as important in evaluatingthe significance of certain kinds of properties, particularly individual structures.In these cases, integrity may very well be most relevant. For architectural propertiesespecially, integrity can be seen in location, design, setting, materials workmanship,feeling, and association. These concepts can also be applied to archaeological sites. Forpurposes of this study four criteria-- location, setting, feeling, and association-- weregiven highest priority in evaluating significance.A last general consideration in assessing significance must be the interaction ofthe public with historic and archaeological properties, especially those located withinthe communities in which they live. This interaction is a major element in defining whatcan be called public or local significance. Public concerns, particularly those expressed6

y various segments of the community, such as minority groups, are crucial when assessingthe significance of many properties. They come into play most prominentlywhen confronting the elusive general property type known as the historic or culturallandscape. An understanding of the public’s perception of cultural resources is alsonecessary in addressing intangible values associated with properties. Such concernsmust be balanced against those derived from the National Register criteria, in particularcriterion A and D:A critical point is that if resources are loved, then the underlying denominators ofthese resources are perception and context... Perception is the interaction between theobserver and the resources, and context is the space and time phenomena of the interaction...To design programs for the identification and preservation of these resourcessolely in scientific terms (thus negating emotional aspects) needlessly sacrifices themajor part of their attraction, their worth, their essence (Frondorf et al. 1980: 19).RP3 at the Local Level: Reaffirming the Processual ApproachThe above discussion has outlined the basic steps involved in creating historic preservationplans using the RP3 model, as well as some of the general considerations guidingtheir application in this project. In concept, this model may appear to be fairly straightforward.In its application to the task of developing state preservation plans, however,the RP3 approach has produced over the past several years a very diverse group ofdocuments which often share little in common from state to state. Such diversity inapplication is the function of many factors, including the number and complexity ofcultural resources within a state, the scale of planning considered appropriate by individualhistoric preservation offices, the level of funding available to these agencies, andthe professional backgrounds of their staff.One characteristic shared by many of the plans that have been produced thus far istheir tendency to ignore the review and revision phases, thereby compromising a basicprinciple which guided the initial formulation of the RP3 model-- namely its commitmentto planning as a continual process of accumulating and refining information abouthistoric contexts and associated properties for the purpose of reviewing and revisingoperating plans and if appropriate, the historic contexts themselves.In the absence of mechanisms for the timely incorporation of more reliable or newtechnical information about resources and corresponding revision of contexts and operatingplans, the preservation plan can quickly take on “blueprint” characteristics, oftento the point where the plan, frozen in time, becomes the major goal and implementationbecomes at best an afterthought (Tamez and Fredrickson 1984: 10-11).In part, this shortcoming is the product of time constraints and funding and theireffect on the reality of planning cycles. More importantly, it often results from the inabilityof state agencies responsible for implementing federally-mandated preservationplanning to work effectively with local governments and the private sector, a situationexacerbated by important differences in their respective procedures for planning, review,and decision-making. It may well be that existing state plans modeled after RP3have been useful in setting basic survey and registration priorities, or have assisted thereview of undertakings regulated by federal historic preservation statutes. The use of7

plans at the local level, where federal regulatory authority and influence is absent, however,remains most problematic.In the former, a high level of authority is often present, as is a clearly developedprocedure (i.e., 36 CFR 800; U.S. Department of the Interior 1983). Here, as well, thereis some hope for the “blueprint” plan, since its implementation often depends on theexercise of the authority and clearly defined procedures (Faludi 1973: 133; Tamez andFredrickson 1984: 10-11).In the latter, there is usually no regulatory authority and a very high degree ofuncertainty regarding preservation measures. What preservation decision-making thereis occurs in the absence of binding or compulsory standards and guidelines, and isplayed out in a very open-ended arena of public opinion and local politics, where thecredible marshalling of up-to-date and detailed information about resources is essential.Here, the processual approach to both planning and implementation is much morelikely to be effective than that based on the existence of a “blueprint;” in fact, the actualon-going process of information-gathering and planning becomes as important as anyone draft of the planning document itself (Faludi 1973: 132-133; Tamez and Fredrickson1984: 10-12).By drawing attention to its on-going nature, the title of this document attempts tocapture the reality of developing and realizing an historic preservation plan at the locallevel, at least in Virginia, where Federal regulations and standards are, at present, simplya guide to follow for those county and city agencies entrusted with regulating theuse and development of private property with private funds. Sustained commitment tothe on-going review and revision phases called for by RP3, in light of the project-specificand overlapping planning cycles characterizing land-use decision making by local jurisdictions,will be required to successfully implement the majority of this document’soperating plan and management recommendations.Background and History of the ProjectIn light the above, this project is seen as just one phase in a process of planning andpreservation that was begun in this area by the Catherine Memorial Society and theAssociation for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities in the first decade of this century,sustained by the Colonial Williamsburg Restoration and the National Park Service,and more recently, strengthened by the activities of the Virginia Division of HistoricLandmarks and the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology.In the past two decades, it is a process that has come under increasing pressurefrom the widespread residential, commercial, and tourist development of the VirginiaPeninsula. Once preservation and restoration of the most historically prominent placessuch as Williamsburg, Yorktown, and Jamestown was completed, sites and buildings inbetween were lost or forgotten, or both. The area has witnessed substantial archaeologicalwork, both research and salvage related, some architectural survey in the countiesaround Williamsburg and Yorktown, and periodic reaffirmation of public interest in thearea’s historic sites brought about by bicentennial and related observances. Yet therehas been no attempt to introduce a comprehensive approach to cultural resource managementwithin the local area until very recently, an approach which is necessarily tied8

to the social, economic, and political realities of land-use decision-making within theprivate sector on the local level.It is fair to say that, in part, this new effort has been stimulated by the ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation’s continuing interest in and commitment to the study andpreservation of the history and archaeology in Williamsburg and its environs. Eventhough the bulk of archaeological work done by the Foundation has been accomplishedas part of its own site development and interpretation program, there is a long traditionof involvement on the part of Foundation archaeologists and architectural historians inthe rescue of archaeological sites and the recording of buildings in the Lower Tidewater.As the research interests of Foundation historians and archaeologists have increasinglyturned to understanding the regional context of Williamsburg’s development, fromthe early 17th well into the 19th century, they have become more aware of the need topreserve and study a broad range of structures and sites.In addition, as the Foundation embarks on the creation of long-range land use andproperty-development plans for its several thousand acres of land in the counties ofJames City and York and within the City of Williamsburg, the need for reliable andreadily accessible information about the area’s prehistoric and historic resources, aswell as some mechanism or mechanisms for establishing priorities in the preservationand study of these resources, has become clearly evident. In the absence of these dataand priorities for resource evaluation and treatment, responsible management of thesehistoric and cultural resources is not possible.In the spring of 1982, the Office of Archaeological Excavation at ColonialWilliamsburg initiated the process of preservation planning for this area by committingitself to the development of an archaeological resources management plan for the Foundation,with emphasis on the Historic Area, but with recognition of the need to ultimatelyconsider all of the Foundation’s property. By virtue of the Director’s exposure tothe initial development of RP3 while an employee of Interagency Archaeological Services,and his subsequent experience with it in previous CRM projects (e.g., Brown andElling 1981), this model was adopted as the Office’s approach to developing theFoundation’s archaeological resource management plan.Significant progress had been made on aspects of this management plan, particularlyfor certain sections of the Historic Area, by the spring of 1984. Through the effortsof graduate student interns from the College of William and Mary, the collection andevaluation of information about the area’s archaeological resources had also been undertaken,including computerization and analysis of site records for the City ofWilliamsburg, and preliminary evaluation of contemporary land-holding and land-usepatterns. The evaluation of site records had underscored several problems with the existingdata base pertaining to the area’s known archaeological sites (Sprinkle 1984) anda program of remedial research was developed based on the computerized site form.These studies were seen as part of creating a usable data base on the archaeology of thelocal area which could assist in developing both research designs and the cultural resourcecomponent of the Foundation’s land-use and property development plan.In the summer of 1984, the Office of Archaeological Excavation applied for agrant from the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks to prepare cultural resourcemanagement plans for James City County, York County, and the cities of Williamsburg9

and Poquoson, Virginia. In its initial formulation, the proposal did not include Poquoson,but as it was originally part of York County, and because the City’s planning departmentexpressed strong interest in the project, this jurisdiction was added. The proposal submittedto the state emphasized the development and refinement of study units or historiccontexts for the study area and their application to the existing data on culturalresources.The fact that prior studies sponsored by the Office of Archaeological Excavationhad demonstrated the extremely poor quality of the existing data base for identifyingsite function, date of occupation, integrity, or for engaging in predictive analysis, animportant part of the proposed project involved remedial research and data organization.As it has developed, this aspect of the project has taken many more hours thanoriginally estimated, a reflection of the present utility of the state site records for preservationplanning at any but the grossest planning scale.These remedial efforts have resulted in the upgrading of over 800 local site records,such that over 95% were assignable to specific study units. In contrast, at the beginningof the study, only 45% of the James City County sites were so assignable, and only 55%of the York County sites. These site records have also been entered onto computerizedsite forms, that can ultimately be incorporated into state-wide inventories.One of the most important aspects of the project as originally conceived was thedevelopment of “study unit” narratives, which would serve to define the “historic contexts”through which sites and structures could be identified, evaluated, and managed.As proposed in the initial formulation of RP3, and reiterated in the Secretary of theInterior’s Guidelines for Preservation Planning (U.S. Department of the Interior 1983),study units should be developed in close cooperation with the professional historians,architectural historians, folklorists, archaeologists, geographers, and other scholarsknowledgeable about both the project area’s historical development and its propertytypes.While the creation of many plans based on RP3 have paid lip-service to this requirement,interdisciplinary development and review of study units and supporting narrativesand operating plans has been an integral part of this study. In part, the project’semphasis on this approach, grew out of the recognition that to be truly processual, applicationof RP3 required the broadest participation possible on the part of informedconstituencies concerned about preservation at the local level. Successful implementationof operating and planning recommendations in the future will depend on the continuedinvolvement of these constituencies, and particularly the concerned scholarlycommunity. Their involvement at the outset increases the chances for continued participationin the process (Tamez and Fredrickson 1984).Together with over sixty professionals representing all relevant disciplines, as wellas the minority communities in the area, the project staff developed twenty-three studyunits which summarize the area’s history from prehistoric times to the present. Specificproperty types, both archaeological and architectural, were then associated with eachstudy unit. This development of the study unit narratives and review of operating planswas facilitated by two workshops at which scholars gathered to review the narrativesand operating plans, as well as to discuss the economic, legal, and political constraintsaffecting implementation of preservation plans within the local area.10

The act of convening professionals from a broad range of scholarly backgroundshas also had one other very significant benefit. It has furthered the cause of developingspecific, problem-oriented research designs of a truly interdisciplinary nature. Suchresearch designs are an essential component of many of the operating plans developedfor individual study units, and for the county, city, and ultimately, regional managementplans.New awareness and interest in implementation problems has been the primaryoutcome of the collaborative process, indicating again the importance of the processualapproach to preservation planning, in which the process itself may well be more importantto realizing preservation goals, than any single document that may result at a particularstage in the process (Faludi 1973: 132-133).For the same reason, a number of efforts were made to ensure that interested membersof the public had an opportunity to review the study units and to contribute theirspecific knowledge and concerns about local properties. Through interviews with anumber of local residents, a public meeting, and the publication of a questionnaire, anumber of local concerns and sites not included in the State’s site files were identified.As in the case of the professional community, residents of the local area were especiallyinterested in the implementation phase of the planning effort. In some cases, new preservationconstituencies were formed, or existing groups found new impetus, underscoringagain the need for real involvement by the public in developing preservation plansto be implemented by local jurisdictions.Project Research DesignOne of the first steps in creating a preservation plan using the RP3 model is the definitionof study units or historic contexts. In principle, this step can be taken with little orno information about cultural resources in the area for which the plan is being developed.According to the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Preservation Planning,it should be possible to establish historic contexts on the basis of very general secondarysources alone; extensive research in periodical literature, primary archival sources,and fieldwork are not essential, as this level of effort can come in future stages of theplanning cycle. In practice, however, the development and justification of meaningfulstudy units, especially for application at the local level, cannot be accomplished in theabsence of both a detailed understanding of an area’s historical development, and anaccurate knowledge of the kinds of historic properties which survive on or in the ground.At this planning scale, such knowledge and understanding cannot be derived solelyfrom a review of general secondary sources.In view of the character of technical information that local-level planning requires,a significant portion of the study was concerned with obtaining and evaluating bothexisting and new information about patterns of historical development and correspondingproperty types for the planning area. This section describes how this research wasaccomplished and summarizes the results of work not incorporated into the study unitnarratives and operating plans. The data base in its re-organized and revised form ischaracterized, and recommendations are offered regarding what the Division of HistoricLandmarks can do to make such information collection and assessment more productivein future local-level planning projects.11

As originally proposed, research conducted as part of this project was to consist ofassembling existing information about the study area’s cultural resources, and assessingthis material in terms of the sources available and their respective shortcomings. Itwas anticipated that information would include existing survey, inventory, and registrationfiles maintained by the VDHL, as well as unpublished and published articles, reports,and monographs pertaining to these site and property records. This informationwas to be re-organized for entry into computer files, and the resulting data was to beevaluated in terms of apparent biases and gaps. In addition, information contained onthe computerized inventories would be used to develop models of site and propertylocation within the four jurisdictions comprising the study area. It was further proposedthat, where feasible, inventoried sites and properties would be verified in the field andrecords modified to reflect new information about location, integrity, and environmentalsetting. Finally, it was indicated that sampling previously unsurveyed portions of thestudy area would be attempted if time permitted.Responsibility for performing the above research was assigned to graduate studentinterns from the College of William and Mary’s M.A. and Ph.D. programs in AmericanHistory, the Historical Archaeology M.A. program offered by the Anthropology department,and the M.A. program in American Studies. Faculty advisors from each departmentworked with staff members of the Archaeology, Research, and ArchitecturalResearch departments at Colonial Williamsburg to supervise and coordinate this work.Although research was divided broadly into prehistory and history, the presence of anumber of professional historians, architectural historians, and archaeologists as projectadvisors insured an interdisciplinary perspective. A subsequent two-day workshop heldto review the first draft of study units made it possible for other professional scholarsdirectly familiar with the planning area to contribute their knowledge and perspectivesas well.It should be noted that many of these individuals, including the professional staffof the Foundation’s Research and Architectural Research departments and workshopparticipants, donated significant time to the project-- time which will not be compensateddirectly or as match through Historic Landmark’s grant to Colonial Williamsburg.Just as importantly, several staff members of the VDHL gave valuable time and expertiseto the research phase of the project, and were important contributors to the workshops.Scope of ResearchHaving been divided temporally and thematically among prehistory, historical archaeology,architectural history, history, and ethnohistory, the collection of data pertinent tothe study area’s cultural resources proceeded in terms of a standardized set of tasks.These included the compilation of all existing inventory material relating to structures,buildings, and archaeological sites within the four jurisdictions, the development ofcomputer forms for the state’s archaeological site and historic structure record, the entryof all inventoried information into the computer files, and the preparation of anannotated bibliography of both published and unpublished historical, architectural, andarchaeological scholarship relevant to the planning area.12

Primary among the goals of analysis was the evaluation of existing inventory-leveldata in terms of completeness, accuracy of information, and survey bias. The developmentof computer forms for the state records and entry of these data into microcomputerand main-frame computer files was intended to both facilitate analysis of completenessand to permit the development of predictive models of site location. Since previousexperience with the VDHL’s archaeological site records had indicated that this sourceof information would likely prove to be inconsistent at best (Sprinkle 1984), some provisionwas made for remedial research to improve existing records prior to their entryinto the computer files. An attempt was made to fill the obvious gaps in the site inventoryfrom the study area, including information regarding location, function, time period,and environmental associations.Because the Division of Historic Landmarks assigns numbers and creates inventoryforms for archaeological sites based on cartographic and documentary data alone,additional time was allocated to verifying a sample of these so-called “map-predicted”sites. In one of the jurisdictions examined in this study, these records made up nearlyone-third of the entire inventory of archaeological sites.The maps used by VDHL staff to build this portion of the archaeological site inventorywere consulted, along with other primary sources, to reconstruct the historicaldevelopment of roads within the project area. It was anticipated that such a study wouldprove useful in future identification studies, serving as the basis for some prediction ofboth architectural and historic archaeological site locations.In order to more accurately characterize the original universe of property typeswithin the planning area, additional research in other primary sources was undertaken.Especially for the later periods, analysis of the state agricultural census and the federalcensus provided useful data on the number of farmsteads and other building and sitetypes originally present within the study area. Where feasible, this information wasused to evaluate the relationship between what survives and what once existed, therebyestablishing another measure of potential bias in the existing inventory.In addition to limited fieldwork to confirm the physical existence of a sample ofthe sites known only from maps, it was possible to conduct an intensive reconnaissancelevel survey of one significant portion of James City County and a small area of upperYork County, as part of the planning study. This project was supported by the VirginiaDepartment of Highways and Transportation and was conducted as an element of theenvironmental assessment of Route 199. The survey permitted the evaluation of onemajor predictive model for prehistoric site location, and produced valuable informationon site types and distribution within a previously unexamined section of the planningarea (Hunter and Higgins 1985).The state’s inventory of standing structures for the planning area was also evaluated.Unlike the archaeological inventory, the inventory of standing structures has notbeen kept on one standardized form, and in some cases there is no inventory form at all,but simply a file of photographs and newspaper clippings. In view of the fact that manyof the architectural surveys of the project area occurred well over a decade ago, aneffort was made to re-locate as many identified buildings as possible and revise theexisting inventory records accordingly. A limited amount of photographic field surveywas conducted, supplemented by a review of other collections of photographs, includingthose in the possession of local residents. As with the archaeological inventory,13

these data were transferred to a computer file designed specifically for the project. Thisfile is based on a record format that includes the kinds of information contained in theVDHL’s architectural files but which permits greater detail regarding the building orstructure‘s location, ownership, condition, historical context, and photographic and documentaryreferences.A thorough review of periodical literature and published and unpublished monographswas undertaken to discern trends in the scholarship of the study area, identifyany research biases, and provide a detailed overview of patterns of historical development.Annotated bibliographies were compiled with the assistance of a main-framecomputer file developed by Professor James Whittenburg of William and Mary’s HistoryDepartment, and historiographic essays based upon these annotated bibliographieswere written after the historic contexts had been defined.In order to obtain information about properties that had not yet been recorded orpublished, a program of selective oral history was also initiated. This research focusedon informants who had substantial personal knowledge of the area’s architecture andarchaeological sites. It was hoped that this effort could produce information about propertiesof concern to the public, as well as yield new or improved inventory data. Thisprogram was followed up by a public meeting and several newspaper articles and apublished questionnaire seeking information from local residents.Results of Research—The Nature of the Old Data BasePerhaps the most telling observation on the nature of the old data base, which consistsprimarily of the VDHL’s architectural and archaeological inventory, can be made in thecontext of correlating property types with their appropriate study unit or historic context.If defining historic contexts is the first major step in RP3-inspired preservationplanning, then identifying properties related to them must soon follow. Without theintensive effort at remedial research described above, it would have been impossible toassign nearly one-half of the buildings and archaeological sites contained in state filesto the study units defined for this planning area.This percentage is a commentary on the quality of the existing cultural resourceinventory, and its utility for preservation planning at the regional or local level. A majorvalue of study units or historic contexts is that, by identifying dominant themes in anarea or region’s historical development, they make it possible to draw together groupsof related sites for more meaningful evaluation and more effective treatment. When thequality of the inventory is such that almost one of every two properties contained in theinventory cannot be identified in sufficient detail for assignment to a study unit, seriousquestions must be raised regarding the purposes and priorities of the state survey program.Such an evaluation appears to be especially important in light of the VDHL’scommitment to following the RP3 model in its preservation planning efforts at all levels.Examination of the archaeological site records and historic structures survey formsfor the planning area revealed that very often the basic function of a site was not recorded,historic sites often could not be placed within a century, many prehistoric sitescould not be located within several millennia. The location of buildings was not includedon whatever inventory form was on record for them, the quad sheets which14

TABLE 1.1.SUMMARY OF MAJOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYSWITHIN THE STUDY REGIONName Date Agent 1 Level 2 DescriptionYork County Survey 1979-1980 VRCA T,S Stratified 5-10% sampling ofriver drainages.Governor’s Land Survey 1975 VRCA W,S Walkovers at 10-15' intervals.Kingsmill Survey mid-1970s Kelso D,S Stratified sample based onknowledge of historic settlementtypes and map research.Carter’s Grove 1970-1972 Kelso W,S,M 7’ machine long trenches at 20'intervals.Second Street Extension 1983 CWF/OAE W,S Walkovers at 20-40' intervals.199 Extension 1984 CWF/OAE W,S,D Walkovers at 25’ intervals,stratified sample based onpredictive model.“Governor’s Land” 1983 W & M S,W,D 7 1/2% random sample of 500'units, also sample based onmap research.Chickahominy River Survey 1967-1981 W & M T,S,W Survey of plowed fields alongboth banks of river at 15-20'intervals.1VRCA= Virginia Research Center for Archaeology; CWF/OAE= Colonial Williamsburg Foundation/Office ofArchaeological Excavation; W & M= College of William and Mary.2T=Systematic Transects; S=Shovel testing; W=Walkover Survey; D=Discretionary Sample.indicated their approximate location were kept many miles away. Site records oftenreferred to individuals or unpublished reports for essential information. Nearly one-thirdof the inventory of historic archaeological sites within one of the counties is knownonly through unverified map research. Basic information on the environmental settingof prehistoric and historic archaeological sites was absent in over a third of the inventory,making predictive modeling in light of such factors extremely difficult, if not impossible.Beyond these shortcomings of the state inventory records themselves, there are theexpected survey and research biases in favor of the 17th and 18th centuries. Thesebiases are evident in the number and type of archaeological sites and buildings includedin the inventory, in the overriding concerns of historical and archaeological scholarshipproduced for the planning area, and in the areas where intensive survey and excavationhas taken place. Although the latter partly reflect areas where past development hasthreatened sites, the emphasis of extensive excavation work growing out of these surveysalso points to overwhelming interest on the part of archaeologists and historians inthe colonial period of the project area’s history. (See Table 1.1 for a summary of thesesurveys.)This same interest can also be seen in the roster of properties that have been listedon the National Register of Historic Places, or observed in the structures chosen for15

preservation or restoration over the last fifty years. Almost entirely absent from theinventory are sites, structures, and buildings that relate to the post-Civil War history ofthe planning area. Even though it has been possible to correct many of the glaring deficienciesin the existing inventory records, the dearth of identification-level data regarding19th and early 20th century properties can only be remedied by new survey work.Results of Research—The Nature of the New Data BaseAs has been noted, it was anticipated that some remedial research would be required tobring existing inventory data to the point where they could be meaningfully incorporatedinto study unit narratives and operating plans. Initial attempts to use the archaeologicalinventory from the Williamsburg vicinity to create models of prehistoric andhistoric site location had drawn attention to many of the areas of missing information onthe archaeological site forms (Sprinkle 1984). Even so, the original proposal for thisstudy badly underestimated the effort that would be needed to obtain this missing information,as well as to revise the existing historic structure forms.Well over eight man-months were devoted to this remedial research effort. Thiswork included evaluating the existing inventory of both buildings and sites, creatingcomputer forms and files for them, and entering these data. Once the most critical categoriesof incomplete or missing information were identified, they were addressed byintroducing corrected or new data onto the forms through review of published and unpublishedreports, analysis of maps and regional environmental studies, and field checksof sites and standing structures and buildings. The result is a microcomputer-based fileof all existing archaeological site records and state historic structure forms, containingboth the information found on the existing records as well as new information regardinglocation, environmental setting, temporal affiliation, site function or building type, currentcondition, and historic context or study unit association. Simple sorting of thesefiles has made it possible to produce the summary tables included in the report. Moredetailed analyses can now be accomplished. Descriptions of these forms and examplesof the data, both new and old, that they contain may be found in the appendices.Beyond this improved cultural resource inventory, the new data base contains othersources of information that have been or will be tied to the study units defined for theplanning area. These include extensive computerized annotated bibliographies of periodicalliterature pertaining to the area’s historical development, similarly detailed bibliographiesof scholarship in architectural history, historical archaeology, and prehistory,and a number of maps that re-organize and more clearly present information now on theUSGS Quad sheets employed by the VDHL’s inventory to indicate the location of buildings,sites, and structures.The Future of the New Data BaseResearch undertaken as part of the grant awarded to the Colonial Williamsburg Foundationhas drawn attention to the need for on-going review and revision of the state’scultural resource inventory. Most of the forms reviewed by this project appeared not tohave been up-dated or revised since they were originally recorded. Not only was theinformation often incomplete, it was out-of-date as well. By virtue of the way they are16

stored, these inventory records are also not easily accessible. In some cases maps showingthe location of buildings are stored separately from the structure forms themselves.Many of the categories of missing data on the archaeological site forms can be found inunpublished survey and excavation reports, but these reports are also kept elsewhere.The separate storage of this information can be especially problematic when the tworepositories in question are located in Richmond and Yorktown, and when site forms,maps, and reports are not fully duplicated in both places.While the physical re-organization of the VDHL’s inventory storage can solvesome of the access problems, the fact that information has not been appropriately correlated,and that it has not been systematically revised in well over a decade, points to aneed for a level of staff effort devoted to information management and disseminationactivities that apparently has not been available in the past. As the demand increases atthe local planning level for reliable and readily accessible identification andevaluation-level information about sites and structures, the Division of Historic Landmarkscan either add staff to address this problem, or it can reassign existing staff toperform these tasks. Although labor-intensive, federally-mandated environmental reviewand what is often referred to as “106 compliance review” do not in fact require thesame information-gathering and management capability needed to create and implementpreservation plans at the regional and local levels.Recognition of this need, and the difficulties of adding or reassigning staff at thestate level, has lead to a proposal for the establishment of a regional information centerto be located at the College of William and Mary. This information center would bemodeled after those that have been set up in other states for the management and distributionof data on cultural resources at the county and municipal level. It would bejointly sponsored by Colonial Williamsburg’s Department of Archaeology, and theAnthropology and History Departments at the College. Potential facilities have alreadybeen identified, and would include office space, as well as space for the storage ofmaps, site records, and published and unpublished reports. The availability of both aPC-compatible microcomputer with hard disk, as well as access through terminal to theWilliam and Mary main-frame computers will make it possible to efficiently manageand disseminate both existing and new inventory data.Among the first activities of the information center should be the revision andcomputer entry of the site and structure records from other jurisdictions not covered bythis project, but which logically fall into the regional planning divisions established bythe Division of Historic Landmarks. Included would be the remainder of the countiesand cities on the James-York Peninsula, or at the very least, the jurisdictions whichcomprise the regional planning district based in Hampton. A more detailed descriptionof other tasks that the information center can perform and the services it can provide tolocal planners in support of the VDHL’s programs will be provided in the managementplans now being developed for the York and James City Counties, and the cities ofWilliamsburg and Poquoson.Recommendations to the State ProgramThe attempt to create usable historic preservation plans for local jurisdictions, basedboth on existing inventory data and the framework provided by the RP3 planning model,17

has identified a number of real and potential problems that must be addressed by theDivision of Historic Landmarks as it intensifies its planning effort at the local and regionallevels. These problems and possible solutions are summarized in the followingset of recommendations:• As soon as possible, the inventory records should be computerized and a codingsheet developed that can be filled out along with the inventory form. (Examplesare provided in Volume II, Appendix 1.)• More exacting standards for the recording of inventory data, particularly archaeologicalsite forms, should be established. These standards should target locational,functional, temporal, and environmental data, and should include a sketch maprequirement. A how-to guide would be helpful. (An example is attached in VolumeII, Appendix 2.)• Provision needs to be made for the careful review of every new site or structureinventory form by appropriate VDHL staff. Those not meeting new standards shouldbe rejected until appropriate revisions are made.• Existing inventory records need to be systematically reviewed and up-dated inlight of new standards, with emphasis on accurate information on location, sitefunction or building type, and date of construction, occupation, or use. Such reviewand revision will require transferring information now contained on mapsand in unpublished reports onto the inventory forms.• The duplication of numbers between architectural and archaeological files shouldbe eliminated, and the maps upgraded and duplicated so that full sets are in bothRichmond and Yorktown.• A program of periodic inventory review should be developed, perhaps based oncomputerized “tickler” files which indicate the status of individual records andidentify when review is called for.• Serious attention should be given to the current policy of creating “map-predicted”archaeological site records and numbering them in the same system used for sitesidentified on the basis of real-world physical evidence. They are in no way comparable,and there are other ways that such cartographic information can be introducedinto environmental impact and compliance review.If they could be implemented, the majority of these recommendations would simplybring the VDHL’s inventory program up to a level that many states have operated atfor several years now. There may be much to be said for absolute numbers when evaluatingthe success of a state’s inventory or registration program. The value of the informationbehind these numbers, however, must be commensurate with the other, increasinglypressing, preservation tasks at hand. The guidelines for RP3 make ample provisionfor deferring many activities to future points in the existing planning cycle, orwould re-schedule them to altogether new planning cycles. But the reality of fundingand staffing suggests that various phases of this planning process must be accomplishedto the highest standard possible the first time around. This is especially true when providinginformation about cultural resources at the local level. Assuming that the experienceof this project is an accurate guide, the quality of inventory data required to de-18

velop and implement RP3-based plans at the county and municipal level is simply notthere; the raw count of recorded sites and structures may well be.General Background to Study Unit NarrativesAs has been discussed, the study units and the themes upon which they are based arecentral to the planning document. In addition to identifying the characteristics whichproperties have in common, these units provide direction for the development of moreconcrete research questions that will guide evaluation of properties in terms of the firstand fourth National Register criteria. These questions can also provide the basis formore specific research designs for future historical, architectural, and archaeologicalwork within the project area. In order to better understand the discussions of generalresearch domains presented in the individual narratives, a broad overview of scholarshipin archaeology and architecture is offered as background to these sections of theplanning document.Prehistoric Archaeology within the Study AreaThe archaeological study of the area’s Native American cultures has been greatly overshadowedby the attention given to 17th and 18th century colonial sites. Indeed, whilethe study area may be viewed as the birthplace of American historical archaeology, verylittle comprehensive prehistoric archaeological research has been undertaken. This disparityis seemingly paradoxical since the area also provided the setting for some of theearliest and most significant ethnographic accounts of Native American inhabitants.Although Virginia’s prehistory extends back in time for at least 12,000 years, muchof the research-oriented archaeology that has been undertaken in the area has focusedon the later Woodland and Protohistoric periods. This is due partially to poor site preservationin the area. Unlike other regions of Virginia where sites are deeply stratified,providing datable and interpretable organic residues as well as a wide range of artifacts,many of the area’s sites have been lost to erosion, sea level rise, and a host of culturalfactors. In addition, a number of the best preserved sites lie on federally-controlledlands, and are inaccessible to most archaeologists. Finally, most current archaeologicalresearch in the state is funded by federally- sponsored cultural resource projects, andvery few such large-scale projects have been initiated within the study area.Aside from avocational collecting, which is and has been extensive within thestudy area, most research and salvage projects have been sponsored by the College ofWilliam and Mary, the Virginia State Library, the Archaeological Society of Virginia,and the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, as well as by independent professionalsand cultural resource management firms. General trends in local and regionalresearch efforts can be identified. These trends correspond closely with the developmentalstages of American archaeology and include classic studies of material cultureand chronological sequences, the beginnings of the New Archaeology and the use ofecological modeling, and more recent work that emphasizes the need for a better understandingof artifact types and settlement patterns.19

Cultural Chronologies and Material CultureThe archaeological study of Virginia’s Indians can be traced back to 1784 with ThomasJefferson’s pioneering excavation of an aboriginal burial mound on his property in thePiedmont. While informal remarks concerning the area’s Indian remains can be foundin colonial records, it was not until the late 19th and early 20th century that the areaattracted the attention of professionally-trained archaeologists. At that time, the Bureauof American Ethnology sponsored several surveys of the Eastern United States, includingVirginia. These surveys were primarily concerned with basic classification and descriptionof aboriginal remains. Early classificatory work, focusing mainly on ceramicsequences, established the initial framework for later artifact typologies (Holmes 1903).During the so-called “classificatory” period, archaeologists developed and used anumber of field and laboratory techniques which became the foundation of modernarchaeological method. Stratigraphic excavation, the process of removing soil layers inreverse of the order in which they were deposited, from the most recent to the oldest,became the accepted procedure in archaeological excavations in Virginia and elsewhere.Unfortunately, many coastal sites in the Middle Atlantic region were shallow, and notwell suited to stratigraphic excavation. In addition, many sites had been subjected toyears of plowing, destroying any stratigraphic sequences that may have existed. Thusmost of the initial classifications and typologies developed for Middle Atlantic sitesrelied heavily upon another analytic method, known as seriation.Although several methods of seriation were developed, its basic application wasthe arrangement of proportionally occurring stylistic elements (pottery decoration orprojectile point shapes) from a given area in order to establish relative cultural sequences.Most local chronologies were based upon surface collections of pottery and projectilepoints (Evans 1955) and relied upon seriation to provide a relative ordering of stylistictraits. This ordering of traits was incorporated into a developmental scheme which postulatedthree basic stages: (1) Paleo-Indian; (2) Archaic; and (3) Woodland. Later stratigraphicexcavations of deeply buried sites in piedmont areas of North Carolina (Coe1964) and West Virginia (Broyles 1971) were able to correct many of cultural sequencesderived solely from seriation studies and allowed finer distinctions to be made withineach developmental stage.Ecological Models and the New ArchaeologyBuilding upon the basic cultural histories derived from years of description and classification,American archaeology took on a more evolutionary perspective in the 1960s.The focus shifted from an emphasis on cultural history to one on cultural process. Thisperspective, since labeled the “New Archaeology,” was actually the coalescence of anumber of separate lines of thought within the broader discipline of anthropology. Primaryamong these was a renewed interest in cultural evolution. This interest manifesteditself among “New” archaeologists with the adoption of general systems theory linkedclosely to a heavy reliance upon ecological theory, particularly the concept of ecosystem.The close tie to ecology led to the adoption of many of the theoretical and methodologicalapproaches of the physical and natural sciences by archaeologists.20

The “New Archaeology” had an immediate impact on archaeological research inthe Middle Atlantic region by virtue of Lewis Binford’s Ph.D. dissertation research(1964). Binford, considered to be the premier spokesman of the “New Archaeology,”proposed a significant ecological model for the development and diversity of aboriginalcultures of coastal Virginia and North Carolina. Drawing upon ethnohistorical and archaeologicaldata, Binford attempted to account for the structure of regional societiesand their interaction with other groups. His application of environmental data and anthropologicaltheory to archaeological data permitted Binford to make more sophisticatedstatements about trade, social networks, warfare, and ecological specialization.Binford’s model served as a basis for further research on the evolution of the rankedsocieties present at the time of European contact in Randolph Turner’s doctoral study ofthe Powhatan Chiefdom (1976). Turner’s later model (1978) of demographic changefrom the Archaic through Late Woodland periods in the Virginia Coastal Plain culturesalso utilizes an ecological approach focusing on the systemic relationships of huntingpressures on deer population and consequent social and cultural adaptations.In the 1960s and 70s, the integration of ecological theory into archaeology wasaccompanied by advances of new cultural and environmentally- related data recoverytechniques (Moeller 1982). A most important emphasis was placed on the recovery andidentification of subsistence-related remains. Not only did archaeologists begin analyzingthe bone and shell remains found in great quantities in many sites, but a specialattempt was made to examine the minute organic residues normally not recovered bystandard trowelling and screening techniques. These small plant and animal remainswere recovered by using flotation, a technique where soil is dispersed in a water barrelallowing the lighter organic remains to float to the surface where they can easily beobserved and recovered. Since the introduction of this technique, much has been learnedabout aboriginal diet, the seasonality of resources, and plant communities through thestudy of these small fish scales, bones, seeds, insects, and other organic debris. In addition,environmental data retrieved through sediment and pollen studies has contributedgreatly to recognition of general environmental trends important for understanding culturaladaptation, distribution of resources, and settlement patterning.Back to Basics: Chronology and Settlement PatternsIn the general context of Middle Atlantic archaeology, the “New Archaeology” hasgenerated a plethora of ecological and social models of past behavior. The focus onsettlement and social archaeology based on the view of culture as an adaptive strategyhas been fully embraced by archaeologists working in the Middle Atlantic (cf. Custer1984). As models have become more complex they have required increasingly refinedand sophisticated archaeological data in order to be tested. The need for tighter controlsover the chronology and the range of diversity in material culture has led to a renewedinterest in culture historical studies during the last decade.Efforts to build upon Wright’s (1973) cultural sequence for the Chesapeake Regionhave sought to further identify artifact types, phases, and patterns in the archaeologicalrecord. The dating and ordering of stylistic and technological traits of ceramicsand projectile points is still the mainstay of cultural historical studies although a broaderrange of culturally diagnostic materials are being investigated. Through proper study,21

chronological sequences may be detected in variations in technological processes, sitelocation and patterning, lithic preferences and numerous other factors (Mouer et al. 1980:13).In general, artifact studies in the Middle Atlantic region, and especially in Virginia,have not provided a satisfactory framework for addressing regional and localprojectile point variation and temporal persistence. Many points have yet to be found ina stratigraphic context or in direct association with other recognizable diagnostics. Ceramics,as indicators of the various Woodland period phases, have probably receivedthe greatest attention from scholars working in the Middle Atlantic (Wise 1975). Arecent study of Virginia Coastal Plain ceramics (Egloff and Potter 1982) has redefinedand/or tightened definitions previously based on the work of Holmes (1903) and Evans(1955) providing new insights into the cultural diversity, interaction and movementcharacteristic of the period.Further work is needed to determine the relationship between ceramic diversityand technological and social change. A study along these lines has been initiated byVirginia Commonwealth University to investigate ceramic variability from a materialsscience approach (Bronitsky 1982). By employing various chemical and physical tests,greater controls are sought for an understanding of clay and temper sources, vesselfunction, and the limitations of the materials. These data can be related in turn to questionsof settlement pattern, economy, technology, and social organization.The immediate result of the renewed interest in cultural historical studies is theenhancement of our knowledge of local and regional cultural sequences. Excavationsconducted by the College of William and Mary have provided the basis for understandingthe local manifestation of the Middle and Late Archaic periods in the Lower JamesRiver Valley (Reinhart 1979). On-going research in the Richmond area is rapidly redefiningthe cultural history for Central Virginia as well (Mouer et al. 1980). More attemptsare being made at regional syntheses in the Middle Atlantic region providing amore detailed view of prehistoric cultural evolution and adaptation (Custer 1984). However,many significant questions concerning the rise of the Woodland social systemsand horticultural economies require further typological work to be addressed. TheJames-York Peninsula is poorly represented in research of this type, and future investigationsshould have as their primary goal the further elucidation of basic questions ofchronology, artifact typologies and cultural/ecological patterns.Historical Archaeology within the Study AreaThe Lower Tidewater area of Virginia has provided the setting for some of the mostimportant archaeological research on historic sites undertaken anywhere in the worldduring the 20th century. Between the pioneering work of the National Park Service atJamestown, the long-standing program established at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundationby Ivor Noël Hume, and the efforts of archaeologists from the College of Williamand Mary and the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, it is fair to say that thestudy area and surrounding environs are probably the most studied part of the UnitedStates, at least in terms of the archaeology of the colonial period. Much of the specificwork accomplished over the past fifty years is discussed in the individual study unitnarratives. There are, however, general themes evident in the scholarship of historical22

archaeology, as practiced locally and regionally, that can be useful in establishing boththe significance of individual property types and research problems which might bestressed in implementing individual operating plans. These research themes relate tothe study of vernacular architecture and settlement patterns, foodways, and patterns ofmaterial culture.Vernacular Architecture and Settlement PatternOne of the legacies of the early years of archaeology on colonial sites in America wasthe realization that, if nothing else, excavation could identify aspects of the architecturaltradition of the early colonies which no amount of documentary research or surveyand recording of extant structures could achieve. Even though archaeologists couldrarely address questions about specific framing techniques or the number and size ofwindows, it soon became clear that many basic types of buildings not clearly documentedin records or surviving residences and outbuildings, were there to be found inthe ground. The problem was quite simply one of recognition. As the attention of architecturalhistorians and restoration architects became more clearly focused on vernacularforms, rather than on the grander, more impressive products of the academic tradition,the potential for archaeology’s contribution became even more obvious and accepted.The more knowledgeable archaeologists became about the great variety of buildingplans and construction techniques to be found in the vernacular traditions ofEngland, Wales, and Ireland, the more evidence they began to see of these traditions onarchaeological sites along the eastern seaboard (Deetz 1977).This was particularly true for a post or post-in-the-ground building tradition. Inpart because they had a short life expectancy, due to the deterioration of the supportingposts, the existence and importance of this building tradition, both in New England andthe Chesapeake, would have gone unnoticed if not for archaeological excavation.At first, the significance of this latter discovery was that it conclusively demonstratedthe existence of an entire range of architectural forms and construction techniquesheretofore undocumented in North America. It underscored both the complexityof the vernacular competence of the colonists and the importance of their regional originswithin England. A closer inspection brought the realization that many of theseconstruction techniques were simply a part of a broad vernacular repertoire, selectivelydrawn upon at different times and in different places along the eastern seaboard. It alsoraised the important question of why such selectivity occurred. The restriction of thepost building tradition in New England to the first period of settlement, and the scarcityof evidence for it in the ground, indicates that, where present, it was a response to theexigencies of environment and the need for immediate shelter (Deetz 1977; Pendery1984).Archaeological work within the study area, especially at Kingsmill and Governor’sLand, has both helped to demonstrate that a different pattern held in the Tidewater, andcontributed to the appreciation of variation within the tradition. In contrast to NewEngland, post buildings appear to be almost the only kind being erected in the Chesapeakeduring the 17th century, and they persist well into the 18th century. A study of thespatial and temporal distribution of both the post buildings and those which replacedthem, suggests that their presence and persistence in the Tidewater was related to the23

egional economy’s dependence until 1680 upon the planting and export of tobacco andthe region’s demographic imbalance and social instability. As the economy becamemore diversified with the introduction of corn, wheat and other crops, the age-structureand sex-ratio of the population stabilized, and the society matured, impermanent architecturalforms disappeared (Carson et al. 1982: 160-178).This interpretation of the Chesapeake material is based on a very thorough comparisonof every recorded case of any type of post building encountered on Marylandand Virginia archaeological sites and in this respect it is perhaps the most completesynthesis of colonial-period archaeological data yet attempted. Such a synthesis wouldnot have been possible if archaeologists working locally and regionally had not frequentlyshared information, as well as adopted similar approaches to site investigation.Again, data from 17th and early 18th century sites located in the study area played animportant role in this comparative analysis.This study had been immediately preceded by another valuable review of the varietyin the Tidewater-Chesapeake post building tradition (Neiman 1978) and an equallyuseful survey of the variation in settlement pattern which accompanied the sites onwhich post buildings occurred (Keeler 1977). These two studies employ essentially thesame approach to the excavation and analysis of the sites in question, the Clifts Plantationin Westmoreland County, Virginia, occupied from about 1670 until the early 1730s,and St. Johns, a house and outbuilding complex built in 1638 and destroyed around1720. In both cases the dwellings and outbuildings were fully exposed, and the areas ofactive use between them were explored in detail using a combination of soil testing andcomputer-generated artifact distribution maps.One important pattern which these two sites have in common is the increased functionalcompartmentalization of the use of domestic and work space through time. Thischange is evident in an increased number and variety of outbuildings, a formalization oftheir arrangement in relation to pathways and fences, and the distribution of sheet refuseon both sites. In the case of St. John’s, this trend is related to “the frontier process,”whereby “the sequence of changes in the organization and use of the homelot correlateswith the gradual maturation of the Chesapeake frontier society and the trend towardspermanence and stability” (Keeler 1977: 10). Although it introduces the formal conceptof the frontier as an explanatory device, and lacks the detail regarding demographic,economic, and social change, the study of St. John’s homelot arrives at essentially thesame conclusion as does the study of post-building or impermanent architecture in theTidewater.By paying more attention to the plan of the buildings and the nature of interiorspace they afforded, the analysis of Clifts Plantation produced a more comprehensive,and perhaps more profound, interpretation of changes evident in architecture and settlementpattern. The post-built house at this site exhibited a cross passage plan, in which anarrow passageway ran across the building at one end, permitting direct access to thehall, the major center of domestic activity for all members of the household. During thisperiod, residents included both the planter’s family and the plantation’s labor force, allof whom would have used the hall for daily chores, eating, and sleeping. Twenty yearslater, the cross-passage is blocked up, and a porch was added as the main entry. Thischange in the plan of the dwelling, combined with the addition of morefunctionally-specific outbuildings and well-bounded space in the yard areas, is not viewed24

simply as a measure of the frontier’s passing, but more significantly as the passing ofone kind of social order and the arrival of another-- one in which social distance couldbe maintained by well-defined role expectations to one which relied on physical barriersto separate “masters from laborers, superiors from inferiors, private from public,and finally the self from others” (Neiman 1978: 3128).The above interpretation is, of course, based on a number of earlier studies whichhave related changes in architectural form and the differing arrangements of domesticspace they imply to broader dimensions of social and cultural change occurring in the17th and 18th centuries (Glassie 1975; Deetz 1977) and is one which finds support inmore recently completed studies of vernacular buildings and probate inventories in Virginia(Upton 1979). It also, like the interpretation of impermanent architecture, makescreative use of the primary historical sources relating both to the site and to its regionalcontext. Most importantly, the analysis of Clifts Plantation illustrates how archaeologicalevidence from a single site can be meaningfully related to more general processesaffecting the development of colonial society. This kind of generalization is accomplishedby combining thorough and precise excavation methods and innovative quantitativeanalysis of artifacts with extensive knowledge of vernacular building traditions.Archaeology is not used simply as a means of delineating the structure of a site and thekind of generalized activities occurring on it. House and homelot form are explicitlyrelated to changes in the use and meaning of domestic space, and these patterns areconnected to transformations in demography and social relations.In a number of ways, the two studies mentioned above have benefited by what hascome before in terms of the archaeological excavation of Lower Virginia Tidewatersites, as the latter have provided both methodological inspiration and comparative datafor the study and interpretation of vernacular building and settlement pattern. Mostrecently, in his book-length review of several years of research at Kingsmill, WilliamKelso has shown the rich diversity that was the architectural tradition of TidewaterVirginia rural plantation settlements (1984: 56-142). From manor houses to slave quarters,from the 17th through the 18th century, Kelso is able to see both the great variationthat existed during any one period in the construction and use of individual structuresand surrounding sites, as well as some of the basic patterns which seem to characterizethe difference between 17th- and 18th-century building and settlement layouts, andmark the disparity between rich and poor, black and white (1984: 143-206).It is clear from studies such as those of Clifts Plantation, Governor’s Land, and theKingsmill tract that archaeology has an important role to play in the description andinterpretation of vernacular architecture and settlement pattern as these dimensions ofmaterial culture varied during the colonial period and were transformed in response tochanging economic and social factors during the course of the Tidewater-Chesapeake’shistorical development.Depending on the scale upon which these phenomena are being viewed, however,the significance of excavated data will vary. It may well be that the major characteristicsof colonial settlement pattern can be confidently left to the historical geographersand economic historians working with cartographic and other historical evidence. Isarchaeological excavation likely to significantly increase current understanding of theoverall form and distribution of different types of colonial settlement at the regionallevel, and the divergence in these forms and locational patterns from English anteced-25

ents? Thus far, aside from very general treatment (Lewis 1975), this subject has notbeen extensively explored in the study area. With the second phase of ColonialWilliamsburg’s York County Project now a reality, answers to this question should beforthcoming, at least with respect to urban land-use patterns and settlement dynamics.FoodwaysJust as it took some time for archaeologists to recognize the broader interpretive valueof the architectural remains they had for so long uncovered on colonial sites, so too hasit been only within the last decade that the full analytical potential of animal bonesrecovered from these same sites was realized. Faunal analysis as an approach to understandingone important dimension of the English colonization effort along the easternseaboard has come of age only in the past few years. Analysis of faunal remains, orzooarchaeology as it has come to be known, is now usually pursued within the broaderframework of “foodways” research, a concept developed by folklorists to describe the“whole interrelated system of food conceptualization, procurement, distribution, preservation,preparation, and consumption shared by all members of a particular group”(Anderson 1971: 2).As Deetz first illustrated in his study of ceramics from sites in the Plymouth, Massachusettsarea (1973: 16), faunal remains are not the only source of evidence availableregarding colonial foodways; in fact, the study of this material without reference toceramics, glass, iron, pewter, and other vessels used for preparing the consuming food,will provide only part of the picture (Beaudry et al. 1982). When combined and examinedthrough time, ceramic and faunal assemblages, particularly the vessel form ratiosfound in the former and butchering techniques evident on the latter, indicate a basicchange in the predominant food consumption pattern of colonists, one which parallelssuch change in England and on the Continent. The pottages and stews of the 17th andearly 18th century, consumed from bowls with spoons, gives way to discrete cuts ofmeat eaten from plates with knives and forks by the middle of the 18th century. Ofcourse, the specific occurrence and timing of this change will depend on factors such asethnicity, wealth, and social rank (Deetz 1977; Otto 1978).If an important general trend present in the evolution of colonial foodways hasbeen described, there is still much to be learned about basic regional differences in thediet, subsistence base, and animal husbandry practices of English colonists settling ineastern North America (Reitz 1979; Reitz and Honerkamp 1983). The significance ofseasonality and its effects upon the patterns observable in faunal assemblages fromcolonial sites must also be considered, as must be the broader economic network inwhich livestock was raised and distributed (Bowen 1983). But regardless of how muchresearch remains to be done, it is an undeniable fact that the zooarchaeology of thecolonial period holds the promise for reconstructing an aspect of life which simplycannot be understood through the analysis of documentary sources alone. Althoughbeset by problems of standardization in methods of data recovery and analysis (Reitz1979: 55-56), this field is now, and will continue to be, the strength of historicalarchaeology’s contribution to detailing the differences between the regional economicadaptations of English colonists in New England, the Tidewater-Chesapeake, and thecoastal Deep South.26

From the perspective of this background, it may be seen that a number of usefulcontributions to the interpretation of colonial foodways have been based on archaeologicalassemblages from the study area (Miller 1980; Kelso 1984: 176-185), as well asupon the analysis of related documentary sources such as probate inventories (Beaudry1978; Beaudry et al. 1982). In addition, there have been important synthetic studiesproduced for the region as a whole, studies which incorporate data from both localUpper Peninsula sites and those excavated from other areas of the Tidewater-Chesapeake(Miller 1984).Material Culture PatternsFor better or worse, the objects which furnished colonial households are best representedon archaeological sites by fragments of ceramic, glass, pipe stems, tools, andother ordinary items. Because they were less expensive than many other householdpossessions, not capable of being re-cycled after breakage, and durable enough to preservewell, these materials are most of what historical archaeologists have, other thanarchitecture and faunal remains, to make sense of daily life and behavior during thecolonial period.Even so, these finds do have many practical advantages not shared by foundationsand bones. Much is now known about the source and date of manufacture of many ofthese objects, due in large measure to the research efforts of Audrey and Ivor NoëlHume and their studies of Colonial Williamsburg’s 17th- and 18th-century archaeologicalcollections. As a result, these materials may be used to date the components of sites,and because they are usually broken before being discarded, the cross-mending of fragmentswhere appropriate, and reconstruction of their distribution on sites can often revealmuch about the relationship between the layers and features which make them up,trash disposal practices, and ultimately the spatial organization of behavior on sites(Noël Hume 1969, 1970; Neiman 1980; Kelso 1984: 152-176).Although some historical archaeologists have dwelt on the chronological informationcontained in these remains, as well as on gross functional patterns evident in them(South 1977), their study has also figured prominently in the analysis of foodways,ethnicity, and social status. This is logical enough in view of the fact that the majority ofobjects made of ceramic and glass were used for food storage, food preparation, andfood consumption. It has also been assumed that relative amounts of these objects indifferent households may be reflective of economic means and ethnic background, assome ceramic and glass vessels clearly cost more than others, while some may relate tocultural preferences or traditions.Studies of observable change in the number and ratios of different vessel formsoccurring in different local assemblages have been attempted (Outlaw et al. 1977; Kelso1984: 176-182),but as with such analysis conducted on sites from other areas, theseinvestigations require large samples of well- documented material before they can enjoymuch success. Although it may well be that sufficient excavated material does existfrom the study area and adjacent regions to engage in such controlled comparison, therehas, as of yet, been little work on these research problems. Unlike the topic of vernacularbuilding and settlement pattern, the question of ethnic and economic differences inthe archeological record of the study area will require further research-- research that27

will need all the controls available through parallel analysis of the primary historicalrecord. These kinds of investigations will also require a much broader sample, onemore representative of the diversity of households present in the study area.The above summary of the archaeological study of historic sites within the studyarea indicates some of the interests and successes thus far. It is also suggestive of thekinds of questions and research problems most amenable to investigation in future excavationsconducted within the Lower Virginia Tidewater. At the same time, it must berecognized that archaeologists still have much to learn about what data preserved in theground can reveal about the past, whether it be new variations in architectural form,new evidence about food preferences and animal husbandry, or yet-to-be-determinedrelationships between artifacts and minority cultural traditions. There are constant surprises,such as the recent discoveries during salvage excavation on 17th-century sites incounties adjacent to this study area.In the study unit narratives and operating plans that follow, every attempt is madeto identify the kinds of sites which may provide important new information, or datanecessary to fully understand what has already been excavated. But it must be rememberedin reading these narratives that the archaeological record often raises more questionsthan it answers, questions that depend equally on extensive historical scholarshipfor complete answers.Architectural Research within the Study AreaArchitectural history in Virginia has shared many of the same concerns as historicalarchaeology, albeit often approaching these concerns from a different perspective andwith a different set of methods. In many cases these perspectives have converged, resultingin a powerful set of interdisciplinary investigations which have contributed muchto our knowledge of the area’s history.The early history of architectural research in this region was closely tied to thepreservation interests of the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities(APVA), the National Park Service, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, and theVirginia Historic Landmarks Commission. Much of the first documentation of localarchitecture came from scholars associated with these various organizations and themain foci of research were Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Yorktown during the colonialperiod and Yorktown during the Civil War, with an emphasis on domestic, commercial,and public buildings. Local historians also contributed studies of religious architectureand buildings of regional interest. Other property types, however got short shriftfrom these early researchers. This is particularly true of most architecture dating fromthe late 19th through the 20th centuries, which even now has not been properly recordedor researched.Early researchers of architectural history in the Tidewater (Kimball 1956; Waterman1946) compiled drawings, detailed descriptions, and photographs of colonial buildings,focusing their attention on either existing structures or brick foundations as the basis fortheir theories on architecture. Not until the 1960s did scholars begin to critically analyzelocal structures, and this was mainly in conjunction with the growing interest invernacular architecture. Cultural geographers were especially interested in regional variationsin architectural styles (Kniffen 1965; Kniffen and Glassie 1966).28

Recent architectural studies have been affected by developments in historical archaeology.Scholars have had valuable archaeological data to reinforce their theories onthe widespread use of wood structures in the colonial era and its social and culturalsignificance (e.g., Carson et al. 1981). The recent interest in social history has alsoaffected the field. Studies focusing on social conditions have included an importantwork by Cary Carson and others (1981), which interprets 17th-century impermanentarchitecture based on social factors such as high mortality and the tobacco economy.Fraser Neiman interprets the changes in 17th-century building design at the Clifts Plantationas evidence of changing social attitudes (Neiman 1978), and a similar argumenthas been made for 18th-century structures in Virginia (Upton 1982). Regional variationsin architecture have been studied in terms of changing cultural orientation (Glassie1975; Deetz 1977), with in-depth analyses on its impact on building patterns and viceversa. All these works have given new significance to vernacular architecture.Architectural surveys done in this region have been neither systematic nor thorough.There have been only four field surveys which have included some documentation,description, drawings, and photographs. The first, conducted by Historic AmericanBuildings Survey (HABS) in the 1930s, was a careful look at 72 buildings in thestudy region. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation has complete documentation onsites within its purview and has conducted an in-depth survey of agricultural buildings(however, none are in the study region). Also, in the 1930s, a group of ColonialWilliamsburg architectural historians compiled a Virginia buildings file for the purposeof collecting information on local 18th-century structures to assist in the reconstructionof the Historic Area. This contains a limited amount of documentation and some drawings,and a more complete collection of photographs of approximately 25 buildings andstructures from James City and York Counties. The National Park Service has alsosurveyed sites within its jurisdiction. Park Service surveys include a historical report,an architectural report, and an archaeological report on each structure or building, andall reports are on file at Colonial National Historical Park headquarters in Yorktown.Between 1958 and 1971, the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission (now theDivision of Historic Landmarks) surveyed both James City and York Counties, compilingfiles on 132 buildings which range in content from photographs to completed NationalRegister nominations. However, the bulk of the files contain only brief exteriordescriptions of structures and a series of photographs. During the present project, thesesite forms have been updated through additional fieldwork. However, this was done ona sampling basis to determine the current condition of buildings in the VDHL files.Many structures originally recorded in the VDHL surveys could not be located, eitherbecause of the poor quality of the available site records (some did not give adequatelocational guides, some sites did not have site forms filled out for them, and some of thesite folders contained more recent information on the site not included on the formssince these had not been up-dated) or because the buildings have been destroyed in thelast fifteen years. This recent fieldwork suggests that the information included in theDHL records is out-dated, incomplete, and, at times, unreliable.In 1976, the James City County Department of Planning and Development alsosponsored a county-wide architectural survey. The result, published the next year (JamesCity County Department of Planning and Development 1977), was a list of 95 structures,many of which were located through historic map research. No photographs or29

drawings accompany this report, although it contains useful descriptions of the structuresand their occupants.Four photographic collections of structures are available. One at the Virginia StateLibrary is from a WPA/HABS survey done between 1933-1938 of over 50 buildings inthis area (some not in other HABS collections). Another collection is at the Library ofCongress, and includes both the HABS survey and additional photographic materials.Also available is the Virginiana collection at the College of William and Mary containingover 55 photographs, several duplicating the WPA and National Park Service photographs.Finally, a photographic survey of structures was conducted for this report todetermine the current condition of previously surveyed buildings and photographs weretaken of some structures previously unrecorded, a total of 116 photographed buildings.There are additionally some private, local collections which have not been made availableto the public.Most of these surveys tend to cover the same structures, the majority of which datefrom the 18th to the early 19th centuries. Very little survey work has been done onpost-Civil War structures and no in-depth survey has been done on any site in the Cityof Poquoson.This bias towards architectural studies of the 17th and 18th centuries is partially afunction of organizational limitations, research interests, and perceived significance.However, since the most complete research can be carried out on an intact structurewith a full array of historic documentation and oral records, late 19th- and 20th-centurystructures have as much if not more research potential than buildings from any otherperiod. These available resources should be taken advantage of now, before they too arelost.Format of the Planning DocumentWhat follows are the individual study unit narratives and their respective operatingplans. These are designed to be more or less self-contained, so that they may be usedindividually for the management of particular categories of identified properties. As agroup, they provide the basis for the second major section of the document, the managementor protection plan.Among the information provided in the historical narratives is:1. A typology of the properties and/or sites to be included in the study unit.2. An analysis of their original density and distribution.3. An evaluation of the current state of knowledge concerning these propertytypes, including a discussion of previous surveys.Each narrative concludes with an operating plan. Included within each plan are:1. A listing of ideal management strategies.2. An evaluation of these strategies in the light of local land-use policies.3. Recommendations for future survey, research, and treatment, at the county,state, and federal level.The study unit narratives and operating plans are followed by individual managementplans for each of the jurisdictions covered by this study. The management plan30

section is composed of two parts, a general introduction applicable to the preservationactivities of all the affected jurisdictions, followed by specific management recommendationsthat reflect the combined operating plans of those study units and associatedproperties relevant to each local government.31

BIBLIOGRAPHY: INTRODUCTIONAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation1980 Treatment of Archaeological Properties: A Handbook. A guide preparedby the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington D.C.Anderson, Jay1971 A Solid Sufficiency: An Ethnography of Yeoman Foodways in StuartEngland. Ph.D. dissertation in the Folklore and Folklife Department,University of Pennsylvania.Beaudry, Mary1977 Ceramics in York County, Virginia, Inventories, 1730-1750: The TeaService. The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers, 1977 12:201-210.Beaudry, Mary, Jane Long, Henry M. Miller, Fraser D. Neiman, and Garry W. Stone1983 A Vessel Typology for Early Chesapeake Ceramics: The Potomac TypologicalSystem. Historical Archaeology 17(1): 18-43.Bowen, Joanne1984 Seasonality: An Agricultural Construct. Manuscript on file, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Bronitsky, Gordon1982 Clay Workability: A Pilot Survey. Quarterly Bulletin, ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia 37(2).Brown, Marley R. III, and C. Michael Elling1981 An Historical Overview of Redwood Logging Resources within the HumeLake Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest, California: Final Report.Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park,California.Carson, Cary, Norman F. Barka, William M. Kelso, Garry W. Stone, and Dell Upton1981 Impermanent Architecture in the Southern American Colonies. WinterthurPortfolio 16: 135-196.Custer, Jay F.1984 Delaware Prehistoric Archaeology: An Ecological Approach. AssociatedUniversity Presses, Inc. Cranbury, New Jersey.Deetz, James1973 Ceramics from Plymouth, 1635-1835: The Archaeological Evidence. InCeramics in America, edited by Ian M. G. Quimby, pp. 15-40. UniversityPress of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.1977 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American Life.Doubleday, Garden City, New Jersey.33

Egloff, Keith T., and Stephen R. Potter1982 Indian Ceramics from Coastal Plain Virginia. Archaeology of EasternNorth America 10: 95-117.Evans, Clifford1955 A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archaeology. Bureau of American EthnologyBulletin 160. Washington, DC.Faludi, Andreas1973 Planning Theory. Pergamon Press, New York.Frondorf, Ann F., Michael M. McCarthy, and Ervin H. Zube1980 Quality Landscapes: Preserving the National Heritage. Landscape22:39-47.Glassie, Henry1975 Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: A Structural Study of Historic Artifacts.University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service1980 Resource Protection Planning Process. Heritage Conservation and RecreationService, Washington, DC.Holmes, William H.1903 Aboriginal Pottery of the Eastern United States. In Twentieth AnnualReport of the Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 1-201. United StatesGovernment Printing Office, Washington, DC.Hunter, Robert R., Jr., and Thomas Higgins1985 Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Route 199Project, James City and York Counties, Virginia. Draft Final Reportsubmitted to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation bythe Office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.James City County Department of Planning and Development1977 Heritage and Historic Sites: An Inventory and Description of HistoricSites in James City County. Department of Planning and Development,James City County, Virginia.Keeler, Robert W.1977 The Homelot on the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake Tidewater Frontier.Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology, University of Oregon.Kelso, William M.1984 Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in ColonialVirginia. Academic Press, Orlando.34

Kimball, Fiske1956 Domestic Architecture of the American Colonies and of the Early Republic.C. Scribner’s Sons, New York.Kniffen, Fred1965 Folk Housing: Key to Diffusion. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 55(4): 549-577.Kniffen, Fred, and Henry Glassie1966 Building in Wood in the Eastern United States: A Time-Place Perspective.The Geographical Review 56: 40-66.Lewis, Kenneth E., Jr.1975 The Jamestown Frontier: An Archaeological Study of Colonization.Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology, University of Oklahoma.Miller, George L.1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics. HistoricalArchaeology 14: 1-40.Miller, Henry M.1984 The Evolution of Subsistence on the Chesapeake Frontier: An ArchaeologicalSynthesis. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeologyannual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.Mouer, L. Daniel, Robert R. Hunter, Elizabeth G. Johnson, Lawrence W. Lindberg,and John Saunders1980 Archaeology in Henrico: Identification and Evaluation of Archaeologicaland Historical Resources for Henrico County, Virginia. Virginia RegionalWaste-Water System. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, VirginiaCommonwealth University, Richmond.National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)1983 The National Register of Historic Places. Government Printing Office,Washington, DC.Neiman, Fraser1978 Domestic Architecture at the Clifts Plantation: The Social Context ofEarly Virginia Building. Northern Neck of Virginia Historical Magazine20(1): 3096-3128.Noël Hume, Ivor1969 Historical Archaeology. Alfred A, Knopf, New York.1970 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.1982 Martin’s Hundred. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.Otto, John Solomon1977 Artifacts and Status Differences-- A Comparison of Ceramics fromPlanter, Overseer, and Slave Sites on an Antebellum Plantation. In Re-35

search Strategies in Historical Archeology, edited by Stanley South,pp. 91-118. Academic Press, New York.Outlaw, Merry A., Beverly A. Bogley, and Alain C. Outlaw1977 Richman, Poor Man: Status Definition of Two Seventeenth-CenturyCeramic Assemblages from Kingsmill. Paper presented at the Society forHistorical Archaeology annual meeting, Ottawa, Ontario.Pendery, Stephen R.1985 Status and Material Cultural Differences in Colonial Charleston, Massachusetts.Paper presented at the Society of Historical Archaeology annualmeeting, Boston, Massachusetts.Raab, L. Mark, and Timothy Klinger1977 A Critical Appraisal of “Significance” in Contract Archaeology. AmericanAntiquity 42: 629-634.Reinhart, Theodore R.1979 Middle and Late Archaic Cultures in the Lower James River Area. QuarterlyBulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 34(2): 57-82.Reitz, Elizabeth1979 Spanish and Subsistence Strategies at St. Augustine, Florida andFrederica, Georgia, Between 1565 and 1783. Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof Florida.Reitz, Elizabeth, and Nicholas Honerkamp1983 British Colonial Subsistence Strategy on the Southeastern Coastal Plain.Historical Archaeology 17(2): 4-26.Sprinkle, John H., Jr.1984 Let’s Do Something About Site Records: Characteristics of theWilliamsburg Archaeological Region. Paper presented at the ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia annual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.Tamez, Sonia A., and David A. Fredrickson1984 Managing the Past, Planning for the Future: The View from California.Paper presented at the symposium “Anthropologists in EnvironmentalPlanning I: State and Regional Preservation Plans” at the 83rd AnnualMeeting of the American Anthropological Association, Denver, Colorado.U.S. Department of the Interior1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standardsand Guidelines. National Park Service. Draft, Federal Register,Vol. 48, No. 190.Upton, Dell1979 Early Vernacular Architecture in Southeastern Virginia. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of American Civilization, Brown University.36

Upton, Dell1982 Vernacular Domestic Architecture in Eighteenth-Century Virginia.Winterthur Portfolio 17: 95-119.Waterman, Thomas Tileston1946 The Mansions of Virginia, 1706-1776. University of North Carolina Press,Chapel Hill.Waterman, Thomas Tileston, and John A. Barrows1932 Domestic Colonial Architecture of Tidewater Virginia. Charles Scribner’sSons, New York.Wise, Cara Lewis1975 A Proposed Sequence for the Development of Pottery in the MiddleAtlantic and Northeast. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Middle AtlanticArchaeological Conference, edited by W. Fred Kinsey III.Wright, Henry T.1973 An Archaeological Sequence in the Middle Chesapeake Region, Maryland.Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Geological Survey,Archaeological Studies, No. 1.37

Section 2.Prehistoric Study Units(Study Units I–IV)

INTRODUCTION TO THE PREHISTORIC STUDY UNITSThe lifeways of Virginia’s prehistoric people have long been of interest to scholars and the general public alike. With the exception of the early European explorers’ and colo-nists’ descriptions of the Powhatan, all information on theJames-York Peninsula’s 12,000 years of prehistory comes from the artifacts left behindby the aboriginal inhabitants. By studying these artifacts in the context of the sites inwhich they are found, archaeologists have developed a general chronological frameworkbased partially on trends in stylistic development of artifact types, such as projectilepoints (arrowheads) and ceramics, and partially on the appearance of widespreadcultural innovations.The time periods defined by artifact typologies usually correspond to certain stagesof cultural development. For example, the traditionally defined Early Archaic period(8000 B.C.- 6500 B.C.), distinguished by diagnostic corner-notched projectile points, ischaracterized as a period of cultural development during which people lived in small,band-level societies with subsistence activities focused on hunting and gathering. Incontrast, the Middle Woodland period (500 B.C.- 900 A.D.) is usually distinguished bycertain ceramic types and is characterized as a more complex, sedentary society with abroader-based subsistence pattern utilizing forest and marine resources.Development of the prehistoric study units for this report has been partially guidedby the traditional chronological framework recognized in the Middle Atlantic region forover 50 years. However, the study units have been defined more broadly than mostchronological schemes in order to aggregate several periods. Table 2.1. summarizes thestudy units in terms of stages of cultural development and diagnostic artifact types andcontrasts them with the more traditional classifications. This table may be used forreference when reading the individual study unit narratives I-IV.The decision to broadly define study units has both academic and managementimplications. While many classificatory schemes have been proposed, cultural developmentis usually best viewed in terms of a continuum of gradual cultural change. Furthermore,most archaeological sites contain evidence of repeated occupation for hundredsand even thousands of years. Sites that have been subsequently plowed or disturbedhave artifacts from these different occupations mixed together. From a managementperspective, it is difficult to study a particular occupation, or component, without fullyanalyzing an entire site in order to recognize the range and variation in components.As noted in the Introduction, the state of knowledge of the area’s prehistory isrelatively poor when compared to other parts of Virginia. As a result, every prehistoricresource in the area can be seen as potentially important in reconstructing past lifewaysand cultural developments.Although the study unit narratives were prepared specifically for the James-YorkPeninsula, the area’s prehistoric development is best understood in the context of alarger region. Archaeologists have often relied upon general physiographic provincesfor defining spatial research regions. For the purposes of this project, the greater regionalcontext has been defined as the Virginia Coastal Plain (Map 2.1) in order to bestunderstand cultural interaction and ecologically-related developmental trends. Map 2.241

TABLE 2.1CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR PREHISTORIC STUDY UNITSDevelopmental Stage and Diagnostic ArtifactsStudy Unit: Cultural Period Cultural Pattern and Cultural Phases Traditional ModelEarly Hunters, The Area’s First Band-level society, emphasis on Fluted projectile points: Clovis, Paleo-IndianInhabitants (before 6500 B.C) hunting large game though many Dalton-Hardaway before 8000plant and animal resources were Corner-notched: Palmer, Kirk Early Archaicexploited 8000 B.C.-6500 B.C.Foragers in a New Environment Band-level society though larger Bifurcate points; Stemmed points: Middle Archaic(6500 B.C.-2000 B.C.) group aggregations occur. Generalized Stanley, Morrow Mountain, Guilford, 6500 B.C.-3000 B.C.hunting and gathering subsistence. HalifaxLate Archaic/Permanent Settlement and Sedentary lifeways lead to more Savannah River and variant points; TransitionalPopulation Growth complex social systems. Broad-based soapstone bowls; 3000 B.C.-1200 B.C.(2000 B.C.-1000 A.D.) subsistence pattern with emphasis on Steatite-tempered ceramics:marine resources. Marcey Creek Early WoodlandCroaker Landing 1200 B.C.-500 B.C.Sand and grit-tempered ceramics:Popes Creek, Accokeek, Prince Middle WoodlandGeorge 500 B.C.-900 A.D.Shell-tempered ceramics: MockelyVillage Life and Agricultural Development of increasingly complex Shell-tempered ceramics: Townsend Late WoodlandDevelopment social systems culminating in Small, triangular projectile points 900 A.D.-1560 A.D.(1000 A.D.-1560 A.D.) Chiefdom level society. Broad-basedsubsistence pattern with emphasison horticulture.42

Map 2.1.Map 2.2.43

provides an overview of general environmental zones of the James-York Peninsula whichare referred to throughout study unit narratives I-IV.Prior to embarking on a discussion of the area’s prehistory, it is necessary to definea number of technical terms, the most frequently used of which is, of course, the archaeologicalsite. Archaeologists use many different criteria to characterize sites, anddefinitions may vary considerably depending upon whether management or researchobjectives are to be met. A site is usually defined as an area of known dimension whichcontains some physical evidence of past human behavior. Following this basic definition,a prehistoric site may consist of a large village complex containing the physicalremains of dwellings, storage pits, burials, and a variety of stone and ceramic artifacts.A very small surface scatter, only several yards in diameter, and consisting of a fewstone tools and flakes representing the remains of a hunting kill could also be considereda site by this definition. The distribution of known prehistoric sites, categorized bystudy unit, as recorded in the Virginia Division of Historical Landmarks’ state files, ispresented with Map 2.3.Archaeological resources, of which sites are one category, also include artifactcollections, individual artifacts, and ecofactual data.Another important archaeological concept discussed in the following narratives isthat of settlement pattern. Settlement patterns are reflected in interrelated sites distributedover the landscape that represent the full range of habitation, subsistence, andsocial exchange activities of a given cultural group in a particular time period.Map 2.3.44

Archaeological investigations can be of several levels of intensity. Phase I investigationinvolves archival search and field survey to locate and identify sites in a givenarea. Phase II investigation includes more intensive testing of a site to determine itsboundaries, integrity and potential eligibility for nomination to the National Register ofHistoric Places. Phase III investigation involved intensive data recovery efforts at siteswhich are threatened by development, or excavated for research purposes (VDHL 1981:2-4).Sensitivity zones are areas likely to contain archaeological sites and are definedthrough analysis of known site distribution, as well as environmental and geologicaldata.A generalized settlement pattern model for prehistoric periods on the Virginia CoastalPlain is presented in Figure 2.1. Central to the model is the large base camp near theintersection of a major creek and a river. This type of location provided elevated, flatground, easy access to a variety of resources, and a commanding view of the riverwhich was used as a major transportation route. The base camp might have been inhabitedfor a major portion of the year. From the base camp, small groups would have madeperiodic forays for short periods into interior areas for purposes of hunting, fishing,berry and nut collecting.Based on a number of regional studies and evidence gathered through local surveys,this general model of settlement distribution can be postulated for every majorFigure 2.1.45

drainage of the James-York Peninsula. The settlement model has been constructed insuch a general way that it is applicable to all periods covered by study unit narrativesI-IV with the exception of the Early Hunter period, as discussed in the following section.Specific site locations can vary considerably based on topographic factors, soiltypes, and numerous micro-environmental subtleties. However, for planning purposes,the model provides a basic illustration of sensitivity zones where significant archaeologicalresources might be expected to occur. For the Peninsula, high sensitivity zonescan be proposed within a 200’ wide corridor along the James and York Rivers, andalong the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. Another highly sensitive zone is a minimum ofa 150’ wide corridor along each bank of the major creeks and their tributaries. Thus, forthe planning purposes of the local jurisdictions, any development or ground-disturbingactivity within a minimum of 150' distance of a natural waterway can potentially affectsignificant prehistoric resources.46

STUDY UNIT I.EARLY HUNTERS, THE AREA’S FIRST INHABITANTSbefore 6500 B.C.Major Theme: Local manifestation of the widespread cultural adaptationsto the Pleistocene and post-Pleistocene environment.Sub-Themes: A. Stone tool technology and lithic procurement patterns.B. Subsistence, social organization, and settlement systems.C. Shift in lifeways with the advent of the new Holoceneenvironments.Significance: NationalPeople have inhabited Eastern North America for at least 12,000 years. The initial populatingof the study area was the culmination of migrations from Asia via the BeringLand Bridge probably beginning 15,000 or more years ago. Although very little is knownabout these earliest inhabitants (generally referred to as Paleo- Indians) they have beencharacterized as a mobile population of hunting bands exploiting large game animalsover a wide territory. The distinctive lifeways of the Paleo-Indian groups seem to be theresult of cultural adaptations to the volatile Pleistocene and post- Pleistocene environments.While the emphasis of their subsistence activities appears to have been on hunting,a wide variety of food resources were undoubtedly utilized.The traditional material diagnostic traits for this period are fluted projectile pointsassociated with specialized tool kits crafted from relatively scarce cherts and jaspers.Fluted points have been found throughout most of North America. The frequent associationof these points with extinct Ice Age mammoths and other now-extinct mammalsin the western states of this country has contributed to an exaggerated view of thePaleo-Indian lifeway as one of constant movement in search of big game (Haynes 1966).This romantic view partially accounts for the intense interest in the Paleo-Indian periodamong professional and amateur collectors alike.The large mammals associated with the last part of the Pleistocene may have beenthe primary focus of the area’s inhabitants. However, although the fossil remains ofboth mammoth and mastodon have been found since colonial times in the Coastal Plain,none have been associated with human artifacts. Gardner (1980) contends that the populationof the megafauna had been severely reduced due to retreating Pleistocene environmentsby the time man appeared in this region and that the primary focus of huntingactivities was on deer and elk. The end of Virginia’s Paleo-Indian occupation is generallyassociated with the gradual emergence of Holocene environments.The Paleo-Indian period is very poorly represented on the James-York Peninsulaand in the Outer Coastal Plain in general. To date, only eight fluted points have beenreported from the study area (McCary 1983). A review of the available data on thesefinds indicates that they were made from a wide range of non-local lithic materialsincluding chalcedony, chert, jasper, and rhyolite (McCary 1956, 1963, 1965, 1981).47

All information concerning the age and chronological sequence of Paleo-Indiantraditions comes from well outside the study area. Relative dating of projectile pointstyles is presently the only way to order the phases of occupation on the Peninsula. Thedate range frequently suggested for the Paleo-Indian Period in this area is 9500 B.C. to8000 B.C. Sub-phases represented by Clovis, Mid-Paleo (Gardner and Verry 1979) andDalton-Hardway points (Gardner and Verry 1979; Coe 1964) are part of this period. Anadditional cultural episode is also included in this study unit: the Palmer and Kirk phases.These two phases, distinguished by early corner-notched and side-notched projectilepoints, have traditionally been classified with the beginnings of the Archaic Period.However, Gardner asserts that while projectile point forms change, no substantial alterationin lifeways can be observed until 6500 B.C. Whether Gardner’s scheme, which isprimarily based on archaeological sequences from the Shenandoah Valley, is appropriatefor the Outer Coastal Plain serves as the subject for Sub-theme C.Paleo-Indian remains within the study area can best be understood in a regionalcontext. Several important Paleo-Indian sites are located in Virginia: the WilliamsonSite in Dinwiddie County (McCary and Bittner 1978) and the Flint Run Paleo-IndianComplex in the upper Shenandoah Valley (Gardner 1974). Gardner has summarized theoccurrence of documented Paleo-Indian sites in Virginia by physiographic province(1980) and finds that a majority of sites have been discovered on the Inner Coastal Plainand in the Great Valley. A survey of the recorded fluted points in Virginia (McCary1983) shows the highest concentrations of these artifacts within the Inner Coastal Plainsouth of the James, a distribution which is probably related to the presence of chertoutcrops located at the Williamson Site and possibly to various chert and jasper sourcesavailable in the Richmond area.Knowledge of the environmental history of the area is important for an understandingof the potential distribution of Paleo-Indian remains as well as the specificcultural adaptations they reflect. The primary environmental factor affecting culturalresources in the area has been the submergence of the York and James River valleysfollowing the retreat of the Wisconsin glaciation. Many landforms have been subject toextensive modification during the last 12,000 years of continuous rise in sea level. Inparticular, the broad flood plains of the James and York Rivers have been continuallyreduced, masking sites located on ancient river terraces.The environmental episodes of the Paleo-Indian period generally represent a transitionfrom the Late Pleistocene to the more modern environments of the Holocene.Environmental reconstructions of this transitional period have considered general environmentaltrends, resource distributions, climatic shifts, and major geologic changes.Particularly pertinent environmental studies and archaeological syntheses include thoseby Carbone (1975), Belknap and Kraft (1977), Whitehead (1973), Brown and Cleland(1968), Gardner (1980), and Custer (1984). Systematic study of Paleo-Indian remainsand their ecological setting within in the study area is lacking however. While scholarshave acknowledged the presence of the fluted point finds and the current models ofsettlement patterning, no serious effort has been made to place the data in a greaterregional context. Efforts to reconstruct the paleoenvironment for the purpose of identifyinglikely habitation sites have been superficial.Amateur collectors are the active students of the Paleo-Indian in the area. Unfortunatelytheir degree of sophistication varies markedly. Most collectors have the best in-48

tentions and possess a rather good working knowledge of scholarly concerns. AsPaleo-Indian points can command a high price on the antiquities market however, theydo not always receive the analytic attention they deserve.The popular concept of Paleo-Indians sites arises from the discoveries of large killsites of extinct bison and other large herd animals in the West. However, most sites inVirginia are represented by the single occurrence of fluted projectile points. Based onwork in the upper Shenandoah Valley at the Flint Run Complex, a general typology ofPaleo-Indian Sites has been defined (Gardner 1979: 8-9). The most extensive sites areassociated with quarrying activities and include the actual quarry site, quarry reductionstations, and habitation sites associated with quarries. These sites reflect a cultural preferencefor certain cryptocrystalline materials for which this period is noted. Other typesof sites are related to food and other resource- procurement activities and include basecamp maintenance stations and hunting sites. Isolated point finds may represent theremains of hunting sites or remnants of highly disturbed camp sites.Information concerning the specific locations of isolated finds is not currently available.In general though, the study of these finds with regard to location must take placeon a regional basis. Locational models offered for the upper Shenandoah Valley byGardner (1974) and for Delaware (Custer 1984) may serve as a beginning frameworkfor explanation of local manifestations. In both cases the focus of settlement for theperiod revolves around the exploitation of high-quality lithic material potentially limitingthe range of subsistence activities.SUB-THEME A: STONE TOOL TECHNOLOGY AND LITHICPROCUREMENT SYSTEMSMuch scholarly attention has been paid to the study of Paleo-Indian artifacts. Flutedprojectile points have probably attracted more study than any other single category ofAmerican prehistoric artifacts. This interest can be partially attributed to the mystiqueassociated with this period as well as the undeniable aesthetic quality of these finelycrafted points. However, there are many well-established and valid scientific approachesfor viewing the artifactual remains of this important time period.The Paleo-Indian stone tool kit appears to have revolved around a biface technologythat utilized high-quality lithic materials. Experiments in modern stone tool manufacturehave suggested that bifaces serve as the most efficient generalized tool for conductingmulti-purpose tasks encountered in a nomadic hunting and gathering tradition(Callahan 1979). A biface can serve as a multi-purpose tool, and more importantly it canprovide a source for the production of more refined and specialized tools. The mostdistinctive product is the previously-mentioned projectile point, suited for use as a cuttingimplement as well as a spear tip. Many of the more specialized tools includeendscrapers, sidescrapers, drills, wedges, and various flake tools, gravers, and scrapers.In short, the Paleo-Indian tool kit was easily transportable and offered significant flexibility.The preference for high quality materials were essential in producing tools thatcould be curated for long periods of time.Much of the Paleo-Indian artifact research comes from areas of the Northeast.Research problems developed in the excavation of many well- preserved sites includestudies of functional tool ranges and the evolution of fluted point morphology and tech-49

nology. The analysis of lithic source materials and their distribution are central to understandingtechnology, population movements, and social interaction.Given the above, two interrelated research areas are particularly germane to thescarce remains of this period. The first is concerned with the contention that the settlementpatterns of these early groups were dependent upon a primary technological adaptationreflected in a distinctive tool assemblage. In view of the overwhelming preferencefor high quality jaspers, cherts, and other cryptocrystalline materials, exploitationterritories were probably tightly linked to quarry sources (Gardner 1980).The second research area concerns artifact chronology as defined by stylistic andfunctional attributes of projectile points. Fluted projectile points have been found distributedthroughout eastern North America. Statewide and regional surveys of reportedfluted points provide a excellent data base for distributional and typological studieseven though such finds are isolated and usually have poor provenience.The rarity of Paleo-Indian materials in the study area is probably the result ofseveral factors. Overall, population density during this period appears extremely low ingeneral in all of Virginia’s physiographic provinces. potential destructive environmentalfactors have probably destroyed or masked many sites. Most importantly, sites asdefined by the occurrence of Paleo-Indian materials most probably represent very shortterm occupations. In a short duration procurement camp or processing station, a limitednumber of tools would have probably been exhausted and subsequently discarded.SUB-THEME B: SUBSISTENCE, SOCIAL ORGANIZATION,AND SETTLEMENT SYSTEMSThe ability to obtain food was undoubtedly the primary concern of Paleo-Indian groups.The food procurement systems of the Paleo-Indian required periodic shifts to new locations.The size of the group was probably directly dependent upon the availability ofresources. Scholars have long emphasized the Paleo-Indian’s reliance upon hunting asthe primary means of providing food and other raw materials. Gardner (1980) has summarizedsome criticisms of this generally accepted assumption. For the most part, veryfew associations of Paleo-Indian artifacts have been made with faunal remains. On theother hand, some associations with floral remains have been discovered (Kauffman andDent 1982).Most sites of this period are found in areas which would have been attractive to gameanimals and which provided access to a variety of other wild foodstuffs as well. Suchlocations include floodplains near stream junctions, alluvial fans overlooking floodplainswamps, and terraces adjacent to large inland swamps (Gardner 1980). Theoreticalconcepts developed for explaining Paleo-Indian behavioral patterns and social organizationdraw heavily on ethnographic studies of living hunter-gatherer groups. Likethese groups, Paleo-Indians most likely had a flexible band-level organization consistingof several family groups. Such a social organization would permit a flexible approachto the exploitation of a given territory.Group size and distribution would probably coincide with the availability of resourcesand space which could vary by seasonal and other environmental factors. Larger groupaggregations would have been possible in relatively stable and productive locations atleast for a short period of time. However, the dispersal of smaller groups in a large but50

estricted range was the most likely behavioral pattern permitting a “continuous fluiditybetween and amongst groups” (Gardner 1980: 19). The movement of these smallergroups would reflect the availability of resources, particularly game distribution and theneed for tool kit maintenance at an appropriate lithic source.SUB-THEME C: SHIFT IN LIFEWAYS IN THE ADVENT OF THENEW HOLOCENE ENVIRONMENTA critical issue in defining the temporal scope of this study unit is the recent breakamong certain scholars from the traditional classification scheme which characterizesthe Palmer and Kirk phases as Early Archaic rather than part of the Paleo-Indian Period.Gardner (1974, 1980) has suggested that the Early Archaic Palmer and Kirk phases aremore suitably classified as part of the late Paleo-Indian Period based on stratigraphicrelationships and similarities in tool kits, and site patterning in the Shenandoah Valleyand other areas. Likewise, Custer (1984) has adopted this model for his studies in Delaware.The significance of the proposed reorganization was in its emphasis on the need to viewcultural changes as a gradual continuum rather than as a series of abrupt discontinuities.Though Gardner and Custer have offered alternative models, excavation and surveywork in the Richmond area in the Inner Coastal Plain tend to support Coe’s (1964)designation of Palmer as Early Archaic. This contrasting data should serve as an initialpoint of departure for framing research questions of Early Archaic resources in the studyarea.Early Archaic corner-notched and side-notched projectile points appear to be relativelyscarce in the area. Based on the frequency of reported Early Archaic materials, thescarcity of materials alone tends to support Gardner’s argument for the association ofthe phases represented by Palmer and Kirk points with the Paleo-Indian period. Notenough information is currently available to make better statements about differencesor similarities in settlement patterning or tool kit assemblages. This poor representationof material is partially a reflection of preservation factors, absence of stratified sites,and a lack of excavated data. Drawing on data from outside the area, it is clear that thereis a shift to quartzite and quartz lithic materials (materials available in cobble form inthe study area) for tool manufacture during the Early Archaic Period. The importantchange at this time in lithic materials suggests the beginning of a greater dependence onlocal materials corresponding to environmental changes producing more diversified plantand animal life. Settlement appears to become more restricted and stable with large basecamps appearing along the James and Chickahominy Rivers in the Richmond area (Moueret al. 1980).SUMMARYThis period represents the earliest human occupation of the study area. The Paleo-Indianswere faced with an environment drastically different from ours today. The area was stillinfluenced by the last major ice age and the landscape, animals, and plants were significantlydifferent. These people were organized into band-level groups, probably accord-51

ing to family units, and lived primarily by hunting in a nomadic fashion. Their settlementpatterns were conditioned by the few available sources of cherts and jaspers fromwhich they fashioned specialized tools.Very little is known about this period within the study area. The presence of thePaleo-Indians is known from a very few projectile points. These point finds most likelyrepresent the remains of transient camps or hunting stations. Additional sites may havebeen destroyed by sea level rise and others may have gone unrecognized due to thegeneral scarcity of artifacts. More environmental and archaeological data should beanalyzed before specific statements about population density and probablesite-distribution can be made.STUDY UNIT I: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitThe rare remains of the Paleo-Indian period have long been viewed as significant on anational, regional, and state level. However, the important value of these archaeologicalresources is not based on their age and scarcity alone. Only a very general understandingexists of the Paleo-Indian period in Virginia’s Outer Coastal Plain. Can informationdrawn from the James-York Peninsula add to our greater regional perspective about theperiod? Major data gaps make it obvious that any remains dating to the Paleo-Indianperiod may potentially contribute crucial information to an understanding of the area’sfirst inhabitants. Regardless of site integrity, all retrievable information within thestudy area pertaining to this period is highly significant and warrants preservationmeasures or intensive study.Summary of Property TypesIt is difficult to make detailed statements about the original distribution and nature ofEarly Hunter sites in the study area, as past environmental changes have potentiallymasked the fragile remains of this period. Particularly significant has been the floodingof the James and York River valleys brought about by the drastic change in sea level. Nocomprehensive settlement studies have been attempted from analogous areas in the OuterCoastal Plain. Data drawn from distribution studies of the Inner Coastal Plain suggeststhe possibility that there was a higher density of settlement in this area than is presentlyrecognized. However, caution should be exercised in extrapolating settlement modelsfrom other physiographic zones.In view of the existing evidence indicating at least transient occupation in thestudy area, a preliminary site model is proposed in which sites are predicted on LatePleistocene-Early Holocene landforms that provided a water source and game attractingcapability. Anticipated site types for the area would include small, short-durationcampsites and possibly kill and butchering sites. Remains of these sites would be veryfragile and only a few lithic artifacts may be present. Fluted projectile points on theJames-York Peninsula may represent the only diagnostic evidence available in most52

cases. In rare situations, sites may exist in undisturbed contexts and containwell-preserved bone and plant remains. Such sites would warrant the highest preservationmeasures and may command international attention.Character of Existing DataThe current understanding of the Early Hunter period resources on the James-York Peninsulais poor as all representative archaeological data consists of isolated projectilepoint finds from disturbed contexts. Partly due the extreme age and fragility of sites ofthis period, Early Hunter resources have been difficult to identify in the regional surveysthat have been conducted. Furthermore, the poor understanding of the potentialnature and distribution of these sites is compounded by a lack of available environmentalreconstructions to aid in developing predictive models.Information on the recorded finds of Paleo-Indian points has been compiled inMcCary’s survey of fluted points found statewide. The data for the eight recorded flutedpoints within the study area includes a general description of size and shape, condition,lithic material, manufacturing technique, photographs and/or rubbings and the owner’sname and address. Locational information for these finds is very general and of littlevalue. It is possible that many Paleo-Indian points and sites of have not been reported asthere is an active “black market” for the artifacts of this period. Sites and/or materialsmay have also gone unrecognized and additional Early Hunter period artifacts may bediscovered in existing collections of public agencies and local collectors.Criteria for EvaluationAll archaeological remains of this period can be viewed as unique data critical to thepotential understanding of the regional and local distribution of Early Hunter settlements.Furthermore, these archaeological remains may contribute substantially to theunderstanding of early lifeways and environmental trends on the James-York Peninsula.The resources of this period may contribute significantly to the understanding ofprehistory, as specified in Criterion D of the National Register standards. In view of theknown property types associated with this study unit and their high potential for addressingimportant research questions of prehistoric economy, technology, and ecology,contextual criteria are the primary considerations for assessing significance on a propertyby property basis. Contextual information includes that on associated artifacts,ecofacts, or geologic phenomena. Due to the extreme rarity of such materials, additionalcriteria may be identified on a case by case basis only after consultation with apanel of archaeological and environmental specialists.Present Condition of Property TypesNo undisturbed Early Hunter site has yet been found within the study area. Most areaswhich might potentially contain such remains have been lost to shoreline submergence,erosion, and modern development. Recently, the articulated skeleton of a mastodon hasbeen discovered in an undisclosed portion of York County (Gerald Johnson, pers.comm. 1985). Even if prehistoric artifacts are not associated with that find, it may dem-53

onstrate the possibility that preserved cultural remains are still discoverable in similarhabitats.In general, potential Early Hunter sites are threatened by the same natural andcultural processes that affect all archaeological resources. In addition, due to the extremefragility of the archaeological record of this period, other less evident, threatsexist. Avocational collecting can destroy important contextual information even thoughsome finds are reported to the professional community.Additional research is needed to gain a comprehensive understanding of the environmentaldevelopment of the area. Environmental data necessary for obtaining thisawareness include reconstructions of Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene shorelines, hydrologicpatterns, topography, and resource distributions.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesSince so very little is known about the resources of this period and the potential distributionand condition of sites, a concerted research effort should focus on identifyingsite locations in order to preserve important data or mitigate site threats. The basic questionsof site identification must be the primary focus of subsequent research efforts andshould include the identification of the paleo-environmental habitats likely to containthese remains so that enlightened planning decisions can be made.Identification Goals• In order to better understand future discoveries and potential site locations, thefirst priority for this study unit is a research effort to determine the locational andcontextual information of previously recorded Early Hunter finds. This processwould consists of a review of private and public collections and interviews withthe appropriate persons. Specific artifact information should be collected as to type,function, material, location, and context.• In conjunction with this first priority, a review of environmental data with localgeologists, palynologists and other appropriate environmental scientists should beconducted in order to provide potential site locations based on known locationalpreferences by Early Hunters. This exercise would aid in evaluating the potentialloss of sites due to environmental processes as well.• Following these studies, an intensive Phase I archaeological reconnaissance of theareas projected to likely contain the remains of Early Hunter period sites should beconducted, aimed at identifying areas most threatened by development or naturaldestructive factors.Evaluation Goals• Profitable research that may presently be initiated in the absence of the most recentenvironmental background information may be lithic material sourcing studies.The identification of the sources of materials should be done with regard to understandingthe variability in lithic materials and settlement range and patterns. Em-54

phasis on the use of locally-available lithic material versus non-local may aid inthe understanding of subsistence, demography, and local environmental adaptation.Analysis of stylistic variation and use-wear studies may provide some insightinto the age and function of the apparently limited occupation of the area.• Any sites that could potentially yield preserved faunal or floral material must beconsidered highly significant. These materials would provide data for addressingspecific questions of subsistence patterns and dietary habits. In addition, ecofactualdata such as pollen and seeds may allow site-specific environmental reconstructions.Registration Goals• If significant resources are identified either by the aforementioned remedial researchefforts or through new survey work or accidental discovery, such sites shouldbe considered for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places underCriterion D (information important to prehistory).• Based upon the above identification efforts of potential site locations, a series ofsensitivity maps should be created for the benefit of planners and developers. Thesemaps will aid in planning the level of archaeological survey work prior to development.Treatment Goals• In the event that new sites are discovered before the above background research isfinished, the sites should be preserved in place until a panel of archaeological andenvironmental specialists is consulted.• Due to the extreme fragility of the archaeological record of this period, preservationof any discovered undisturbed site is warranted at all costs. If development isunavoidable, data-recovery efforts should proceed only after a qualified team ofspecialists can be identified. These specialists would include archaeologists havingprior experience with sites of this period, geologists, and environmental scientists.• Early Hunter resources in disturbed contexts can only be treated on a case by casebasis. When feasible, sites should be preserved in place for proper study. Datarecovery efforts should include paleo-environmental studies.55

STUDY UNIT II.FORAGERS IN A NEW ENVIRONMENT(6500 B.C.–2000 B.C.)Major Theme: The shift of human adaptive strategies with the emergenceof Holocene environments.Sub-Themes: A. Development of generalized foraging subsistencepattern and resource utilization.B. Variety in settlement patterning and site types.C. Cultural diversity and indigenous population development.Significance: RegionalThe cultural episodes included in this study unit have been traditionally classified aspart of the Archaic period. This long period of human occupation is characterized by abalanced and diversified subsistence strategy based on the exploitation of seasonallyavailable resources. These new adaptations were linked to the warming Holocene environmentand the consequent florescence of new biotic communities. A noticeable shiftin resource diversity and new lifeways distinguish this period from the Early Hunterperiod. In addition, population apparently increases, an emphasis on the use of quartziteand quartz lithics develops, and there is evidence for the use of a more generalized toolkit.The parameters of the study unit have been defined broadly to encompass the manycultural manifestations of this period: a continuum of gradually changing adaptations.Preliminary research also indicates that Archaic artifact forms tend to be found in similarcontexts. However, this broad lumping may also reflect the present poor understandingof the cultural history of the area, as this period is distinguished by a great variety ofstone projectile points that mark the numerous cultural sequences. Work done on largemulti-component riverine sites by Reinhart (1974, 1975a, 1975b, 1976, 1978, 1979) atCollege Creek, the Indian Village, Powhatan Creek, and the Sassasfras Spring sites hasestablished a rough cultural sequence of the local manifestations of the widespreadArchaic patterns recognized by Coe (1964) and Broyles (1971) for the region. Presumably,many riverine sites dating to the Archaic foraging period have been lost to submersionand erosion. Virtually no work has been done on upland or interior sites located inthe Coastal Plain. Until further research on the distribution of sites is undertaken, and abetter understanding of their variability is achieved, models of settlement and behaviorfor the Archaic period in this region must be drawn from elsewhere.The new adaptive strategies of the Archaic period brought about in response to theemergence of the relatively stable modern environment of the Holocene are reflected inthe stone tools and site types of the period. The period is well represented in the archaeologicalrecord throughout the Middle Atlantic region. In general, diagnostic artifactsassociated with the cultural adaptations marking the beginning of this period arebifurcate base projectile points (LeCroy, St. Albans) dating from 7000-6000 B.C. (Broyles1971), and Stanley (6000-5000 B.C.) and Kirk-Stemmed (6900-6000 B.C.) dated by57

Coe (1964), though both point types appear to be relatively rare in the area. Later introductionsinclude points classified as Morrow Mountain, Guilford, and a number of lesserknown variants found throughout the Middle Atlantic Region. The Halifax point typewas probably introduced into the study area around 3400 B.C. (Coe 1964). The introductionof the Savannah River and related broad-spear types marks the end of this periodat the somewhat arbitrarily selected date of 2000 B.C.Due to the lack of good stratified sequences within the study area, lack ofradio-carbon dated sites, and typological problems, caution should be exercised in separatingthe cultural periods of the area based on projectile points alone. Evidence gatheredfrom areas in the northern Mid-Atlantic (cf. Custer 1984) suggests that a widevariety of untyped stemmed projectiles were used throughout this period. Unfortunately,there is a great deal of overlap among many of these “types,” which further contributesto the difficulty of trying to understand the area’s chronological sequence.The archaeological remains from the Archaic foraging period have received butpassing attention from most local scholars. This lack of attention may be primarilyattributed to the fact that many sites have presumably been submerged or eroded alongthe James and York Rivers. The most extensive work on Archaic sites is TheodoreReinhart’s survey and excavation of Kingsmill sites (1974, 1975a, 1975b), and of theCollege Creek Site (1978). Reinhart’s summary of Archaic cultures in the Lower JamesRiver Valley (1979) serves as the major synthesis of the Archaic sequences of the area.Turner’s (1978) general model of demographic change based on hunting pressures uponthe deer population provides a basic framework for viewing Archaic subsistence andsettlement patterns.The majority of archaeological investigations of this period have been at the Phase Isurvey level. Large survey projects include the York County Survey (Derry et al. n.d.), theFort Eustis Survey (Opperman 1984), the Second Street Extension survey (Hunter,Samford, and Brown 1984), and the Route 199 Extension survey (Hunter and Higgins1985). In addition to these systematic investigations, a number of Archaic sites havebeen identified by local avocational archaeologists, although no synthetic treatment oftheir work is now available. Table 2.2. presents a compilation of sites currently identifiedfor inclusion in this study unit. These sites were identified either by the culturalaffiliation assigned to them by the recording archaeologists and/or the artifacts typeslisted on the state site survey form.As indicated in the table, there has been no standardization of terminology or conceptualperspectives for Archaic site typology. These site designations rely upon functional,structural, and/or topographical characteristics. A more useful tripartite schemefor classifying the site types within the study area incorporating social, ecological, andfunctional aspects is available (Gardner 1980; Custer 1984). According to this scheme,sites can be classified as:(1) Macroband Base Camps—These sites exhibit a wide range of tool types andcultural residues. The size and location of the sites indicate long-term occupationby a large group. Sites are most often located in areas offering maximumavailability of resources.58

TABLE 2.2STUDY UNIT II. KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCESSite No.Site Type as Recorded44 JC 7 Prehistoric44 JC 73 Riverine Knoll Site44 JC 148 Prehistoric44 JC 149 Prehistoric Camp44 JC 150 Prehistoric Camp44 JC 154 Prehistoric Camp44 JC 155 Prehistoric44 JC 156 Prehistoric44 JC 360 Limited Activity Site44 YO 5 Drowned Upland44 YO 8 not reported44 YO 152 Prehistoric44 YO 166 Archaic Shell Midden44 YO 171 Prehistoric44 YO 224 Prehistoric44 YO 226 Hunting Camp44 YO 379 Prehistoric Artifact Scatter44 JC 28 not reported44 JC 51 Interior Exploitative Camp44 JC 71 Riverine Bluff Extractive Camp44 JC 137 Multi-component Camps44 JC 147 Prehistoric Camp44 YO 170 Indian Camps44 YO 225 Woodland/Archaic Camp44 YO 237 not reported44 YO 380 Prehistoric44 YO 381 Prehistoric44 YO 382 Prehistoric44 YO 383 Prehistoric(2) Microband Base Camps—These sites are similar to macroband base campsexcept a fewer number of family groups is apparent. Their size is linked to thecarrying capacity of environmental setting.(3) Procurement Sites—These are sites characterized by fewer tool types andlimited cultural debris. Locations of these site are indicative of a particularresource exploitation.More detailed classification of the study area’s sites does not seem appropriategiven the current level of survey and excavation data. Future study might refine thedegree of confidence for interpreting site function.The locational model for Archaic period sites presented here (see Introduction tothe Prehistoric Study Units and Figure 2.1 as well) is very generally based on the existingdata base. Excavations and surveys conducted on the James-York Peninsula have59

located large, complex activity-sites at fairly predictable locations along the rivers andmajor streams. Only remnants of what was probably a more diverse riverine settlementpattern survive in the study area due to coastal submergence. Knowledge of Archaicperiod utilization of the interior zones of the study area is lacking as well.SUB-THEME A: DEVELOPMENT OF A GENERALIZEDSUBSISTENCE PATTERN AND RESOURCE UTILIZATIONKnowledge of the relatively modern environmental conditions associated with the Atlanticclimatic episode is important in understanding the development of cultural adaptationstaking place during this period. At that time, the environment was characterizedby a general warming trend and an increase in annual rainfall. These warm, moist conditionsencouraged the development of deciduous forests. Sea level continued to rise,albeit at an increasingly slower rate. Food resources became more varied with habitatand season and were widely divergent throughout the James-York Peninsula. The swampsand boggy areas beginning to form in many interior zones of the Coastal Plain wouldhave been the areas of highest resource density. Plant and animal communities werevery similar in composition to modern ones, the primary game animals being deer andturkey.The development of estuarine resources and the nature of their subsequent use byArchaic foragers is a crucial issue in the study of this period in the Middle Atlantic.In general, the estuarine environment appears to stabilize between 3000 B.C. and2000 B.C. New ecological conditions appear to coincide with a new series of culturaladaptations which characterize local groups for several centuries thereafter. The exactsequence of these cultural changes, and their relationship to the gradual development ofestuarine resources is as yet poorly known, and deserves a great deal of further attention.In summary, the subsistence patterns of this period are closely linked to the broaddistribution of a increased number of resources. A zonal settlement system based on theseasonal availability of resources and a generalized tool kit were characteristic of theArchaic (Gardner 1980: 11). The stone artifact assemblages from this period provideinsights into these new resource uses. Ground stone tools appear in the tool kits with theaddition of grinding stones, axes, and a variety of plant processing tools. Importantly,the settlement system no longer appears to have been tied to a cryptocrystalline lithicsource as a variety of locally attainable quartzites and quartzes were used. The shift toalternative lithic materials also reflects the increased emphasis on plant resources as theneed for a hunting-oriented tool kit decreased.SUB-THEME B: DIVERSITY IN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ANDSITE TYPESSeveral important changes in site location preferences and site function which are observablein the archaeological record occur during the Archaic foraging period. WilliamGardner argues that Archaic sites are located in a variety of environmental and locationalsettings when contrasted with sites of the Early Hunter period. Gardner also sees an60

increase in the number and diversity of sites, and a rise in population (1980: 24). Allthese factors contribute to a distinctive new settlement pattern, and an increase in thediversity of site types.Site locations appear to be directly linked to the development of new environmentalzones. Most evidence for location preferences is derived from studies of Virginia’sInner Coastal Plain and the Piedmont physiographic region as a limited number of diagnosticpoints have been recovered in the study area. Sites are located along rivers andthe margins of interior swamps. Within the study area, the possibility exists that manysuch sites have been lost to submersion and erosion.Site types and settlement patterns represent a strategy of diffuse adaptation to thenumerous ecotones and resources available during this time. A common Archaic sitetype is the large base camp usually found near raw material sources. Since such resourceswithin the study area were likely to have been river cobbles, and hence, nearrivers, Archaic sites associated with their use may now be submerged. A second sitetype is the transient camp used for either hunting or gathering forays by small groups.Such sites may still be found in the area as many locations, especially interior zones,were exploited.The relationship between seasonality of resources and settlement pattern is a majorresearch issue for this period for the entire Middle Atlantic region. Unfortunately, due tothe limited amount of both archaeological and environmental information from theJames-York Peninsula, this topic is probably best viewed in the light of the data availablefrom the Inner Coastal Plain. However, Archaic sites in the study area can potentiallyprovide information about territoriality and the range of resources, which may inturn inform larger questions of settlement pattern and seasonality. Information fromlocal sites may also help to determine the sequence in which inland swamps developed,and how they were exploited by the region’s Archaic inhabitants.SUB-THEME C: INDIGENOUS CULTURAL DEVELOPMENTAND DIVERSITYThe cultural history and chronological sequence of this relatively long period is knownonly at a very general level. Based on the number of diagnostic artifact types alone,there appears to have been a multitude of cultural developments, both regional andlocal, which are as yet poorly understood. No stratified Archaic sites have been locatedon the James-York Peninsula, making the refinement or dating of local cultural sequencesdifficult. In addition, artifact types of the Archaic period are still poorly defined, both atthe regional and local level (Gardner 1980). Further archaeological investigation oflocal manifestations of Archaic cultures will serve to improve our understanding ofwidespread and localized stylistic variations alike.The increased use of local resources reflected in the archaeological remains associatedwith this period suggests that Archaic foragers had restricted territorial rangesbased on seasonal shifts of resource availability. Tool kits exhibiting stylistic variability,and hence, social and cultural boundaries, become common during the period, andprovide further evidence for this localizing trend. Although site loss on the James-YorkPeninsula through erosion limits its research potential, an effort can be made to marshallthe existing data from known sites and avocational collections to gain a more refined61

understanding of local Archaic occupation. Once this initial sequence is defined, comparativetypological correlations can then be attempted with adjacent areas.SUMMARYThis study unit represents a long and diverse period of occupation on the James-YorkPeninsula. Many new adaptations to the more benign Holocene environment took place.Most important was the utilization of local, widely distributed resources and the correspondingseasonally-based settlement pattern. Such a pattern implies the developmentof stable social groupings, and the beginnings of complex cultural development, thenature of which is as yet very poorly understood.As noted above, much of what is known about the Archaic foraging period comesfrom information gathered well outside the study area. Very few sites have been investigatedlocally. In general, local Archaic occupation is reflected by the presence of diagnosticpoints found in disturbed contexts in association with later prehistoric materialson large riverine sites, or in isolated finds in interior locations. Surveys to identify additionalArchaic sites, and the systematic study of existing collections are crucial firststeps in evaluating the research potential of the study area.STUDY UNIT II: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitThe archaeological resources associated with the long and diverse Archaic period haveimportant regional and local significance. Much of what is known about Archaic periodchronology, site size, function and settlement comes from deeply buried, stratified siteslocated in the Inner Coastal Plain and Piedmont. Apparent preservation problems havenot permitted such questions to be directly addressed on the James-York Peninsula,although some sites may lie deeply buried by siltation in some of the interior streamvalleys adjacent to upland marshes. Given the preservation problem, the significanceassigned to remains from this period is based on their potential to aid in identifying theparameters of the area’s cultural history. Sites that can be identified as well-preservedmust be viewed as particularly important in view of the lack of such information and oftheir potential for identifying local chronological and functional characteristics crucialto a more complete understanding of the greater regional pattern.Summary of Property TypesThe archaeological evidence for the James-York Peninsula and other analogous areasindicates that the study area was probably occupied continuously throughout this longperiod of time. Even so, it is difficult to make good estimates of the range and distributionof site types due to preservation and survey biases in the area. Based on our understandingof archaeological evidence for this period, two very general site-types can beidentified:62

(1) Base Camps—These sites have been occupied by large (Macroband) or smallgroups (Microband) depending on the resource carrying capacity of the area.Occupation may have been long-term or short-term and most sites were probablyrepeatedly visited. These sites contain diagnostic artifacts indicative ofdiverse activities. Variations in artifact types, features, and site structure couldpossibly be diagnostic of particular cultural groups. Base camps are most likelyassociated with riverine settings and the margins of inland swamps. All sitesthat are presently known are disturbed and associated with later Indian occupations.(2) Procurement Sites—These sites are characterized by individual artifact finds,limited concentrations of artifacts, and small lithic scatters. They representshort-term hunting, gathering, or camping episodes. Diagnostic artifacts arenot always present in some sites, making it impossible to assign them to specificcultural phases. Many procurement sites may be present in the study areaand these may be represented by small lithic scatters. These sites can be foundalong the margins of interior streams and on hilltops adjacent to a water source.Character of Existing DataBased on a review of the state site records and archaeological literature, the remains ofthis period are poorly represented in the study area. This lack of information may bepartially attributed to erosion and preservation factors. Otherwise, the sites that havebeen recorded have yielded at most diagnostic points without stratigraphic association.In addition, sites investigated at even Phase III level have often yielded no diagnosticartifacts. Futhermore, because of the vagaries of local artifact typologies, many Archaicsites may have gone unrecognized or misidentified. Finally, as no detailed environmentalreconstructions have been attempted for this area, there is little available ecologicaldata to aid in understanding resource distribution, potential site location, and subsequentdisturbance by natural processes of erosion.Criteria for EvaluationThe primary issue in evaluating archaeological sites of this period is their potentialcontribution to our understanding of the local manifestation of the Archaic period. Thepotential for such understanding is difficult to assess at this time because of the poorquality of the existing data base. Given our current knowledge of local archaeology, theprobability for finding undisturbed sites and/or recognizing specific Archaic componentsin multi-component sites appears to be low. In view of these limitations, sites maybe evaluated based on their contextual integrity and ability to contribute informationabout subsistence and settlement patterns at the regional level. Sites that are minimallydisturbed and can be attributed to this period should be accorded a high of level ofsignificance. Such sites may have the potential to yield specific information about sitestructure, function, diet, and chronology.63

Present Condition of Property TypesAccording to state site survey forms, nearly all materials identified with this periodcome from disturbed contexts. These contexts include the plowzone, eroded areas, andareas affected by development. Zones which have potential for containing undisturbeddeposits are small alluvial fans along interior streams and swamps, and areas beneathshell middens of the later prehistoric periods.Archaic period sites are continually threatened by erosion and cultural processes.Those that consist of a minimal number of diagnostics are particularly vulnerable tocasual collecting. Most finds of this period by avocational archaeologists probably gounreported.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesIdentification Goals• A thorough review of existing artifact collections is necessary in order to assure amore complete inventory of sites from this period. Included in this effort should bean attempt to identify site function and variation based on representative tool types.An attempt should be made to identify alternative classes of cultural diagnosticsincluding those based on site location, site patterning, and structure if such data areavailable. Analysis of stylistic variation should serve as the preliminary effort inestablishing the parameters of cultural diversity for the area.• The second priority for identifying potential resources for the study unit is a comprehensiveanalysis of previously recorded sites based on the review of artifactcollections and a sample survey of potential site locations. The survey is needed toaccount for the numerous biases of previous descriptions of local cultural patterns.Particular emphasis should be placed on assessing the probability of discoveringintact archaeological deposits. Discussions with local collectors and landownerswho may occasionally discover sites of this period would aid in this effort.• A broad-based environmental reconstruction of the study area for the purpose ofidentifying potential site locations, especially undisturbed areas, is highly recommended.This process would aid in identifying potential site locations for all periodsof prehistoric occupation.Evaluation Goals• Once resources are completely analyzed, a more refined ranking of significantresearch questions may be undertaken in order to fill in gaps in our knowledge ofForager period chronology, technology, settlement pattern, subsistence, human biology,and cultural and social adaptations. Specific attention should be paid tobroad questions of regional demography and population movement.• Resources which could potentially provide information about aboriginal diet andabout ecological conditions must be viewed as extremely important. Such datawould consist of preserved faunal and floral materials within sealed archaeologi-64

cal deposits. The research potential of environmental and ecological data must beassessed on a site by site basis.• If specific areas of archaeological sensitivity which contain potentially significantArchaic period remains become known through continuing identification efforts,these should be documented and made available to planners and developers.Registration Goals• Based on the current identification level of Archaic period sites, few, if any, siteswould be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places underCriterion D (information important to prehistory). If significant resources are discoveredby future identification studies, such resources should be nominated.Treatment Goals• Preservation measures should be enacted to preserve all undisturbed sites of thisperiod until a detailed archaeological assessment can be made by a qualified archaeologist.• When feasible, sites should be preserved in place for future study. An initial assessmentof threatened sites should be made to determine age, structure, condition,and research potential.• Data recovery efforts on sites threatened by destruction which can not feasibly bepreserved should be guided by the general research questions posed in this document.Special attention should be paid to recovering datable organic samples andpertinent environmental and ecological data.65

STUDY UNIT III.PERMANENT SETTLEMENT AND POPULATIONGROWTH (2000 B.C.–A.D. 1000)Major Theme: Sedentary lifestyles and the development of regional adaptationsin response to the distinctive marine environments ofthe James-York Peninsula.Sub-Themes: A. Ceramic technology and its cultural implications.B. Seasonality of food resources, settlement patterns, andsocial organization.C. Trade and exchange; social interaction on a regionallevel.Significance: RegionalThe transition from a seasonal hunting and gathering adaptation to a more sedentaryeconomy marks the beginning of this study unit. The lifeways of this period of permanentsettlement were quite different from those previous. Earlier cultures in the regionwere characterized by group mobility, a settlement pattern reflecting resource availability,and a portable tool assemblage. By 2000 B.C. however, pronounced changes insocial systems and settlement patterns related to a shift from a forest-based economy toa focus on riverine and estuarine environments are evident. Larger group aggregatesoccupied locations in these settings for major portions of the year. Tool kits and sitestructure reflect the new cultural adaptations of the period. The introduction of stonebowls and, subsequently, ceramic technology provide important temporally and sociallysensitive indicators for archaeological study.The parameters of the study unit encompass a rather long period of time that hasbeen traditionally studied as a series of distinct cultural episodes based primarily onstylistic changes in artifact types. These periods include the Late Archaic/ Transitional(2000 B.C.- 1200 B.C.), the Early Woodland (1200 B.C.- 500 B.C.), and Middle Woodland(500 B.C.- A.D. 1000) periods. The decision to aggregate these chronological unitshas both management and academic implications.The vast majority of sites recorded in the study area belong to this period. Most ofthese sites appear to have multiple, non-discrete components that fall within the rangeof the Late Archaic through Woodland periods as traditionally defined. With very fewexceptions, individual components are usually impossible to fully identify and evaluatewithout analysis of an entire site because components are mixed due to plowing, environmentalfactors, and other disturbances. Thus, treatment of the range of componentsas part of a single cultural period has practical merit.Custer (1984: 77) has adopted a similar chronological framework for archaeologicalstudies in Delaware. His rationale for aggregating the traditional Late Archaic, EarlyWoodland, and Middle Woodland periods into a single thematic category is based onenvironmental and cultural similarities between those periods as traditionally defined.67

These include:1. The development of estuarine and riverine adaptations that are stable and intensiveenough to produce large macro- band base camps sites in the zone offreshwater/saltwater interfaces and along the major drainages;2. Population growth at single site locations that produce sites much larger thanArchaic macro-band base camps;3. The appearance of foraging and collecting adaptations (Binford 1980) in areasless productive than the estuarine and riverine settings;4. The participation in exchange networks that move raw materials, as well asfinished artifacts, across large areas;5. The occasional participation in complex mortuary ceremonies that create cemeterieswith rich grave offerings.This broad temporal aggregation does not ignore the rich cultural diversity of thisperiod. Instead it emphasizes the continuities of cultural development through time.For many reasons, the remains of this period have been the subject of more archaeologicalinvestigation than any other in the area. First, and foremost, sites of thisperiod are numerous and widely distributed. Many sites have been located as part ofregional surveys. Some of the more extensive of these surveys include The ChickahominyRiver Survey (Barka and McCary 1969), The York County Survey (Derry et al. n.d.),The New Quarter Park Survey (VRCA 1978), The Kingsmill Survey (Reinhart 1973),The Second Street Extension Project (Hunter, Samford, and Brown 1984), Governor’sLand Survey (Reinhart and Sprinkle n.d.), and the Route 199 Extension Survey (Hunterand Higgins 1985). Archaeological surveys in Newport News (although not within thepolitical boundaries of the study area but important from an archaeological standpoint)include a survey of Mulberry Island (Beaudry 1976), one of the Oakland Dairy Property(Mullen, Geier, and McCartney 1980), and particularly important, a recent cultural resourceinventory study of Fort Eustis (Opperman 1984).Several sites of the period have been tested and partially excavated as well. Theseinclude the sites investigated by Reinhart (1974, 1975a, 1975b, 1976, 1978, 1979) atCollege Creek, Powhatan Creek, and several sites at Kingsmill, the Virginia Division ofHistoric Landmarks excavation of the Croaker Landing Sites (44JC70) (Egloff, Hodges,and McFaden n.d.), Colonial Williamsburg’s salvage excavation of a shell-midden atCarter’s Grove and the testing of several sites in York County (McCary 1958, 1964;Rountree 1967). A very important salvage excavation was recently conducted by JamesMadison University staff at the Skiffes Creek Sites (44NN7) on the Oakland DairyTract in Newport News (Geier and Barber 1983).A review of state site forms revealed that avocational archaeologists have beenvery active in identifying and collecting from sites of this period as well. Many locallandowners have reported finding artifacts in the area. Finally, a number of informalsurveys have been conducted by local archaeologists based on interviews with areaprofessionals and amateurs.Several major syntheses of environmental and archaeological data have been producedwhich are relevant to the area. In the early part of the 20th century, W.H. Holmesof the Bureau of American Ethnography assembled artifact collections as part of surveyof eastern United States Indian pottery (1903). Clifford Evans obtained several artifact68

collections along the James and Chickahominy Rivers in developing his formative classification,“A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archaeology” (1955). Lewis Binford’s (1964)synthesis of environmental data, while primarily concerned with the Late Woodlandcultures, provided a primary ecological model for viewing human and environmentinterrelationships during this period. Likewise, Randolph Turner’s studies (1976, 1978)provide a firm basis for viewing the area’s cultural ecology.The adaptive strategies developed during the period of permanent occupation ofthe area correlate with significant environmental changes. Much of the environmentaldata for this period is extrapolated from elsewhere (Belknap and Kraft 1977, Carbone1975; Kraft et al. 1976). Current research being conducted by the Geology Departmentat the College of William and Mary should provide specific pollen and sedimentaryinformation relevant to the local environmental sequence of this period (Gerald Johnson,pers. comm. 1985). These studies suggest that between 2000 B.C.- A.D. 1000, environmentaland ecological conditions were characterized by a stabilization of sea level rise,increasing salinization of coastal rivers and an increase in the presence of anadromousfish and shellfish, particularly oysters.Unlike the previous periods, there are many recorded diagnostic artifacts attributableto this study unit. The cultural history of the area is observable in these diagnosticartifacts (primarily projectile points and ceramics), as well as in site types (largesemi-permanent base camps and small procurement camps), and site features (storagepits, house patterns, and shell middens). The Late Archaic cultures, as traditionally defined,are represented by a variety of broad-bladed projectile points including SavannahRiver points, Savannah River Variants, numerous generically-designated broad spears,and fishtail points. Stone bowls of carved steatite appear during this period as well.The introduction of ceramics, a traditional index of the Woodland period, providesthe archaeologist with a number of technologically and culturally sensitive diagnosticsfor ordering local chronologies. The first forms of pottery begin with the steatite-temperedMarcey Creek and Selden Island series and a local manifestation labeled Croaker LandingWare (Egloff and Potter 1982). Later forms include various sand/grit tempered waresdefined in the Accokeek, Popes Creek, Stony Creek, and Prince George series. Thelatter part of the Middle Woodland is identified by the appearance of Mockley Ware, ashell-tempered ceramic type. In addition to the diagnostic qualities of tempering agents,ceramic vessel form and surface treatment and/or decoration can be important temporaland cultural indicators.While the general outline of material culture sequences is known for this period, agreat deal of refinement is needed to understand its many ceramic types (many remainedunidentified or unnamed) and projectile point categories. Subsistence data is more abundantfor this period as some faunal and floral remains are preserved, usually in shellmiddens or in refuse pits missed by the plow, but more data are needed. Most sites havebeen plowed or otherwise disturbed. In addition, large riverine sites have been subjectto intensive erosion and many have already been completely destroyed as a result of thereceding shoreline. The survey information for sites is fair, though a definite bias existstowards riverine sites as very few interior areas have been systematically examined.Table 2.3 presents a compilation of sites currently identified for inclusion with thisstudy unit as determined from state site records.69

TABLE 2.3STUDY UNIT III. KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCESSite No.Site Type as Recorded44 JC 2 not reported44 JC 3 not reported44 JC 19 Archaic through Historic44 JC 26 not reported44 JC 27 not reported44 JC 28 not reported44 JC 29 not reported44 JC 31 not reported44 JC 41 Prehistoric44 JC 42 Prehistoric44 JC 51 Interior Exploitative Camp44 JC 70 Riverine Bluff Extractive Camp44 JC 71 Riverine Bluff Extractive Camp44 JC 74 Riverine Bluff Sites44 JC 75 Riverine Interior Stream Bluff44 JC 125 Indian44 JC 127 Prehistoric Pottery Scatter44 JC 130 Small Shell Midden44 JC 134 Prehistoric44 JC 135 Camp-Temporary or Seasonal44 JC 136 Camp-Temporary or Seasonal44 JC 137 Multi-Component Camps44 JC 147 Prehistoric Camp44 JC 151 Prehistoric Camp (Shell Midden)44 JC 153 Prehistoric Camp44 JC 158 unknown44 JC 362 Complex Activity Site44 JC 363 Limited Activity Site44 JC 364 Limited Activity Site44 JC 367 Complex Activity Site44 JC 369 Limited Activity Site44 JC 372 Limited Activity Site44 JC 373 Limited Activity Site44 JC 376 Limited Activity Site44 JC 377 Limited Activity Site44 JC 379 Limited Activity Site44 JC 381 Limited Activity Site44 JC 382 Limited Activity Site44 JC 383 Limited Activity Site44 JC 386 Complex Activity Site44 YO 1 not reported44 YO 2 Prehistoric-Possible Village Site44 YO 11 Underwater44 YO 82 Shell Midden44 YO 93 Prehistoric Camp Site44 YO 103 Indian44 YO 105 Indian44 YO 113 Prehistoric70

TABLE 2.3 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT III. KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCESSite No.Site Type as Recorded44 YO 117 Prehistoric44 YO 120 Multi-Component44 YO 123 Multi-Component44 YO 124 Multi-Component44 YO 125 Prehistoric44 YO 137 Prehistoric44 YO 153 Prehistoric44 YO 156 not reported44 YO 158 Prehistoric44 YO 159 Prehistoric44 YO 164 Prehistoric44 YO 167 Prehistoric44 YO 169 Prehistoric44 YO 170 Indian Camps44 YO 180 Lithic Scatter, Hearth44 YO 181 Lithic Scatter44 YO 187 Prehistoric Artifact Scatter44 YO 190 Prehistoric Artifact Scatter44 YO 191 Multi-Component44 YO 194 Multi-Component44 YO 195 Multi-Component44 YO 196 Lithic scatter44 YO 199 Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Scatter44 YO 202 Prehistoric Lithic Concentrations44 YO 203 Prehistoric44 YO 204 Prehistoric Artifact Scatter44 YO 209 Prehistoric Artifact Scatter44 YO 213 Prehistoric Artifact Scatter44 YO 214 Prehistoric Artifact Scatter44 YO 215 Prehistoric Artifact Scatter44 YO 225 Woodland/Archaic Camp44 YO 229 not reported44 YO 237 not determined44 YO 239 not determined44 YO 251 Prehistoric Beach Lithic Sites44 YO 254 Prehistoric44 YO 380 Prehistoric44 YO 381 Prehistoric44 YO 382 Prehistoric44 YO 383 Prehistoric44 YO 393 Prehistoric44 YO 399 not reported44 YO 400 not reported71

Table 2.3. indicates that again, there has been no standardization of site typologyas labels reflect functional, structural, or topographical factors. In the absence of significantdata to characterize a site according to its functional attributes, a typology ofthree basic site types for this period has been proposed (Gardner 1980; Custer 1984):(1) Macroband Base Camps—These sites exhibit a wide range of tool types andcultural remains. The size and location of the sites indicate long-term occupationby a large group. Sites are most often located in areas offering maximumavailability to resources. Sites would contain large hearth areas, processingareas, flaking stations, storage areas, and habitation areas.(2) Microband Base Camps—These sites are smaller versions of macroband basecamps. Their size is linked to the carrying capacity of their environmental setting.(3) Procurement Sites—These are sites characterized by fewer tool types andlimited cultural debris. These sites are associated with exploitation of a particularresource. Such sites may be hunting/fishing camps, nutting stations,overnight camps, and various other limited activity areas.The proposed locational model for this period is derived partially from the limitedsurvey data available for the James-York Peninsula as well as from outside information.This combined data suggests that base camps, both large and small, were situated onelevated landforms adjacent to a high productivity, riverine or estuarine setting. Procurementsites were most likely found along interior watercourses in areas varying fromsmall rises along streams to high hilltops.SUB-THEME A: CERAMIC TECHNOLOGY AND ITS CULTURALIMPLICATIONSThe development of ceramic technology is a critical archaeological issue in the MiddleAtlantic Region (Wise 1975). The steatite bowl technology, generally associated withthe Savannah River phase, preceded the introduction of ceramics. The firstceramic-making attempts, thought to be influenced by the earlier ceramic developmentin the southeastern United States, copied existing stone bowls forms and even includedsteatite particles as a tempering agent. Subsequent developments appear to be a result oflocalized experiments before various standards were attained (Wise 1975; Gardner 1982).A number of fragments of steatite bowls have been recovered from sites in the areaproviding a baseline from which to view the local development of ceramic manufactureand use. The earliest known ceramics for the areas include examples from the MarceyCreek series and the Croaker Landing series. Marcey Creek appears to be an ubiquitousindicator of Early Woodland occupation throughout most of the Middle Atlantic with abeginning time period ranging from 1200 B.C. to 800 B.C. (Egloff and Potter 1982).The local ceramic sequence for the James-York Peninsula proposed by Egloff andPotter (1982) is based on a current understanding of ceramic types and their distribution.Future ceramic research is needed to refine temporal frameworks and cultural boundaries.Material science studies initiated by L. Daniel Mouer at Virginia CommonwealthUniversity attempt to analyze ceramics from Central Virginia in terms of their function,72

technology, and relationship to social and economic systems (Bronitsky 1982). Suchstudies would provide a comparable data base if applied to the area’s ceramics.SUB-THEME B: SEASONALITY OF FOOD RESOURCES,SETTLEMENT PATTERNS, AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONDuring the period covered by the study unit, a number of sedentary societies evolved inthe Middle Atlantic region. Many of the environmental changes that occurred duringthis period had important effects on cultural adaptations. The primary impetus behindthese developments was the intensive exploitation of spatially concentrated resources.For the study area, marine resources appear to have had the potential to support a relativelystable population living in large base camps. Seasonal forays into interior zonesfor hunting deer and turkey and gathering various foodstuffs were also part of the foodprocurement system.Various cultural phenomena, reflected archaeologically, correlate with the developmentof a focal economy in the Middle Atlantic. Population appears to grow rapidly.New technologies develop, particularly those related to food storage systems as evidencedby the appearance of storage pits. An increase in the number and variety ofground stone tools is noted. These patterns have been identified in local sites as well.Productivity, population growth, and sedentism often coincide with the developmentof a highly complex social organization. An understanding of the process by whichthis occurred locally is of crucial importance in light of the later development of thePowhatan Chiefdom. Early ranked societies practicing burial ceremonialism appear inthe archaeological record of several complexes in Delaware dating to this period. Thatsuch societies lived within the confines of the study area should be considered in analyzingpopulation expansion, migrations, indigenous cultural developments, and externalpressures.SUB-THEME C: TRADE AND EXCHANGE; SOCIALINTERACTION ON A REGIONAL LEVELIt is clear from the archaeological record that regional exchange systems are operatingat a formal level beginning initially with the Late Archaic/ Transitional period as steatite(a non-local resource) appears in the Outer Coastal Plain. Evidence for exchange andtrade is central to understanding prehistoric patterns of intra-group and inter-group interaction.The flow of raw materials and finished products can be traced archaeologically,indicating possible economic and social networks.Projectile points of the period are common over a large area. For example, BareIsland, Perkiomen, Piscataway, and Fox Creek points can be found in the Coastal Plain,Piedmont, Delmarva Peninsula, and the Shenadoah River Drainage. The Middle Woodlandis a time of cultural interaction within and outside of the Coastal Plain. The periodis also distinguished by sophisticated trade networks operating in coastal Delaware,New Jersey, and Maryland. Exotic lithic materials and point types from these areas arepresent to an unknown extent in local collections.73

Ceramics provide insight into localized patterns of cultural interaction. Egloff (n.d.:12) has summarized the evidence and its interpretation as follows:Divisions of ceramic distribution in the Coastal Plain by the beginning of the Middle Woodlandperiod suggests an elaborate picture of spheres of cultural interaction. The Popes Creekand Mockley Wares, rarely occurring in the Piedmont, predominated in the Coastal Plainalong and north of the James River, indicating that the Piedmont and Coastal cultural dichotomydescribed by Captain John Smith existed by the Middle Woodland period. Furthermore,the Prince George and Hercules wares suggest that cultural groups distinct from thoseon the Piedmont and Estuarine Coastal Plain had developed within the Interior CoastalPlain of central and southern Virginia by the Middle Woodland period.SUMMARYThis study unit has been defined to include the period in which the most pronouncedcultural changes occurred in the area. New adaptations with an emphasis on the exploitationof riverine and estuarine resources appear. Lifeways are much more sedentary,the local population increases, new storage technologies arise including the manufactureand use of ceramics, and social systems develop and expand as regional exchangesystems are established.This period is the best represented in the area in terms of quality and quantity ofsites. Many sites have been located, primarily at the Phase I level of investigation. Althoughsome large riverine sites have been plowed or lost to shoreline erosion, manysmall procurement sites are potentially well preserved in interior locations which havenot been the focus of most research efforts. In spite of the relatively large amount ofdata, however, more work is needed to define local chronologies.STUDY UNIT III: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitThe archaeological resources associated with the Late Archaic and Early and MiddleWoodland periods addressed in this study unit have high regional significance in thecontext of Middle Atlantic research problem domains. While the general outline of thisperiod of Virginia’s prehistory is known, many significant questions concerning basicartifact chronologies, settlement preferences, phase descriptions, resource distribution,and social systems remain to be addressed. Since this period is well represented in otherphysiographic provinces, the potential significance of the area’s archaeological remainscan only be assessed in light of specific regional and local research problems.Many aspects of social and ecological research may be addressed by sites of thisperiod. Particularly important is the potential for understanding the focus of marineexploitation, a subsistence pattern that continues into modern times. The local watershave long provided a means of living for both prehistoric people and modern-day fishermen.The period is particularly important in viewing the developmental trends leadingto the establishment of the Powhatan Chiefdom during the Late Woodland period.74

Summary of Property TypesTwo broadly-defined functional site types have been identified for this period based ona review of site forms and regional literature.(1) Base Camps—These sites may have been occupied by large or small groupsdepending on the resource carrying capacity of the area. Occupations wereprobably long-term, although some sites may have been seasonally occupied.These sites are characterized by diagnostic artifacts indicating multiple activities.Base camps are likely to be associated with riverine and estuarine settings.These sites are generally disturbed by plowing and many have been lost tocoastal erosion. Exceptions are shell middens which have survived and subsurfacefeatures that lie beneath the plowzone. The vast majority of these sitescontain multiple components which may span several thousand years.(2) Procurement Sites—These sites are characterized by individual artifact finds,limited concentrations of artifacts, and small ceramic and/or lithic scatters. Thesites represent short term hunting, fishing, and/or gathering forays into interiorlocations. Many of these sites contain ceramic scatters with little lithic materialpresent. The presence of these sites have gone unnoticed in the area until arecent survey was conducted by the Office of Archaeological Excavation (Hunterand Higgins 1985). They can be found along the margins of interior streamsand on hilltops adjacent to a water source. By virtue of their proximity to marginalareas, many of these sites have never been plowed and may be relativelyundisturbed. Intact hearths, storage pits, and other features have been identifiedon a number of sites on the Powhatan Creek and Long Hill Swamp drainages.Many of these are single component sites.Character of Existing DataThe archaeological resources of this period are fairly well represented in the study area.Preservation factors have substantially biased the representativeness of these resources.Although several research-oriented excavations have been conducted, comparable surveylevel data is virtually non-existent. The majority of state site survey forms lackinformation on environmental variables, cultural affiliation, and site condition. Althoughmost sites of this period contain diagnostic ceramics, site forms do not include consistentdescriptions of these finds. In addition, there is a definite research and survey biastowards large, easily observable riverine base camps (Hunter and Higgins 1985) asmost interior regions have not been the focus of archaeological surveys.Criteria for EvaluationIn view of the potential most sites have for addressing significant research questions,some practical limitations must be imposed on evaluation criteria. As there are manyarchaeological sites of this period present in the study area, the primary consideration inevaluating sites is representativeness. Given the variety and number of site types thatwere present in the past and those that still survive, a site’s value may be judged based75

upon its representativeness as a particular site type. Unfortunately, before this criterioncan be applied, a complete inventory of sites must be made along with an estimation ofthe sites that have been destroyed by natural or cultural processes.In the absence of such an inventory, sites may be judged on a case by case basiswith evaluation criteria based on site integrity with special attention given to preservedfaunal and floral deposits and/or other datable materials. Furthermore, sitesthat have a single component are highly significant.Present Condition of Property TypesSites of this period are facing increasing pressure from both cultural and natural processes.Riverine sites are continually threatened by plowing, shoreline erosion, andmodern development. Interior sites, located on margins of streams, many of which maybe relatively undisturbed, are threatened by road construction, sewer installation, andresidential development.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesIdentification Goals• Future research efforts should include a review of the existing survey-level collectionsand an analysis of the artifacts according to a typology sensitive to local andregional artifact variation. Special attention should be paid to the local ceramicsequence to identify previously unrecognized cultural phases and ethnic groups.Site forms should be up-dated to include pertinent environmental variables.• More systematic surveys of interior stream margins should take place in order tobetter estimate the number and distribution of small but highly significant sites.Important areas to survey would include the drainages of upper James City Countywhere little previous work has been done. Such a survey is very important in lightof the threat posed by residential housing development.• An important area needing immediate survey is the York River shoreline. As mostof the property is under Federal control, special effort should be made to contactthe appropriate authorities for this inventory work.• Any identification survey work should be undertaken with the intent to gain arepresentative sample of site types in order to permit better management decisionsin light of current archaeological research issues. Sites containing deposits ofwell-preserved faunal and floral remains should be accorded a very high significancelevel.Evaluation Goals• A complete inventory of existing site information is needed, including an examinationof existing artifact collections in order to provide an estimate of the rangeand distribution of property types. Sites that contain undisturbed deposits shouldbe preserved unless scientific study is warranted. Sites that are threatened by de-76

velopment or natural processes should be investigated using the appropriate datarecovery methods.• Crucial to the evaluation process is the refinement of local ceramic and pointtypologies. These typologies are also critical for inter-regional comparisons. Specialconsideration should also be given to the analysis of other artifact classes aswell.Registration Goals• The current state of knowledge concerning the archaeological resources of thisperiod does not allow specific recommendations for sites to be made. If significantsites are discovered, a case for nomination should be made. As an alternative tosingle site nomination, specific archaeological areas, such as that identified in arecent survey by Hunter and Higgins (1985) can be nominated as archaeologicaldistricts.• A specific example of an area eligible for nomination as an archaeological districtwould be the entire Powhatan Creek drainage in James City County. This drainagecontains numerous prehistoric site dating to the Late Archaic and Woodland periodsand provides an excellent example of a prehistoric settlement pattern. Furthermore,these sites appear to be relatively undisturbed and to contain intact archaeologicalfeatures.• Archaeological districts may also be proposed for a representative sample of majordrainages of the James-York Peninsula: perhaps three drainage systems each representinga tributary of the James and York Rivers, and the Chesapeake Bay. Accordingly,a district nomination could be made by James City County for a JamesRiver drainage, another by York County for a York River drainage, and a thirdpossibly shared by the City of Poquoson and York County representing a ChesapeakeBay tributary.Treatment Goals• Preservation of the many small sites along the margins of interior streams is acritical need. Such areas are usually damaged by housing projects and correspondingutility projects. Construction permits may be examined to evaluate the potentialfor such destruction on a project by project basis. Housing usually does notoccur directly on creek banks, although sewer lines, access roads, and other utilitylines are placed in these low-lying areas with the most damaging effect.• Sites should be preserved in place for future study when feasible. At all costs, aninitial evaluation of threatened sites should be made and should include an evaluationof a site’s age, function, condition, and research potential.• Data recovery efforts on sites threatened by destruction which can not be preservedshould be guided by the research questions posed in this document. Particularattention should be paid to retrieving datable organic samples and informationpertaining to site structural characteristics.77

STUDY UNIT IV.VILLAGE LIFE AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT(A.D. 1000–A.D. 1560)Major Theme: Growth of social complexity and shifts in subsistence andsettlement.Sub-Themes: A. Late Woodland ceramic trends.B. The role of the environment.C. Cultural interaction across the Coastal Plain.Significance: NationalThis study unit covers the traditionally defined Late Woodland Period beginning roughlyin A.D. 1000. Many important economic and social changes occurred during this period.The use of more permanent habitation sites and an increasing dependence uponagricultural products that included beans, squash, maize, and other domesticates wasthe culmination of the sedentary trends that began in the Late Archaic period. Althoughwild plant gathering, hunting, and fishing continued to provide a major portion of thediet, horticulture became increasingly important. The use of storage techniques and thesurplus of cultivated foods influenced settlement pattern, site location, and site structure.Tool kits and ceramics associated with the onset of village life exhibit patternssuggesting interaction among various cultural groups of different physiographic provinces.The subsistence base, technology, and social and political systems that evolvedduring this period were those eventually described by the earliest European explorersand colonists.The Late Woodland receives the most scholarly and popular attention of all prehistoricperiods in the Coastal Plain. This is primarily due to the good ethnohistoric database provided by early written descriptions which depicted in great detail the fascinatingculture of the Powhatan Chiefdom. The development of the Chiefdom is a majorresearch issues in the region, although its relation to the earliest cultural manifestationsof the Late Woodland is unclear.Several local surveys have provided general information on the nature and distributionof Late Woodland sites within, and adjacent to, the study area. Some of the moreextensive of these surveys include The Chickahominy River Survey (Barka and McCary1969), The York County Survey (Derry et al. n.d.), The New Quarter Park Survey (VRCA1978), The Kingsmill Survey (Reinhart 1973), The Second Street Extension Project(Hunter, Samford, and Brown 1984), Governor’s Land Survey (Reinhart and Sprinklen.d.), and the Route 199 Extension Survey (Hunter and Higgins 1985). Surveys of nearbyNewport News include that of Mulberry Island (Beaudry 1976), the Oakland DairyProperty (Mullen, Geier, and McCartney 1980), and particularly important, a recentcultural resource inventory study of Fort Eustis (Opperman 1984).A number of sites containing evidence of Late Woodland occupation have beentested and partially excavated. These include work done by Reinhart (1974, 1975a,1975b, 1976, 1978, 1979) at College Creek, Powhatan Creek, and several sites atKingsmill, the VRCA’s excavation of the Croaker Landing Sites, 44JC70 (Egloff, Hodges,79

and McFaden n.d.), Colonial Williamsburg’s salvage excavation of a shell midden atCarter’s Grove, and the testing of several sites in York County (McCary 1958, 1964;Rountree 1967). A very important salvage excavation was recently conducted by JamesMadison University’s personnel at the Skiffes Creek Sites (44NN7) on the OaklandDairy Tract in Newport News (Geier and Barber 1983).Preliminary analysis of existing survey data and state site survey forms suggestthat Late Woodland resources are less well-represented than sites of other periods. Asummary of sites characterized specifically as Late Woodland sites is presented in Table2.4.Table 2.4. indicates that, as for previous cultural periods, there has been no standardizationof a site typology as these terms reflect either functional, structural, andtopographical factors. In general, an intensive level of investigation is required to identifyfunctional attributes of a site. In some cases, determination of a sites’s function maynot be possible at all. While acknowledging the limitations of existing data and theproblems of site identification, the following categorization of sites of the Late Woodlandis proposed:(1) Villages-Hamlets—As traditionally defined, village sites may or may not bepresent until well into the Late Woodland period. Large sites in this period mayhave continued to have had the appearance of Middle Woodland base camps.These sites exhibit a wide range of tool types and cultural residues. The sizeand location of the sites indicate long-term occupation by a large group. Sitesare most often located in areas offering access to agriculturally productive soil.Sites of this period may also be internally dispersed consisting of several housesand activity loci scattered over a large area. Palisaded sites, if they exist in thearea, would contain a discrete cluster of houses and related features. Ossuariesand burials are usually associated with village sites.(2) Procurement Sites—These are sites characterized by fewer tool types andlimited cultural debris. Locations of these sites are associated with the exploitationof a particular resource. Such sites may be hunting/fishing camps, nuttingstations, overnight camps, or other limited activity sites.The locational model for the period presented here is derived partially from thelimited survey data available for the area and from outside information. Our modelproposes that village sites and/or base camps are situated on elevated landforms adjacentto highly productive riverine or estuarine settings, on or near prime agriculturalsoils. Seasonal procurement sites are most likely found along interior watercourses inareas varying from small rises along streams to high hilltops.SUB-THEME A: LATE WOODLAND CERAMIC TRENDSSignificant changes in ceramic trends that occurred almost uniformly throughout theMiddle Atlantic accompanied an increasing reliance on horticulture and a shift in settlementpatterns. The ceramics of this period exhibit some technological similarities tothose of the shell-tempered Mockley Wares of the Middle Woodland Period. Notably,80

TABLE 2.4STUDY UNIT IV. - KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCESSite No.Site Type as Recorded44 JC 19 Archaic through Historic44 JC 28 not reported44 JC 51 Interior Exploitative Camp44 JC 118 Shell Midden44 JC 119 Ossuary44 JC 125 Indian44 JC 131 Prehistoric44 JC 134 Prehistoric44 JC 137 Multi-Component Camps44 JC 147 Prehistoric Camp44 JC 363 Limited Activity Site44 JC 364 Limited Activity Site44 JC 373 Limited Activity Site44 JC 384 Limited Activity Site44 JC 386 Complex Activity Site44 YO 2 Prehistoric-Possible Village Site44 YO 11 Underwater44 YO 114 Campsite44 YO 156 not reported44 YO 170 Indian Camps44 YO 181 Lithic Scatter44 YO 195 Multi-Component44 YO 199 Prehistoric Lithic and Ceramic Scatter44 YO 225 Woodland/Archaic Camp44 YO 237 Not Determined44 YO 380 Prehistoric44 YO 381 Prehistoric44 YO 382 Prehistoric44 YO 383 Prehistoric44 YO 393 PrehistoricLate Woodland ceramics have increasingly complex surface decorations including incising,cord-wrapped stick impressions, and simple-stamping.The predominant diagnostic ceramic types for the Late Woodland occur with theintroduction of the Townsend wares. This ware, which appears in Delaware and Marylandas well as in Virginia, is shell-tempered, fabric impressed, and often decorated withincised cross-hatching, chevrons, and bands (Egloff and Potter 1982).The Late Woodland period is a time of localization of pottery styles and types. Forexample, shell-tempered Roanoke Ware occurs on the Estuarine Coastal Plain, whileGaston Ware, a granule-tempered pottery, is found in the Interior Coastal Plain.Simple-stamped decoration appears to have been most prevalent when the Europeansarrived.Preliminary analysis of the distribution of ceramic traits for Virginia’s Coastal Plainhas been completed (Egloff n.d., Egloff and Potter 1982) This framework should permitthe further identification, temporally and spatially, of local ethnic groups. Such infor-81

mation can in turn be used to determine the continuity and development of local culturaltraditions, an important research topic with wider implications for the entire CoastalPlain. At the time of contact, the Virginia Algonquians occupied an area of the CoastalPlain, south of the Potomac River and north of the Dismal Swamp. Ceramic study providesone of the better archaeological tools for reconstructing the movements and distributionsof various cultural groups. Of importance to the study area, Egloff finds that:In the Late Woodland period, the lines of ceramic distribution are remarkably similarto those described for the Middle Woodland period. The Townsend Ware, more widespreadthan the earlier Mockley Ware, occurred rarely in the Interior Coastal Plain,south of the James River. Significantly, the evolution of Mockley to Townsend wasrather uniform throughout the Circum- Chesapeake Bay region, suggesting interactinggroups possessing a common culture. As might be expected, the Interior Coastal Plaincontained its own unique array of ceramic traits demonstrating ceramic influences emanatingfrom the Piedmont (Egloff n.d: 13).SUB-THEME B: THE ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENTThe general environmental and ecological character of the study area during this periodwas essentially modern. However, specific information about climatic episodes and perturbationsis lacking, making only general ecological statements possible at this time.Much of the Peninsula lies in the area which Binford (1964) and Turner (1976)have described as the Southeastern Pine Forest. In general the bulk of wildlife, vegetation,and higher quality soils lie within the upper regions of the Coastal Plain, near thearea of the salt water/fresh water transitional zone. The ethnohistorical literature indicatesthat the late 16th-century and early 17th-century native population was centeredin the Interior Coastal Plain where the most diverse natural resources could be found.Whether this was also true during three centuries prior to contact is unclear.Saltwater resources appear to have been the determining factor for the Woodlandhabitation of the Peninsula. The exact distribution of such resources during the thisperiod is not known. It is apparent, however, that modern James River saltwater resourcesare lower on the Peninsula than those of the York. If such a condition existed inprehistoric times, aboriginal populations would have been forced to settle at the lowerend of the James to exploit marine resources, or alternatively, to settle the York Rivermore intensively than the James.The efforts of the Indians to increase their harvest of marine resources adverselyaffected their ability to exploit wild mammals and edible plant resources. For example,Turner (1976) has noted that deer population densities decrease as water salinity increases.Furthermore, Binford (1964) suggests that there were no plants present in thesesaltwater areas that would have been suitable for human consumption. Thus dependenceon saltwater resources resulted in a more limited diet, perhaps a less attractivealternative to the majority of native groups who appear to have settled further up thePeninsula, where there was access to a broader resource base.82

SUB-THEME C: CULTURAL INTERACTION ACROSS THECOASTAL PLAINAt the time of contact, Algonquin-speaking people of the Powhatan Chiefdom had establishedthemselves throughout the Coastal Plain, although population densities werecentered in the upper Tidewater regions. The Piedmont was inhabited by the Monacan,a Siouian-speaking people who were adversaries of the Powhatan. Additionally,Iroquois-speaking people inhabited the southeastern part of Virginia, below the JamesRiver (Turner 1976).In general, the material culture of the Late Woodland period indicates an expandednetwork of exchange and interaction with a significant portion of the Middle Atlanticregion. Not only do ceramics exhibit similar technological characteristics, throughoutthe region; a variety of small, well-made projectile point types such as the Randolph,Clarksville, Madison, and Peedee types appear not only in the Coastal Plain but arecommon over a large area as well.The archaeological identification of ethnic and cultural groups requires a full understandingof artifact variability and distribution. The external flow of technologicalinnovations and the internal rate of stylistic development are just few of the factorsaffecting the archaeological record. Many of the social and political factors leading tothe development of the Powhatan Chiefdom can be studied in the area by relying uponethnographic literature, ecological and social models of change, and the fragile archaeologicalrecord.STUDY UNIT IV: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitThe archaeological resources of this period must be viewed as particularly significant inlight of the current anthropological and archaeological interest in the rise of complexpolitical systems and the introduction of domestic plant cultivation. The later ethnohistoricaccounts have generated many research questions concerning the Late Woodland periodof national, regional, and local importance. These include the identification of ethnicgroups, and the understanding of interrelationships between ecological settings andgroup diversity. A particularly significant research area is the study of the developmentof the Powhatan Chiefdom.Summary of Property TypesTwo generalized site types have been identified for this period based on a review of siteforms and regional literature.(1) Village-Hamlet—These sites, as traditionally defined, may not be present inthe study area until well into the Late Woodland period. Settlements were probablylong-term though some sites may have been seasonally occupied. LateWoodland sites are characterized by artifacts indicating the presence of mul-83

tiple activities. Diagnostic house remains, individual burials, ossuaries, storagepits, and possibly palisades are indicative of Late Woodland occupation.Sites that are not palisaded may consist of the remains of several dwellingsscattered over a wide area. These Woodland period features have been generallydisturbed by plowing in the study area and many have been lost to coastalerosion. Exceptions are shell middens that are associated with this period andsubsurface features that lie beneath the plowzone. The vast majority of thesesites have multiple components which may span several thousand years, makingabsolute identification of the Late Woodland components difficult.(2) Procurement Sites—These sites are characterized by individual artifact finds,limited concentrations of artifacts, and small ceramic and/or lithic scatters. Thesites represent short-term hunting, fishing, and gathering forays into the interiorlocations. Many of these sites contain ceramic scatters with little lithicmaterial present. Until recently, the presence of these resources was unrecognizedin the area (Hunter and Higgins 1985). Sites are found along the marginsof interior streams and on hilltops adjacent to a water source. By virtue of theirproximity to marginal areas, many of these sites have never been plowed andmay be relatively undisturbed. Interior sites may include undisturbed featuressuch as hearths, storage pits, and the remains of temporary shelters. Some sitesmay contain only a single component as well.Character of Existing DataThe cultural developments in this period and in the subsequent Protohistoric periodhave received the greatest attention from scholars because of the rich ethnohistoricalsources for the Virginia Algonquins. However, only cursory archaeological study ofLate Woodland sites has been attempted. This lack of archaeological research can beattributed to the low visibility of archaeological remains, a lack of excavated data withinthe study area and the fact that many areas potentially containing important Late Woodlandresources are part of restricted military installations.The archaeological resources of the Late Woodland period are poorly representedin the study area. Many sites have been identified only by the presence of a few diagnosticTownsend and/or Rappahannock series ceramics within larger sites primarilyattributed to earlier periods. Survey data is virtually non-existent. The majority of statesite survey forms for this period lack information on environmental variables, culturalaffiliations, and site condition. Many sites have been characterized as Woodland withoutspecific reference to this late cultural phase. Previous archaeological collectionsprobably contain diagnostic ceramics; however, most site forms do not include consistentdescriptions of these finds.Criteria for EvaluationIn view of the limited understanding of Late Woodland site locations, almost any resourcethat could be accurately dated would have potential for addressing significantresearch questions. As there are few identified archaeological sites of this period present84

in the study area, all sites should be considered unique resources until further inventorywork is completed.In the absence of an inventory, sites may be judged on a case by case basis withevaluation criteria based on site integrity. Special attention should be given to structuralevidence, human remains, preserved faunal and floral deposits, and/or the presence ofdatable materials. Furthermore, sites that have a single component or a series of discretecomponents should be considered highly significant.Present Condition of Property TypesSites of this period are increasingly threatened by cultural and natural processes. Woodlandperiod sites are particularly vulnerable to even minimal ground disturbance activities.Riverine sites are threatened by continued plowing, shoreline erosion, and moderndevelopment. Interior sites, located on the margins of streams, are threatened by roadconstruction, sewer installation, and residential development.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesIdentification Goals• A first priority for future identification efforts should be a review of the existingsurvey-level collections and an analysis of the artifacts using a typology sensitiveto regional and local stylistic and technological variation.• State site forms should be updated to include pertinent environmental variableswith a special focus on defining Late Woodland settlement preferences.• More systematic surveys of interior stream margins should take place in order tobetter estimate the number and distribution of small but highly significant sites.This research should provide an excellent data base for synthetic studies and shouldfurther refine evaluation criteria.Evaluation Goals• All identified sites should be evaluated in light of their potential to provide informationon site structure and function, locational preferences, subsistence, and ecologicaland social processes.Registration Goals• An effort should be made to nominate Late Woodland village and hamlet sites tothe National Register of Historic Places if sufficient data are present. One suchsite, identified as the location of Chiskiack (44YO2), a known contact period villagecontaining components from the Woodland period is a prime candidate forNational Register nomination. Other significant village sites may yet be identifiedalong the Chickahominy and York Rivers.85

• Late Woodland interior sites would be included in the recommended archaeologicaldistricts proposed under the registration goals for Study Unit III.Treatment Goals• Late Woodland sites that contain undisturbed deposits should be preserved at allcosts until scientific study is warranted. Sites that are threatened by developmentor natural processes should be investigated with the appropriate data recoverymethods.• Specific preservation measures should be enacted to protect the many small sitesalong the margins of interior streams. Such areas are usually damaged by housingprojects and corresponding utility projects. Construction permits may be examinedto evaluate the potential for such destruction on a project by project basis.Sensitive areas include a minimum of a 150’ corridor on either side of all areawatercourses.• Data recovery methods on sites threatened by destruction should be guided by aresearch design formulated to address the archaeological concerns posed in thisstudy unit. Sites containing human remains should receive legal and scientific scrutiny.86

BIBLIOGRAPHY: STUDY UNITS I-IVBarka, Norman F., and Ben C. McCary1969 The Chickahominy River Survey of Eastern Virginia. Eastern StatesArchaeological Federation: Numbers 26-27.Beaudry, Mary C.1976 An Archaeological Survey of Mulberry Island, Fort Eustis, Newport News,Virginia. Report on file at the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology,Yorktown, Virginia.Belknap, D. F., and J. C. Kraft1977 Holocene Relative Sea-level Changes and Coastal Stratigraphic Units onthe Northwest Flank of the Baltimore Canyon Geosyncline. Journal of SedimentaryPetrology 47: 610-629.Binford, Lewis R.1964 Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Investigation of Cultural Diversity andProgressive Development Among Aboriginal Cultures of Coastal Virginiaand North Carolina. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Universityof Michigan, Ann Arbor.1980 Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems andArchaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45: 4-20.Bott, Keith Edward1979 44JC118 and 44JC119: An Evaluation of Two Prehistoric ArchaeologicalSites at Carter’s Grove Plantation, James City County, Virginia. Report onfile at the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.Bronitsky, Gordon1982 Clay Workability: A Pilot Study. Quarterly Bulletin of the ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia 37 (2).Brown, J., and C. Cleland1968 The Late Glacial and Early Post Glacial Faunal Resources in MidwesternBiomes Newly Open to Human Adaptation. In The Quarternary of Illinois,edited by R. E. Bergstrom, pp. 114-122. University of Illinois, Urbana.Broyles, Bettye J.1971 The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. Report of ArchaeologicalInvestigations 3. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey,Morgantown.Callahan, Errett1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Points Tradition. Archaeologyof Eastern North America 7: 1-180.87

Carbone, V.A.1975 Environment and Prehistory in the Middle Atlantic Province. Proceedingsof the 6th Annual Middle Atlantic Conference: 42-49.Coe, Joffre Lanning1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the AmericanPhilosophical Society 54: 5.Custer, Jay F.1984 Delaware Prehistoric Archaeology: An Ecological Approach. AssociatedUniversity Presses, Cranbury, New Jersey.Derry, Linda, et al.n.d. The York County Archaeological Survey Draft Report. Manuscript on file,Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.Egloff, Keith T.n.d. Spheres of Cultural Interaction Across the Coastal Plain of Virginia in theWoodland Period. Unpublished paper. Manuscript on file, Virginia ResearchCenter for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.Egloff, Keith T., and Stephen R. Potter1982 Indian Ceramics for Coastal Plain Virginia. Archaeology of Eastern NorthAmerica 10: 95-117.Egloff, Keith T., Mary Ellen Norrisey Hodges, and Leslie McFadenn.d. Croaker Landing Site (44JC70). Manuscript in preparation, Virginia ResearchCenter for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.Evans, Clifford1955 A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archaeology. Bureau of American Ethnology,Bulletin 160. Washington, D.C.Gardner, William G.1974 The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: Pattern and Process during thePaleo-Indian to Early Archaic. In The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: APreliminary Report, 1971-1973 Seasons. Occasional Publication of the CatholicUniversity Archaeology Laboratory No. 1, edited by W. M. Gardner,pp. 5-47. Washington, DC.1979 Paleo-Indian Settlement Patterns and Site Distributions in the Middle Atlantic(preliminary version). Paper presented at the January 1979 meeting ofthe Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, DC.1980 Subsistence-Settlement Strategies in the Middle and South Atlantic Portionsof the United States During the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. Paperread at the 1980 American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC.88

Gardner, William G.1982 Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview. In PracticingEnvironmental Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations, edited byRoger Moeller. American Indian Archaeological Institute, Washington, Connecticut.Gardner, William G., and R.A. Verry1979 Typology and Chronology of Fluted Points from the Flint Run Area. PennsylvaniaArchaeologist 49(1-2): 13-46.Geier, Clarence R. and Michael Barber1983 The Skiffes Creek Site (44NN7): A Multicomponent Middle Woodland BaseCamp in Newport News, Virginia. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 17.James Madsion University, Harrisonburg, Virginia.Haynes, C. Vance Jr.1966 Elephant-Hunting in North America. In New World Archaeology: Readingsfrom Scientific American. W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco.Holmes, William H.1903 Aboriginal Pottery of Eastern United States. In Twentieth Annual Report ofthe Bureau of American Ethnology: 1-210. U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington DC.Hunter, Robert R., Patricia Samford, and Marley Brown III1984 Phase II Archaeological Testing of the Proposed Second Street Extension,York County and Williamsburg, Virginia. Report on file, Virginia Departmentof Highways and Transportation, Richmond.Hunter, Robert R., and Thomas F. Higgins III1985 Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Route 199Project, James City and York Counties, Virginia. Report on file, VirginiaDepartment of Highways and Transportation, Richmond.Kauffman, Barbara E. and Richard J. Dent1982 Preliminary Flora and Fauna Recovery and Analysis at the Shawnee MinisinkSite (36 MR 43). In Practicing Environmental Archaeology: Methods andInterpretations, edited by Roger Moeller. American Indian ArchaeologicalInstitute, Washington, Connecticut.Kraft, J.C., E.A. Allen, D.F. Belknap, C.J. John, and E.M. Maurmeyer1976 Delaware’s Changing Shoreline. Delaware Coastal Zone Management Program,Technical Report 1. Dover Division of Natural Resources.McCary, Ben C.1956 Survey of Virginia Fluted Points, Nos. 232-263. Quarterly Bulletin of theArchaeological Society of Virginia 10(3): 9-15.89

McCary, Ben C.1958 The Kiskiack (Chiskiock) Indian Site Near Yorktown, Virginia. QuarterlyBulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 13(2).1963 Survey of Virginia Fluted Points, Nos. 294-314. Quarterly Bulletin of theArchaeological Society of Virginia 18(2): 25-29.1965 Survey of Virginia Fluted points, Nos. 315-347. Quarterly Bulletin of theArchaeological Society of Virginia 20(2): 53-59.1981 Survey of Virginia Fluted Points, Nos. 604-640. Quarterly Bulletin of theArchaeological Society of Virginia 35(4): 186-199.1983 The Paleo-Indian in Virginia. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Societyof Virginia 38(1): 43-70.McCary, Ben C., and Glenn R. Bittner1978 Excavations at the Williamson Site, Dinwiddie County, Virginia. QuarterlyBulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 33(2): 45-60.Mouer, L. Daniel et al.1980 Identification and Evaluation of Archaeological and Historic Resources forthe Henrico County, Virginia Regional Wastewater System. Archaeology inHenrico 1. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Virginia CommonwealthUniversity.Mullen, Henry B., Clarence Geier, and Martha McCartney1980 A Phase I Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Oakland Dairy Property, NewportNews, Virginia. Report on file, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology,Yorktown, Virginia.Opperman, Antony F.1984 An Archaeological Overview and Management Plan of Fort Eustis and FortStory Cities of Newport News and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Manuscript onfile, Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Research, Inc., Newark, Delaware andWilliamsburg, Virginia.Reinhart, Theodore R.1973 Interim Report on the Prehistoric Archaeological Survey and Excavation ofthe Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary on theKingsmill Plantation Property. Report on file at the Virginia Research Centerfor Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.1974 An Introduction to the Prehistory of Kingsmill, James City County, Virginia.Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 29: 43-54.1975aThe Artifacts from Prehistoric Kingsmill, James City County, Virginia. QuarterlyBulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 29: 132-161.90

Reinhart, Theodore R.1975b The Prehistoric Sites of Kingsmill, James City County, Virginia. QuarterlyBulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 29: 165-182.1976 Excavations at the Powhatan Creek Site, James City County, Virginia. QuarterlyBulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 31(2).1978 Plow Zone Archaeology on College Creek, James City County, Virginia.Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 32(4).1979 Middle and Late Archaic Cultures in the Lower James River Area. QuarterlyBulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 34(2): 57-82.Rountree, H.C.1967 The Davis Point Site, Queen Creek, York County. Quarterly Bulletin of theArchaeological Society of Virginia 22: 50-54. Richmond.Turner, E. Randolph III1976 An Archaeological and Ethnohistoric Study on the Evolution of Ranked Societiesin the Virginia Coastal Plain. Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania StateUniversity.1978 An Intertribal Deer Exploitation Buffer Zone for the Virginia CoastalPlain-Piedmont Regions. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Societyof Virginia 32(3).Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology[VDHL, VRCA]1981 Guidelines for Preparing Archaeological Resource Management Reports.Paper on file, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.Virginia Research Center for Archeology1978 New Quarter Park Survey. Manuscript on file, Virginia Research Center forArchaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.Whitehead, Donald R.1973 Late-Wisconsin Vegetational Changes in Unglaciated Eastern North America.Quarternary Research 3(4): 621-631.Wise, Cara Lewis1975 A Proposed Sequence for the Development of Pottery in the Middle Atlanticand Northeast. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Middle Atlantic ArchaeologicalConference, edited by W. Fred Kinsey III.Wright, Henry T.1973 An Archaeological Sequence in the Middle Chesapeake Region, Maryland.Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Geological Survey, ArchaeologicalStudies 1.91

Section 3.Native American Study Units(Study Units V–VIII)

INTRODUCTION TO THE NATIVE AMERICAN STUDYUNITS (STUDY UNITS V-VIII)Long resident along the drainages of the York and the James Rivers were a number of native groups known collectively at the time of European contact as thePowhatan. These natives were speakers of an eastern Algonquian language, andover the centuries had developed a highly complex political and social adaptation to therich local environment of the Tidewater. The coming of the English explorers and settlersin the late 16th and early 17th centuries caused change and conflict in Powhatansociety, which along with disease and warfare led ultimately to the removal of most ofthe native population to areas west of the Chickahominy River by the late 17th century.Yet Native Americans have contributed significantly to the history of the Tidewaterduring all periods of its history. Natives acted as servants, messengers, military scoutsand guides, laborers, and suppliers of game and wild foods, while the Indian settlementsserved as a buffer against hostile tribes to the west. The fields the natives had cultivatedwere highly valued as farmlands by the Europeans that settled their land. Native crops,herbal remedies, and customs of land-use were adopted by Tidewater settlers aswell. Today the Native American heritage of eastern Virginia is being rediscovered bymuseum visitors who are interested in the early history of the Indians and amazed tohear that they still survive in significant numbers not far from their originalhomeland. Native American past and present are important to the Tidewater heritage,and deserve further study.95

STUDY UNIT V.THE PROTOHISTORIC PERIOD(A.D. 1560–A.D. 1607)Major Theme: The climax of Powhatan social and political development.Sub-Themes: A. The rise of the Powhatan chiefdom.B. Maturation of the mixed hunting, fishing, and agriculturaleconomy.C. Early relations with Europeans.Significance: NationalDuring the Protohistoric period, the natives of the lower James and York River drainageswere speakers of one or more dialects or languages of the eastern branch of theAlgonquian language family, languages which probably became extinct by the mid-19thcentury. Their languages have been grouped under the label Virginia Algonquian (Feest1978: 253), or Powhatan (Siebert 1975). The Virginia Algonquians occupied an areaextending north to the Potamac River, west to the Fall Line, and south to the DismalSwamp and the Chowan River (see Map 3.1). To the west lived Siouan speakers, and tothe south, Iroquoian groups, notably the Meherrin, Tuscarora, and Nottaway (Boyce1978: 282).Recognizing that most coastal Native American cultures described by even theearliest observers were cultures already deeply impacted by peripheral contact withEuropeans (Wolf 1982) an attempt will be made to describe Virginia Algonquian societyand material culture as it appeared to early explorers and settlers, in order to reconstructa “base-line” culture (Snow 1980), which in turn will be used to study the immediatepre-contact period, and the later 17th- and 18th-century history of the VirginiaAlgonquians.At the time of English settlement at Jamestown in 1607, the Virginia Algonquiansoccupying the Virginia Coastal Plain, including the James and York Rivers and theirtributaries (with the exception of the Chickahominy), were members of a centralizedchiefdom governed by a paramount leader known as Powhatan (Strachey 1612; Smith1612, 1624). At least thirty-two named groups were said to owe allegiance to Powhatan,some of whom he inherited, others acquired by conquest. The approximate locations ofeach of these groups, henceforth referred to, for lack of a better term, as petty chiefdoms,are noted on Map 3.1. Each group was ruled by a chief or weroance, who inherited hisor her position and maintained it through skill and influence.Within each petty chiefdom, households ranged from six to twenty individuals,presumably related, although the specific form of Powhatan kinship organization is notwell known. Siebert has argued, based on fragmentary linguistic information, that thePowhatan recognized bilateral kin affiliation, and, like many Algonquian-speakingpeople, classificatory, generational, and affinal categories. Siebert also argues thatPowhatan terminology closely resembled that of the Delaware, who were matrilinealduring the historic period (1975). Some evidence suggests that inheritance of politicaloffice was through the female line. Smith noted:97

Map 3.1.98

[Powhatan’s] kingdomes descend not to his sonnes nor children, but first to his brethren,… and after their decease to his sisters. First to the eldest sister, then to the rest, and afterthem to the heires male or female of the eldest sister, but never to the heires of the males(Smith 1624: 38).Speck (1928) also argued for matrilineality among the historic Powhatan. At thesame time, property of the deceased passed through the male line.Powhatan society, as described in 17th-century sources, was organized into hierarchicalsocial strata based on accumulation of wealth and membership within privilegedlineages. One could acquire status and wealth through valor in war, and throughone’s own efforts, but the existing higher status families maintained relative social stabilitythrough exacting large percentages of each member’s possessions and goods intribute, and by controlling the labor of the “common people.” Members of privilegedlineages monopolized certain trade goods and routes as well.Each group was ruled by the chief or weowance, who was in turn advised byindividuals known as cockaruses or cronoccoes. Each petty chiefdom supported one ormore priests or curers, known as quiyoughcosuck, who enjoyed high status along withthe chiefs and their advisors, but who lived apart from the villages, and were feared andavoided by the common people.During the early contact period, the paramount chief Powhatan held great powerover all the petty chiefs, who owed him tribute, and were subject to his command. Thepowers of the chiefs within each smaller chiefdom were more circumscribed. As Smithsaid, “this word Werowance, which we call and construe for a King, is a common word,whereby they call all commanders” (1624: 38).Although the Powhatan, like many coastal Algonquian-speaking peoples, deriveda large percentage of their food supply from horticulture, they also relied heavily ongame, fish and shellfish, as well as on non-domesticated plant foods. Subsistence practiceswere seasonal, beginning with a communal deer-drive in winter, where up to 300people cooperated in hunting and processing large numbers of animals at upriver huntinggrounds. In the spring, crops, especially of corn, were planted in fields surroundingeach village, which were cleared by the men, using slash-and-burn techniques. Fish andshellfish were collected and dried in the summer, as were nuts, roots and acorns.Work and status were determined by birth, sex, and place within the life cycle.Each child was named after birth, and received additional names at critical stages in itslife, such as puberty, marriage, or ascent to office. Puberty among male children wasmarked by a ceremony known as huskanaw. Some boys were chosen by the priests toapprentice as curers, these endured a gruelling period of fasting, purging, and isolationbefore entering their training.Before marriage, the groom was required to pay a bride-price to a woman’s parents,and after, the bride took up residence with her husband. Polygyny was commonamong the upper class, who could support multiple wives. Marriage was one mechanismused to cement alliances between groups, as well as to consolidate power in theupper class.Music, dance, games of chance, and athletic competitions formed the bulk of entertainmentfor the Powhatan. Oration and story-telling were also enjoyed, and skill atnarration was greatly admired.99

Dominating the everyday thoughts and actions of the Powhatan was their belief inOke or Okewis, a powerful and punishing god, whose image was maintained by thequiyoughcosough in temples, and carried into battle. Oke was capable of appearing tothe Indians in the shape of a man, and it was believed that dead priests continued to liveas Oke. Belief in this frightful god was counterbalanced by the worship of Ahone, abenevolent god, to whom, however, no offerings were made.Individual worship of the Oke, and of the manitou, or “persons other than human”(Tooker 1979: 38) which populated the Powhatan cosmology, consisted of offeringsin the shape of beads, tobacco, and paint. Formal worship was the responsibility ofthe priests, who maintained the temples, and organized and celebrated the seasonal ceremonialround, using for this purpose a specialized language.It was the from the power of the dieties which the priests served that they derivedtheir skills as conjurers and healers. The Powhatan placed great emphasis on the meaningsof signs and symbols, interpreted by the quiyoughcosough, and allowed their actionsto be guided by the priests’ interpretations of omens. Similarly, the priests werethought to have the assistance of “familiars” or spirits, when drawing the illness from apatient’s body.Spanish maps dating to the 1520s indicate knowledge of the Chesapeake Bay, whichmay have been visited during that decade by ships sailing for England as well (seeStudy Unit IX). Strong evidence also suggests that French trading vessels regularlyvisited the Chesapeake in search of deerskins as early as 1546 (Quinn 1977: 189-191).Between 1530 and 1570, at least six exploration parties recorded stops in the region,and there were undoubtedly many unrecorded visits as well. One such expedition, ledby the Spaniard Pedro Menendez de Aviles, visited the James river in 1561, and captureda young native for future use as an interpreter and guide. Baptized Don Luis deVelasco, the youth was educated by Spanish Jesuits in Spain and Cuba, and remainedwith the Spanish until 1570. In that year Don Luis led a small group of missionaries toa site on the southern bank of the York River (perhaps near the mouth of Queen’s Creek)where they established a mission. Don Luis soon abandoned the missionaries, and laterled an attack on the mission in which all the Jesuits were killed, and a young Spanishacolyte taken prisoner.Vincente Gonzalez, and later, Menendez de Aviles returned to the site of the missiontwo years to avenge the slayings, and killed and captured several natives. Theynegotiated the return of the boy, on the strength of this skirmish, but did not reestablishthe mission.In 1584, the Roanoke colonists of northern North Carolina engaged in a briefskirmish with the Powhatan, and the next year, a small group of English settled brieflywith the Chesapeakes, although they encountered few other natives while there (Feest1978: 254). The Spanish returned in 1588 in search of the Roanoke colony. Based onsurviving Indian traditions recorded in the 17th century, most early contact with Europeans,although brief, was hostile (Barbour 1969: 1).It was during the last decades of the 16th century that the Powhatan chiefdom wasconsolidated. Between 1572 and 1597 Powhatan (who may have been related to DonLuis), inherited the territories of the lower York River, including that of the Pamunkey,Youghtanund, Mattaponi, Kiskiack, Werowocomoco, Powhatan, Arrohateck,Appamatuck, and Orapaks. By 1607, Powhatan had gained control over the majority of100

the Virginia Peninsula tribes, with the exception of the Chickahominy (see Plates 3.1and 3.2).Physically, the Powhatan chiefdom was laid out linearly along the major riverdrainages of the Virginia Coastal Plain, and along their tributaries (Plate 3.2). Eachpetty chiefdom occupied one or more village-hamlet continually (Binford 1964), andeach supported at least one “king’s house” where the werowance lived, and stored hiswealth. Each string of villages or hamlets consisted of up to 100 houses, although mostwere smaller. No contemporary sources describe palisaded villages for the Lower Tidewater,although they were reported closer to the Fall Line.Strachey described the Powhatan settlement pattern as follows:Theire habitations or Townes, are for the most parte by the Rivers, or not distant from freshSprings comonly upon the Rice of a hill, that they maie overlooke the River and take everysmale thing into view which sturrs upon the same, their houses are not manie in one towne,and those that are stand dissite and scattered, without forme of a street, far and wide asunder(1612: 78).Native houses were rectangular in floor plan, framed with arched saplings, andcovered with bark or reed mats. Doors, located at each end, were removable mats, andhearths were located under a central smoke-hole. The houses measured between 25 and50 feet long. Raised, mat-covered platforms built along the perimeter of the housesserved as beds and seating. Strachey found between six and twenty individuals living ineach house (Strachey 1612: 79). The dwellings of the werowance were similar to thoseof their subjects, although larger.Other structures associated with the village were drying racks located outside eachhouse, and a number of different types of storage pits and shelters. Sweat lodges werelocated near the stream or river. Each werowance also kept a “treasure house” for thesafe-keeping of grains, furs, shells and beads, and other goods received through tributepayment. These storage buildings were maintained by the priests. Some villages hadtemples, where religious ceremonies were performed, and where the bodies of the chiefswere preserved. Council houses were found in some villages as well. Temporary structures,such as hunting shelters, were erected at the hunting grounds, away from thevillages.Tools and implements were manufactured from a variety of natural substances,notably stone, bone,and wood. Coiled pots of fired, but unglazed clay, and baskets weremanufactured by the women, and used for cooking and storage.Smith observed that the Powhatan did much of their fishing from boats, whichthey made from hollowed out tree trunks. He saw some vessels that were forty or fiftyfeet long, and were capable of carrying forty men, but recorded that most were smaller(Smith 1624: 32). Nets, hooks, spears, as well as weirs, were employed for fishing, andfish were dried on scaffolding erected near each dwelling.Trade was conducted to far-flung regions, in search of exotic goods such as copper,carved shell pendants, and lithic materials (Willoughby 1907: 73). European goodsmay have reached the Powhatan along the same trade routes, north from theSusquehannocks, (Smith 1612 :60), and perhaps south from the Spanish and from Southeasterntribes. In 1610, an English observer claimed that one of Powhatan’s storehousesheld 4000 deerskins, although at that time local trade was only in foodstuffs (Theobald101

Plate 3.1. John Smith’s Map of Virginia, 1612.Plate 3.2. Close-Up of John Smith’s Map of Virginia, 1612.102

1980: 7). These skins were arguably used in trade with French contacts to the north,established before the settlement of Jamestown (Theobald 1980).The Powhatan’s principal ornamentation was body paint, tattooing, and great varietyin hairstyle, all of which are known only through written descriptions and a fewsurviving illustrations of 17th-century Powhatan. The Powhatan adorned themselveswith jewelry as well. During the period of Smith‘s visits to Virginia, Powhatan womenpierced their ears with several holes, from which they hung “chaines, bracelets, or copper”(Smith 1624: 30). Some men wore breast plates of beaten copper, and later, ofbrass. Clothing was decorated with beads of metal and shell, and feathers, as well aspainted decoration. The skins and heads of animals and birds,human war trophies, evenlive snakes, were worn by the Powhatan (Smith 1624), although the latter may have hadreligious significance not noted by contemporary observers.Information about the physical remains of late prehistoric and protohistoric periodoccupation within the study area is distressingly scarce. Only three sites (YO2, JC119,and JC41) dating to this period has been recorded on state survey forms. Several otherswere located during the Chickahominy River survey conducted by Norman Barka andBen McCary in 1969, but these have been only cursorily reported (Barka and McCary1969, McCary and Barka 1977), and the collections have not been adequately analyzed.Table 3.1 summarizes the known Protohistoric sites within the study unit. While a numberof Late Woodland period sites have been tested within the study area (see StudyUnit IV), these have not been sufficiently tightly dated, and their value in illuminatingProtohistoric period culture change is as yet not fully realized. Surveys conducted byBinford (1964) and Turner (1976) located a number of sites thought to date from the lateWoodland and Protohistoric periods, but none have been fully excavated.Primary sources associated with the Protohistoric and early contact period for thePowhatan are especially rich. Fascinating accounts of Powhatan culture were written bya number of early explorers, the best of which are those by Smith (1612, 1624) andStrachey (1612). Vocabularies collected by both these men, and place-names recordedby several early cartographers provide information about Powhatan language. A seriesof drawings of nearby natives of what is now North Carolina by John White of theEnglish Roanoke colony allow additional insight into the customs and appearance ofthe Virginia Algonquians. Documents associated with the discovery and exploration ofVirginia by Europeans are described in great detail by David Quinn (1977 and elsewhere)while sources pertinent to the ethnography of the Virginia Algonquins are discussedby Feest (1978), Turner (1976), and others.The nature and distribution of sites dating to the Protohistoric period in Virginiahave been the focus of research of great significance to the development of Americanacademic archaeology. Influenced by Taylor’s 1948 critique of archaeology, as well asby the Anthropology faculty at the University of Michigan, Lewis Binford used archaeologicaland ethnohistorical material on the Powhatan and Virginia Iroquoian tribesto develop what was to become the classic approach of the New Archaeology. Binfordoutlined a hypothetico-deductive model, based on an understanding of cultural process,especially as it was affected by ecological adaptation, to explain the development of aparticular social system, in this case, the Powhatan chiefdom (1964). He then tested hishypothesis using the documentary data and limited archaeological testing.103

Binford hypothesized that complex socio-political systems develop in areas of highestresource variability. Using species lists and other ecological data, Binford locatedsuch areas of variability in the York and James river drainages, the heart of the Powhatanchiefdom. Binford’s work, while innovative in the use of detailed ecological data, andin methodology, is weakened by lack of archaeological survey, testing, and most importantly,detailed excavation of any well-dated Protohistoric site within the Powhatan area.In a recent treatment of the development of the Powhatan chiefdom, RandolphTurner (1976, 1982b, and elsewhere) argues strongly that increased population densitiesand stress on resources led to a reorganization of social relations among the Powhatan,resulting in the rise of the Powhatan chiefdom. While Mouer (1981) agrees that populationstress and resource variability played an important role in the development of lateWoodland and Protohistoric Powhatan society, he is less sanguine in attributing its culminationin the Powhatan chiefdom to purely pre-contact phenomena (1981: 17). Turnersuggests that although several contacts between the Powhatan and Europeans of variousnationalities beginning by at least 1525 have been recorded, these had negligible effectson Indian life (1982: 23)Evidence used to support Turner’s argument (and similar arguments by Binford[1964]) consists mainly of data on distributions of Late Woodland sites, early descriptionsof Powhatan settlements and population figures, and detailed analysis of modernenvironmental surveys of the James and York drainages. These data clearly indicate aconfluence of population in just those areas where the Powhatan chiefdom was centered.Hierarchical site distribution reflects relatively well established stratified politicalorganization as well. At issue seems to be the development of the conquest “chiefdom”of Powhatan himself, and whether it was the result, as was true for several other coastalcultures, of the extraordinary changes set in motion by contact, both direct and indirect,with Europeans (Wolf 1982).While both Binford and Turner have emphasized the political organization of thePowhatan, and the way in which it was affected by subsistence and settlement pattern,little has been written concerning Powhatan social organization, and especially the rolesof various members of individual petty chiefdoms (but see Rountree n.d.). Additionally,little has been published on inter-ethnic relations within the chiefdom (but see Mouer1985). Very few sites of the Protohistoric period have been fully excavated within thestudy area, and none have been studied to determine intra-site layout, size, length ofoccupation, and other aspects of spatial organization. Given the importance of subsistencedata to arguments concerning political development, very little information hasbeen gathered concerning diet, climate, seasonality, etc., from archaeological depositsof the period.The nature of early native interaction with Europeans and the date at which itbegan to have serious impact on native culture are crucial questions which have receivedlittle rigorous attention. Historical sources suggest contact with some exploringparties and fishing expeditions as early as 1546, yet no evidence has yet been recoveredarchaeologically which documents contact before 1607. Whether this reflects the relativeisolation of the Powhatan from European influence before the founding of Jamestownor the paucity of data is unclear.In short, given the relative richness of the documentary record for Protohistoricperiod in the study area, and the national significance of the period both in terms of104

native american and colonial history, a number of areas of research are as yet unexplored.SUB-THEME A: THE CLIMAX OF THE POWHATAN CHIEFDOMWhile the exact nature of the development of the Powhatan chiefdom remains a fruitfulsubject of debate among scholars working in the Virginia Tidewater, most would agreethat the period between 1560 and 1607 saw the climax of that chiefdom, described byFeest as a “small-scale monarchy” (1978: 261). Crucial to an understanding of thisperiod is knowledge of native settlement pattern, diet, subsistence, and the nature anddistribution of various plant and animal species. Also important is information aboutthe nature and extent of contact between European explorers and traders in the decadespreceding the settlement of Jamestown.Based on knowledge of Powhatan material culture described in early contact reportsand on archaeological data, several property types can be defined for this sub-theme.Each of these might contain information necessary to an understanding of the Powhatanchiefdom, and of the everyday life of the Virginia Algonquians.(1) Village-Hamlet. The villages of each tribe consisted of many dwellings, andthe largest or principle village also contained a “king’s house” more elaboratethan the houses of the common people, a “council house” and possibly a storehouse,where the werowances kept their wealth. Some of the native villageswere surrounded by palisades, although none have been located within thestudy area. Sites of this type reported for the study area include those identifiedby Ben McCary and Norman Barka (Barka and McCary 1969; McCary andBarka 1977), and McCary (1958) along the eastern bank of the Chickahominy,and at Chiskiack.(2) Temples. According to Strachey, the temple, located outside the village, andmaintained by the quiyoughcosough, was generally l00 × 20 feet in dimension,and built so the door faced east. A partition at the western end enclosedthe platform where the defleshed bones of deceased werowances were laid. Afire was maintained continuously at the eastern end (1612: 88-89). No sites ofthis type have been reported for the study area.(3) Ossuaries. The bodies of some of the deceased, possibly those of the “commonpeople” were placed in ossuaries, along with grave goods meant to accompanythem to the next life. Of these ossuaries Smith said,”they digge a deep hole inthe earth… and the corpses being lapped in skins and mats with their jewels,they lay them upon sticks in the ground, and so cover them with earth “ (1642:75). Sites of this type in the study area include JC199 and another less-welldocumented site at Governor’s Land.SUB-THEME B: THE MATURATION OF A MIXED HUNTING,FISHING AND AGRICULTURAL ECONOMYMost scholars agree that the development of the Powhatan chiefdom was directly relatedto changes in subsistence and settlement pattern among the Virginia Algonquians105

eginning at least by the 16th century. While horticulture, introduced some centuriesbefore, was important to all Native American groups in the region, hunting and fishingremained significant subsistence activities, particularly on the James-York Peninsula.Property types which could be used to address the topic of native subsistence include:(1) Campsite. Several early observers described the Powhatan seasonal subsistenceround, noting that the Indian men journeyed away from the village tohunt, and the women to fish. Trade and diplomatic missions were common,many involving overnight journeys. These and other activities necessitated theestablishment of temporary campsites.(2) Single-dwelling site. Powhatan settlement pattern, described as a village-hamletcontinuum, ranged from large groupings of dwellings, to single dwelling sites,generally arranged linearly along the banks of major rivers and their tributaries.Each of these single-dwelling sites would have contained, in addition tothe rectangular dwelling itself, a number of storage pits, drying racks, and smallgarden plots. As noted above, the quiyoughcosough lived apart from the villages,in dwellings that may also have been the “temples” for the dead (Stracheyl612: 94-95). These isolated dwellings would not have gardens associated withthem, as the quiyoughcosough were supported entirely by the labor of others.In addition to these would be (3) village-hamlet sites, and (4) ossuaries, describedabove. Ossuaries, in particular, can potentially provide information concerning diet,health, and population structure, all of which can be determined from analysis of humanskeletal remains.SUB-THEME C: EARLY INTERACTION WITH EUROPEANSRecent scholarship on the contact period in Eastern North America argues for there-evaluation of the effects of contact with Europeans on various Native American groups(i.e., Wolf 1982). Subsistence practices, political organization, and other aspects of nativelife described in early sources, and until recently regarded by many as representativeof the pre-contact period, are now being shown to be in some cases the “artifacts”of contact. Whether the development of the Powhatan chiefdom itself was influencedby incipient contact with European traders and explorers is a matter of recent debate.Property types associated with the period 1560-1607 can potentially shed light on thedevelopment of the chiefdom, a topic of great theoretical and local scholarly interest.Such property types might include:(1) Single find sites. Even a single datable 16th-century European artifact from anundisturbed context would increase our knowledge about the dates and extent of earlycontact between natives and Europeans.Additional sites where such contact could be evaluated would be (2) ossuarieswhere trade goods might be buried, and where the osteological remains might providesome information concerning the physical effects of disease, warfare, and changes indiet as a result of contact; (3) campsites; (4) single-dwelling sites; and (5) village sites,where datable European artifacts might be found.106

TABLE 3.1STUDY UNITS V-VIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJAMES CITY COUNTY:JC 40 Burwell’s Landing AS III 09 Plantation? ExcavatedJC 119 Carter’s Grove AS II 09 Ossuary P.destroyedU-135* Webber Liggan Walls AS I 01 Village Unknown(Appocant?)U-136* Diascund Creek Site AS I 01 Village Unknown(Askakep?)U-137* Chickahominy Haven Site AS I 04 Village Unknown(Werawahon?)U-138* Head of Hog Neck Creek AS I 05 Village Unknown(Ozencik?)U-139* E.J. Hofmeyer Site AS I 05 Village UnknownU-140* Richmond Farm Site AS I 01 Village Unknown(Moysonec?)U-141* Brick Yard, Sims Marina AS I 04 Village Unknown(Oranieck?)YORK COUNTY:YO 2 Indian Fields (Chiskiack) AS I? 07 Village? UnknownCITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:CW-16C* Brafferton Hall SB III 06 School P.exc./rest.* Not shown on Map 3.1.** For explanation of codes and symbols, see Section 7 (Volume 3).The original distribution of Protohistoric sites within the study area is difficult todetermine. Cartographic evidence suggests that the highest density of sites of this periodwere located along the eastern bank of the Chickahominy, location of the Appocan,Askakep, Werawahon, Ozenick, Moysenec, and Oranieck villages; the southern bankof the York River, near present-day Yorktown; and possibly the banks of the JamesRiver, near Jamestown. Although no villages were noted on early maps betweenChiskiack and the mouth of the York, and along stretches of the James to the east ofJamestown Island, it seems likely that native habitations existed there as well. Populationfigures for these villages in 1608 indicate the presence of relatively dense occupationalong the rivers and their tributaries, but give little information about occupation ofthe interior region. Whether this pattern reflects the lack of mobility of early explorers,or actual aboriginal settlement pattern is unknown, as most modern surveys of the studyregion have concentrated on the river drainages as well. Table 3.1 summarizes knownsites for the study region which may date to the Protohistoric period, while Plates 3.1and 3.2 illustrate their distribution. Only a miniscule percentage of the probable originalnumber of sites dating to the Protohistoric period has been identified, and none havebeen fully excavated. Information about the state of preservation about those which107

Map 3.2. Study Units V-VII: Known Resource Distribution.have been identified is unavailable. Known sites associated with this study unit arelocated on Map 3.2.STUDY UNIT V: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitNational. The Lower Tidewater represents one of the few regions in the United Stateswhere late 16th- and early 17th-century interaction between early English settlers andNative Americans can be studied archaeologically. The high density of native populationin the region, and the early date of permanent European settlement make this theearliest region to witness sustained Indian-White interaction outside of the sphere ofSpanish influence. The experience gained by both groups in this early period of interactionwas in turn influential in guiding Indian-White interaction in other parts of the NewWorld.The Lower Tidewater was also the seat of the Powhatan chiefdom, one of the mostcomplex and well-documented among eastern Algonquian groups. As the first to en-108

counter the Europeans on the Atlantic coast, many Algonquian-speaking groups weredispersed or destroyed through disease and warfare before anything could be recordedabout their language and culture. In many areas, sites occupied by ProtohistoricAlgonquian groups have since been destroyed by later development, shore erosion, andlooting. As a result, in spite of a relatively large corpus of 17th-century documentarymaterial describing some Atlantic coastal groups, very little is known about the substanceof every-day native life, and about the changes native cultures underwent on theeve of European contact.Summary of Property TypesProperty types characteristic of this period can be summarized as follows:(1) Village sites. These include “principal villages” where the petty chiefs of eachdistrict resided and kept their storehouses, and other multiple-dwelling sitesranging in size from a few houses to twenty or thirty dwellings and publicbuildings.(2) Single-dwelling sites. Early descriptions of Powhatan settlement pattern notethat dwellings were occasionally dispersed linearly along river drainages, andthat individual families sometimes lived in isolated encampments, surroundedby their fields.(3) Temporary campsites. These include those sites which reflect temporary useby one or a few individuals. Sites of this type might include hunting or fishingstations, overnight camps, etc.(4) Single-function sites and features. These sites are generallyresource-procurement sites such as quarries, weirs, and tool-manufacturing sites.(5) Temples and priests’ houses. Powhatan priests, known as quiyoughcosough,lived in isolated dwellings which may have been part of, or separate from butnearby the temples they maintained. Priests’ houses have not been described indetail, and their distinctive qualities are unknown. It is likely, however, that thepriests’ houses had no associated gardens, as they did not farm for themselves.The temples were evidently framed structures with platforms on which thedessicated remains of important individuals were laid. The maintenance of theseremains and of the temple fire were the responsibility of the priests.(6) Ossuaries and single burials. These resources are in general massed interments,although individual graves have also been found. Ossuaries and singleburials can contain either articulated skeletons (bones in original association)arranged in an extended (laid out flat) or flexed (bent at the knees) position; ordisarticulated (ritually rearranged) skeletons. Remains were often crematedbefore burial as well.Character of Existing DataIn spite of the relative wealth of documentary data describing many aspects of Powhatanculture during the early decades of the Protohistoric period, very little is known about109

the period archaeologically within the study area. One site in York County and ninesites in James City County have been identified as Protohistoric, but none have beenadequately described, or fully excavated, and the artifacts recovered from those sitesare not readily available for study.Criteria for EvaluationThe significance of the period to both colonial and Native American history (NationalRegister Criteria A and D) lends importance to any find dating to this period regardlessof context or integrity. Ideally, of course, a well-preserved village site, or even that of asingle family dwelling which included features such as dwellings, storage pits, dryingracks, etc., would be extremely significant. Ossuaries and other burial sites are alsoextremely valuable sources of information, in any state of preservation. Even sites whichhave been disturbed or partially destroyed are potentially valuable sources of informationabout native settlement pattern, and can also provide additional data concerning thedate and nature of early Indian-White contact.\Present Condition of Property TypesOf the ten sites that have been identified as early Protohistoric within the study area (seeMap 3.1), none has received adequate study. More importantly, none are adequatelyprotected, and nothing is known about their current condition.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesWhile many of the research questions outlined above can be answered with archaeologicalinformation from disturbed sites and single-find sites, many of the more complexquestions can only be addressed through detailed excavation of a number of closelydated sites. In particular, information concerning diet, subsistence activities, and seasonalitycan only be obtained through detailed analysis of soils, floral and faunal remains,geological formations, and other similar data sources. Moreover, since many ofthe arguments regarding the development of the Powhatan chiefdom depend on exactknowledge of site date-ranges and locations, significant additional survey data and precisedating efforts are necessary.The significance of sites of the Protohistoric period highlights one of the majordilemmas of the resource management process. Sites of this period are so precious thatthey deserve preservation above all others. At the same time, information derived fromthese sites is of vital importance to scholars, and of great interest to the general public.The ideal management strategy for these sites is thus debatable, and decisions are dependenton data about surviving sites within the study area that is not yet available.It would seem advisable, however, to recommend that at least one site of each type,i.e., single-dwelling site, village site, ossuary, campsite, special-use site, etc., be “banked”and protected as a national resource. Some “banked” sites might be preserved for excavationat some future date, when techniques have improved, or when sufficient fundingand time is available to excavate them as fully and accurately as possible.110

Preservation of a small number of representative sites of the Proto- historic perioddoes not seem impossible in the light of local land-use policies and development plans.Many sites of the Protohistoric period are located along river and stream drainages, andnear wetland sites. All jurisdictions within the study area have “green-belt” restrictions,scenic easement provisions, wetland protection ordinances, and other practices which,if used in a timely manner, could ensure the protection of significant sites. In addition,many of the areas where significant sites of this period are thought to be located arereserved by the federal government, for parks or military installations, and are thustheoretically protected by federal legislation.At the same time, riparian sites are in many areas targeted for development byfederal, state, county, and private agencies. While little can be done outside of invokingthe ordinances listed above to prevent destruction of sites on private lands, threatenedsites owned by the federal government, the county and the state, or those located inproject areas using federal funds or federally guaranteed loans (see “Management Plans”for a more complete discussion of mitigation and compliance), can and should be studiedas fully as possible before destruction. In “salvage” projects of this kind, informationnecessary to answer research questions such as those listed above can be acquired.In situations where development of a property is flexible, sites should be avoided or“banked” and the limited funds available for salvage work should be applied only whendestruction is unavoidable.An exception to the above statement would be those sites on both public and privatelands that can be excavated using research grant funds, which are available from avariety of sources to qualified scholars. Excavations of this kind might be regulatedformally and informally by the state archaeologist, in cooperation with groups such asCouncil of Virginia Archaeologists (COVA) and the Archaeological Society of Virginia(ASV), whose responsibility it would be to ensure that proper techniques were employed,and that a report was completed.Given the research problems identified above, particularly the debate concerningthe origins and development of the Powhatan chiefdom, survey and excavation directedtowards more detailed understanding of subsistence, population size and density, andpopulation movement during the Protohistoric period is recommended. Single-find sitesand those that have been disturbed can provide significant information about populationdistribution, while well-preserved sites can potentially contribute a great deal to ourknowledge of diet, environment, community size and structure, and other factors crucialto understanding Powhatan social and political development during the Protohistoricperiod. Specific areas within James City County that would seem to merit detailed surveywould be the eastern bank of the Chickahominy River, any of its drainages, and theshoreline along the James. In addition, the well-drained soils near any significant wetland,lakeshores and ponds should also be closely surveyed. Ideally, those areas currentlypart of military installations should be included in this survey as well.In York County, as well as in Poquoson,the terrace along the York River is highlysensitive for sites of this period, as are well-drained soils near wetlands, inlets, lakes,and ponds.Information derived from these surveys, as well as that currently available (seeMaps 7.1 and 7.2) could then be used as a basis for building siting, zoning changes, anddevelopment limitations.111

Since all sites of this period are of extremely high significance those already locatedshould be carefully protected, if possible, and fully excavated if not. In particular,for James City County, those sites located by McCary and Barka along the Chickahominy(Barka and McCary 1969; McCary and Barka 1977) are highly significant, and that areamay merit the creation of an historic district to protect them.In York County, the Chiskiack site is also significant, and although now occupiedby the Naval Weapons Station, should be protected, if possible.For sites of this period which are scheduled to be destroyed, and for those to beexcavated by individual researchers, several levels of analysis are recommended. First,detailed documentary research to determine the probable ethnic identity of the group, aswell as any information about lifeways, material culture, etc., represented at the siteshould be carried out, as well as a survey of previous work at or near the site. Secondly,as detailed excavation as possible, including chemical analysis, collection of soil samples,cores, floatation samples, and carbon-14 datable materials. Finally, intensive laboratoryanalysis, and report preparation should be required. It should be emphasized, that giventhe significance of sites of this period, that excavation of unthreatened sites onpublicly-owned lands should only be permitted when all the conditions described abovehave been ensured.Identification Goals• Conduct surveys of archaeologically sensitive areas including all major and minordrainages, river terraces, and well-drained areas near marshes, ponds, and estuaries.• Do further documentary research to identify possible site locations and the ethnicidentity of site occupants.Evaluation Goals• Test intensively those sites identified in the Chickahominy River Survey to evaluatetheir integrity and research potential according to criteria outlined above.• Conduct further tests at Chiskiack, to determine its extent, condition, and informationpotential.Registration Goals• Take steps necessary to nominate the Chiskiack Site and possibly those sites locatedon the Chickahominy River Survey to the National Register.Treatment Goals• Conserve and analyze all artifacts located through Chickahominy River Survey,and excavation of the Chiskiack Site.112

STUDY UNIT VI.POWHATAN STRUGGLE TO RETAIN LAND, POWER,AND CULTURAL AUTONOMY (A.D. 1607–A.D. 1644)Sub-Themes: A. Competition with the English for resources.B. Internal social conflict.C. Disease and the toll of warfare.D. The uprisings of l622.E. Powhatan political realignment: the formation of smaller,multi-ethnic communities.F. The uprising of 1644.Significance: NationalWhatever the nature of Protohistoric culture change among the Powhatan, one aspect ofnative life which was rapidly affected by contact was population size, structure, anddistribution. Following English settlement at Jamestown in 1607, several observers recordednative population figures, and at least four maps survive which document thelocation of the greater than 120 settlements of the Powhatan (see Plates 3.1 and 3.2).Table 3.2 summarizes population figures among some Powhatan groups during the17th century, although most scholars believe that early descriptions underreported theirnumbers. Based on comparison with similar groups, and on calculations of minimumfamily size, it appears that Powhatan population ranged from 14,000 to 21,000, or 2persons per square mile in 1607 (Feest 1978: 256; Turner 1976, 1982b). The primarycause of population decline appears to have been introduced disease, with warfare andout-migration also contributing. Population decline as a result of disease may have becamesignificant before the establishment of Jamestown, for Spanish Jesuits who visitedthe York River in 1570 were told that the area had recently seen a time of wastingfamine, which had depopulated the area (Lewis and Loomie 1953: 88). Whether thedistribution of native population described at the time of the earliest reports reflects acontact phenomenon, or an aboriginal pattern, is as yet unknown. It appears likely, however,that if native population growth and distribution were directly related to the formationof the Powhatan chiefdom which was in turn influenced by the peripheral effectsof contact with Europeans, that early contact period native population distributionwas also in part an “artifact” of contact (but see Binford 1964; Turner 1976).The establishment of the first permanent English settlement at Jamestown had severeand lasting effects on native life on the Peninsula. The Powhatan, whose previousexperience with Europeans had been generally hostile, reacted to the settlers with suspicion,vacillating between avoidance and small acts of violence, to willingness to helpthe colonists adjust to their new environment. In this, the Powhatan may have been tornbetween fear of new ways and desire to enhance their own powers, through the appropriationand redistribution of European goods (Lurie 1959: 44).Although the Powhatan could have rid themselves of the English colonists in theearly years of settlement, they hesitated, making several overtures of alliance, including113

TABLE 3.2.SELECTED 17TH-CENTURY POWHATAN POPULATION FIGURES(after Feest 1978:257)1608a** 1608b** 1610** 1619** 1703**Appamatuck 200 200 400 165 30Arrohateck 100 100 200 — —Cantauncack — — 335 — —Caposepock — — 1335 — —Cattachiptico — — 1000 — —Chesapeake 335 335 335 — —Chickahominy 665 835 1000 200 55Kecoughtan 65 65 100 — —*Kiskiack 135-165 135-165 165 50 —*Mattaponi 100 100 465 65 —Menapacunt — — 335 — —Nansemond 665 665 665 150 100Orapaks — — 165 — —Pamareke — — 1335 — —Pamunkey 1000 1000 1000 165 135Paraconosko — — 35 — —*Paspahegh 135 135 135 — —Potaunk — — 335 — —Payankatank 135 165-200 135-165 — —Potchayick — — — 100 —Powhatan 135 135 165 35 —Quacohamaock — — 135 — —Quiyoughcohannock 85 85 200 — —Shamapent — — 335 — —Warraskoyack 135 135 200 — —Weanock 335 335 500 50 fewWerowocomoco 135 135 135 — —Youghtanund 200 200 235 — —TOTALS 4560-4590 4860-5025 11,380 — —11,410* Native settlement within the project area.** 1608a,b= Smith; 1610= Strachey; 1669= Hening; 1703= Beverley.the marriage of one of Powhatan’s daughters, Pocahontas, to the English settler JohnRolfe.At the same time, the native settlements located nearest to Jamestown and theearly hundreds were relocated further west, and the native lands acquired by the expandingEnglish. When the English intention to forcibly occupy all lands on the Peninsulabecame clear, the natives, incited by the quiyoughsough, rose against the colonistson March 22, 1622, killing 350 in a single day. Although this blow debilitated the earlycolony, the Powhatan were only partially successful in forging a native alliance, which114

left them vulnerable to increasingly destructive English counterattack in the followingdecades.The Powhatan rose for a second time on April 18, 1644, killing several hundredcolonists, but after two years of sporadic hostilities were defeated and relegated to tributarystatus. Martha McCartney notes that by 1646, what amounted to a deliberate strategyby the English to rid the eastern Peninsula of Indians had succeeded in removingthe majority of the surviving native population west, up the Chickahominy River, andsoon after, as far as the Pamunkey (McCartney 1984: 102).Documentary sources for this period of intense interaction between the first Englishsettlers and the Powhatan are extensive, being those noted in the previous studyunit as well. In addition, land patent records and other governmental records often providevaluable information about Indian-White interaction, as well as about native populationmovements. While this documentary data is valuable, it represents only the Englishperspective on this period.In spite of the limitations of the documentary record, a number of excellent studiesof early-contact period Powhatan culture have been completed or are in progress.These include the linguistic analysis of Powhatan language by Frank Siebert (1975),Maurice Mook’s classic study of the Powhatan social organization (1943), Mooney’sreconstruction of Powhatan society (1907), later work by Frank Speck (1928), and anupcoming work on Powhatan traditional culture by Helen Rountree (n.d.). A brief, butsignificant study of Powhatan symbolic structure as it was reflected in hairstyles hasrecently been published by Margaret Williamson (1979). With the exception of Siebertand Williamson, however, these studies are traditional reconstructions of the “ethnographicpresent,” and little attempt has been made to understand the effects of earlycontact on Powhatan culture. Moreover, as Williamson’s study shows, the data availableon early historic period Powhatan culture is analyzable from a number of currenttheoretical perspectives, few of which have yet been applied.Archaeological data, which has served in other areas to overcome to some extentthe bias of the documentary records describing Native Americans, is very fragmentaryfor the study area. Most of the sites described in the previous study unit may date to thisperiod as well, and the surveys designed to locate Protohistoric sites, such as theChickahominy River Survey, may have located slightly later sites as well, althoughdating of these sites in not refined enough to pinpoint them exactly in time. As notedabove, none of these sites have been fully excavated or adequately reported.SUB-THEME A: COMPETITION WITH THE ENGLISH FORRESOURCESProperty types outlined for Study Unit V are likely to be representative of the earlyportion of this study unit as well, with the significant introduction of European tradegoods, and perhaps Colono-ware at many of these sites (for a further discussion of thecontroversy surrounding Colono-ware, see Study Unit XVII).They include: (1) campsites; (2) single-dwelling sites; and (3) village sites. Villagesites, where data reflecting changes in diet and subsistence practices is most likelyto be found in discrete assemblages, can also be studied in the aggregate to determine ifnative settlement pattern changed significantly during the period between 1607 and115

1622, and if so, if it was related in any way to competition for resources. Site distributioncould be plotted against soils maps, as well as reconstructed floral and faunal distributionmaps to determine their correlation to site relocation. Early English patent recordsand government reports could also be analyzed to obtain information about Englishpopulation distribution, which might in turn shed light on the native settlement patternduring this period.SUB-THEME B: INTERNAL SOCIAL CONFLICTIn the same way, conflict between the various native groups is most likely to be reflectedin native settlement movements with respect to one another, and is most likely tobe reflected in a study of the distribution of (1) village-hamlet sites.SUB-THEME C: DISEASE AND THE TOLL OF WARFAREThe spatial patterning of (1) village-hamlet sites, to the extent that it documents populationdecline or out-migration would also provide some information about the effectsof disease and warfare, both with the English, and with other Indians on the Powhatanpopulation. More specific information, however, is likely to come from human remains,generally found in (2) single burial features and (3) ossuaries. These property typescontain human osteological material that can be analyzed to determine diet, populationstructure, the presence of a number of diseases, as well as general health conditionsamong the Powhatan.SUB-THEME D: THE UPRISING OF 1622In addition to indications of the relocation of (1) village-hamlet sites out of the reach ofthe English, the property types most likely to reflect this specific historical event are (2)English settlements where conflict with Native Americans took place, and (3) the gravesof victims of that conflict.SUB-THEME E: POWHATAN POLITICAL REALIGNMENT: THEFORMATION OF SMALLER MULTI-ETHNIC COMMUNITIESLike other Algonquian-speaking groups in contact with European settlers in the 17thcentury, the Powhatan were forced after a short period to abandon preferred settlementsites, to ally themselves with nearby groups for tactical purposes, and to cope withmassive population losses by intermarriage, adoption of children from other groups,and the formation of multi-ethnic communities. Even in the absence of tension, theheterogeneity of these communities would be reflected in variations within classes ofmaterial objects within (1) a single multi-dwelling site. Changes in marriage patterns,post-marital residence, and division of labor could also be reflected in (2) village-hamletsites.Since the merging of the petty chiefdoms must often have led to conflicts betweenpriviledged lineages and leaders, new ways of marking status may be reflected in mate-116

ial culture of dwelling sites, and in grave goods found in (3) ossuaries and (4) singleburial features as well.SUB-THEME F: THE UPRISING OF 1644As with the earlier conflict, the property types reflecting this specific incident are mostlikely to be (1) English settlements and homesteads where conflict took place, and (2)the graves of victims.The original distribution of native settlements during the early period of sustainedcontact is expected to conform to the early cartographic descriptions of the area, notablySmith’s map of l608 (see Plates 3.1 and 3.2). Little is known about the movement ofthe native population after the founding of Jamestown, and before the uprising of 1622.Between 1622 and 1644, while native settlements near the Fall Line remained in place,some of the permanent settlements of the Powhatan in the study unit area were movedfurther north to Pamunkey Neck (Chickahominy), Piscataway Creek (Mattaponi), orsouth. Although scattered references to “Indian houses” and “Indian fields” in the YorkCounty records dating to this period may possibly refer to isolated native enclaves mayhave survived until the 1640s near the York River, although it is more likely that thesereferences are to abandoned fields.Few sites of this period, which can be positively identified as Native American,have been located or tested. One site, which provides graphic evidence of the 1622uprising, has been extensively excavated at Wolstenholme Towne (see Study Unit IX).Survey and excavation of sites along the eastern bank of the Chickahominy have identifiedseveral historic Indian sites which may have been occupied after 1607. TheChickahominy Survey also produced evidence that at least one major village, Paspahegh,was moved soon after the English arrival at Jamestown (Barka and McCary 1969; McCaryand Barka 1977). It is possible that at least one native site of this period was destroyedduring the excavations at Jamestown, judging from the surviving artifacts. No siteshave been well studied, nor has an adequate survey of other likely settlement locationsbeen undertaken.In sum, given the lack of archaeological evidence necessary to address the researchquestions addressed above, and the bias of the documentary sources, as well asthe great significance of sites of this period to Native American and Euro-Americanhistory, the following operating plan is recommended.STUDY UNIT VI: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitNational. Native American sites dating to the period 1607 to 1622 are among the mostimportant sites within the project area. These sites, like those described for the previousstudy unit, represent the earliest sustained interaction between Indians and Europeansoutside the Spanish colonies. Moreover, sites of this period are likely to reflect early117

attempts by the Powhatan to adjust to massive population loss, military threat, and competitionfor resources, all aspects of culture change of great interest to social scientists.Summary of Property TypesProperty types for the period 1607-1622 include the following:(1) Village and hamlet sites. These are multi-dwelling sites, some of which mayhave been chiefs’ residences.(2) Single-dwelling sites. Included in this category are all single house-sites occupiedfor an extended period.(3) Temporary camp sites. These are sites which were occupied only temporarilyas dwellings.(4) Single-function sites. These would include all resource-procurement sites andfeatures such as weirs.(5) Temples and priests’ houses. Such sites would include isolated dwelling siteswithout associated gardens, and the remains of framed structures containinghuman skeletal material, hearths, and grave goods.(6) Ossuaries and single-burial features. Included in this category are massedand single burials, which would include both traditional native grave goods,and European trade goods as well.(7) Trading posts. These are sites, probably of English origin, where Indians andEnglish traders met to exchange goods.Character of Existing DataA total of twelve sites have been identified within the study area which may date to theperiod 1607-1622. These sites, Chiskiack and nine sites located during the ChickahominyRiver Survey, were not completely excavated, and have never been fully reported.Criteria for EvaluationAs the archaeological data base for sites of this period is virtually non-existent, anysite, ranging from a single find site to an entire village, would be significant, regardlessof disturbance. Well preserved habitation sites, both single-dwelling and multi-dwelling,would contain the greatest variety of information, but single-function sites, burials, andthose that have been disturbed can still provide data concerning settlement distribution,trade, and population movement. Crucial to any evaluation of these sites would be adequatedating information derived from intensive survey and testing.Present Condition of Property TypesNothing is known about the present condition of the twelve sites associated with thisstudy unit.118

Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesAs for the previous study unit, the sites of this period, (which may in fact be sitescontinuously occupied from the previous decades) are nationally important resources.Ideally, at least one site of each type, i.e., village, single-dwelling site, ossuary, andspecial-function site, should be preserved or “banked”, some perhaps for future excavation.Where preservation is not possible, ideal treatment would include complete excavation,including detailed analysis of soils, floral and faunal remains, and collection ofdatable materials. Minimal treatment should include survey, testing, surface collectionof artifacts, and monitoring for features in the event that the site is destroyed. Knownsites of this period should be carefully protected from pot-hunters.The preservation of significant sites is not inconsistent with land-use policies forany of the jurisdictions within the study area. “Green-belt” space, “open-space,” andscenic easement policies can all be brought to bear in attempts to preserve sites. Sincemany of the sites are likely to be near rivers, lakes and wetland areas, environmentalprotection ordinances can be invoked as well. Where development siting is flexible,archaeological sites can also be avoided, and preserved as part of landscaping, underparking lots, etc.When destruction of sites is unavoidable, whatever resources are available fromlocal and state agencies, colleges and private sources should be directed towards collectingthe maximum amount of information possible from each site before its destruction.Even in the absence of funding, limited monitoring of the site is usually possible,and can be carried out without interfering with construction.Identification Goals• Before these alternative management strategies can be effective, detailed archaeologicalsurvey of the study area is needed to determine the distribution of suchsites, while a systematic search of the primary source material is needed to providefurther clues to native movements during this period.Evaluation Goals• Intensive testing and dating of sites already located on the Chickahominy RiverSurvey to determine dates and boundaries.• Intensive testing of the Chiskiack Site, to determine dates, boundaries, and informationpotential.Registration Goals• Nominate sites located on Chickahominy River Survey to the National Register.• Nominate the Chiskiack Site to the National Register.119

Treatment Goals• Take steps to protect the Chiskiack Site by contacting Naval Weapons Station, andoutlining a series of protection alternatives.• Take steps to discourage looting and pot-hunting of sites on public property, and toeducate the public about the importance of protecting sites of this period.• Once sites have been identified, an effort to protect and preserve as many as possibleis recommended. For example, those sites along the eastern bank of theChickahominy which have been identified through survey could be protected bythe creation of a historic district, or a park, in that area, as well as by the enforcementof easement ordinances, etc.• Those sites which appear to be threatened with destruction should be excavated ifpossible, and monitored if not (see Section 8 for specific strategies).120

STUDY UNIT VII.POWHATAN CULTURAL CHANGE ANDREADJUSTMENT (A.D. 1644–A.D. 1677)Sub-Themes: A. Native community life after the demise of the chiefdom.B. Effects of population loss.C. Inter-group conflict.D. Land cessions and treaty relationships with the English.E. Bacon’s Rebellion.F. The establishment of the Virginia Indian reservations.Significance: RegionalAlthough significant Indian occupation of the study area had ceased after 1644, theirlater history elsewhere is relevant to that of the Williamsburg area, particularly in theperiod of Bacon’s Rebellion. In 1649, the Pumunkey were provided with reservationlands. Members of the Pamunkey and Chickahominy tribes fought for the English againstforeign Indians in the 1650s and 1660s, but anti-Indian sentiment remained strong amongthe colonists, and culminated in Bacon’s Rebellion, when several non-combative groupsof Chickahominy, Pamunkey, and Appamatuck were attacked. In 1677 a treaty with thesurviving tribes of the Powhatan and the English was adopted, in which many of thesewere placed under the subjection of the Queen of Pamunkey. The Chickahominy occupiedreservation lands on the Mattaponi at the time of Thomas Story’s visit to the area(Story 1747: 14), but later lost them. Little is known about the history of the Mattaponiin the 18th century, and it appears likely that the Mattaponi, Chickahominy, and Pamunkeywere frequently intermixed during that period (McCartney, pers. comm. l985).The Powhatan were essentially monolingual in their native language until the early18th century, and had little contact with whites after the establishment of the reservations.Some natives served as scouts and interpreters for the English, and others becameservants. The lives of the majority of the surviving native population appear to havebeen greatly disrupted during this period, with various groups merging with one another,and with frequent movement from place to place, in an attempt to avoid enslavement,persecution, and further land loss. The Chickahominy were temporarily alliedwith the Pamunkey in 1646, and were awarded a reservation of their own in 1661 (Hening1823 [II]: 34). The Chiskiacks migrated to the south side of the Piankatank River, wherethey received land in 1649 (McCartney, pers. comm. 1985). Other natives from the lowerYork and James Rivers probably merged with the Pamunkey and Mattaponi on thePamunkey Reservation, established between the Pamunkey and Mattaponi Rivers(Rountree n.d.: 4). It is possible that some small enclaves of natives remained within thestudy area during the period between 1644 and 1677, although no sites of this periodhave yet been located. Extensive documentary research conducted by Martha McCartney(1984 and elsewhere) has suggested the presence of a small number of military postsand checkpoints established to control the movement of Indians in and out of the LowerPeninsula, but none have been confirmed archaeologically. Some archaeological surveyhas been undertaken on the Pamunkey Reservation, and documentary research by121

the staff of the VRCA in preparation for submitting National Register nominations forthe Pamunkey and Mattaponi Reservations suggests the presence of 17th-century structureson these reservations, but none have yet been located.By far the most extensive research carried out on this period has been conductedby Helen Rountree (1974, n.d., and elsewhere), and Martha McCartney (1984 andelsewhere). Both Rountree and McCartney have attempted to trace the movements ofthe various surviving Powhatan groups, and to outline the history of the reservationsin Virginia. Rountree has also conducted extensive research on the so-called “citizen”Indians and non-reservation Indians in eastern Virginia (1972, 1972a, n.d.). A recentstudy by Michael Puglisi (1985) has further clarified the history of the westernChickahominy, supplementing earlier work by Stern (1952).Since documentary sources for the period consist mainly of colonial governmentalrecords and maps, these studies have, out of necessity, focused on the politicalhistory of the various groups, and on Indian-White interaction. Little is known aboutnative community life, subsistence, language-use, or material culture (but see Rountreen.d.). It seems likely that archaeological research could answer some of those questions,while additional linguistic analysis might yield greater understanding of Powhatanlanguage and language change.SUB-THEME A: NATIVE COMMUNITY LIFE AFTER THEDEMISE OF THE CHIEFDOMWhat little is known about the material surroundings of the natives during the late 17thcentury suggests that these Indians retained much of their traditional material culture, aswell as their native language (e.g., Story 1747: 14). Sites of this period should thereforeexhibit many of the characteristics of earlier Protohistoric native habitations, including(1) village-hamlet sites, (2) single-dwelling sitess, (3) campsites, as well as (4) burials,with the addition of European goods dating to the latter suggests that natives mayalso have constructed or lived in “English-style” houses by the 1640s, as well as intraditional wigwams.SUB-THEME B: EFFECTS OF POPULATION LOSSPopulation loss due to disease and warfare undoubtedly had severe effects on nativesocial life. Political organization, the transferral of authority and of material possessions,and orderly role transitions were altered by the deaths of individuals of every ageand sex. Physical evidence for such disruption would most likely be in the form of (1)burials, where the human osteological material would provide evidence for health conditionsamong the general native population, as well as for the altered population structure.SUB-THEME C: INTER-GROUP CONFLICTConflict among the various surviving remnants of the Powhatan chiefdom is most likelyto be reflected in the remains of settlements, particularly (1) villages, and (2) singledwellingsites, which show evidence of movement relative to one another.122

SUB-THEME D: LAND CESSIONS AND TREATY RELATIONSWITH THE ENGLISH(1) Trading posts, and (2) military check points are possible property types associatedwith this sub-theme, although these would have been constructed and occupied by theEnglish. As noted above, no sites from this period have been identified archaeologicallywithin the study area.SUB-THEME E: BACON’S REBELLIONBacon’s Rebellion, which began with attacks by Bacon’s forces on noncombative Indianvillages outside the study area, would be reflected archaeologically on the Peninsulalargely by sites and structures associated with Bacon’s seige of Jamestown, andwith activities at Green Spring. For further discussion of these properties, see StudyUnit XXIII.SUB-THEME F: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE VIRGINIAINDIAN RESERVATIONSProperty types associated with this sub-theme, in general those associated withpresent-day and early 18th-century Virginia Indian reservations, are not located withinthe study area.SUMMARYThis study unit marks the final stage of occupation of the study area by significantnumbers of Native Americans. As such, its study merits additional attention from historiansand archaeologists alike. Further documentary search of all primary source materialis particularly necessary to determine the economic role of those Indians remainingwithin the study area, as well the nature of their way of life.STUDY UNIT VII: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitNational (?); Regional. Sites of this period are arguably significant both nationally andregionally, particularly in light of the history of Indian-White relations in the New World.In reaction to the near successes of the uprisings of 1622 and 1644, English policytowards the Virginia Indians solidified by mid-century with the establishment of thefirst reservations. These reservations became the model for colonial and later federalpolicy elsewhere. Anti-Indian sentiment was one cause of the outbreak of Bacon’s Rebellion,considered by many to represent the first sign of colonial resistance to Englishsovereignty.123

Regionally, sites of this period are of great significance to an understanding toVirginia Indian history. Documentary records for the period are scarce and biased. Almostnothing is known about native culture or community life during this period, norare native population movements well-understood.Summary of Property TypesSites of this period, if any were to be found would probably include:(1) Hamlet sites. Small clusters of domestic structures, with associated gardensand storage features.(2) Single-dwelling sites. Isolated dwellings with associated fields. While it ismost likely that the dwellings took the traditional form, it is also possible thatsome natives built or had built “English-style” dwellings within villages and inisolated locations.(3) Campsites. The most likely property type for this period. Temporary campsused while hunting, fishing, or trading.(4) Single-function sites. Another probable site-type for this period: temporary orlong-term resource procurement sites such as quarries, or features such as weirs.(5) Ossuaries and single-burial features. Disease and warfare, which escalatedduring this period, make large burial features a likely property type for thisstudy unit. These features are likely to include, in addition to native andEuropean-originated grave goods, human skeletal remains showing evidenceof disease, change in diet, and the effects of war.(6) Trading posts and checkpoints. Of English origin, these possible site-typeswould reflect trade between Indians and the English, and English attempts toregulate the flow of native traffic in and out of the Lower Peninsula by establishinga line of forts and check points through which the Indian was requiredto pass.Criteria for EvaluationSince the likelihood that many Indians remained within the study area during this periodis small, any site representing native life at this time is potentially significant, regardlessof its state of preservation. Crucial to the identification and evaluation of sitesof this period is adequate dating information.Present Condition of Property TypesNo sites dating to this period have been identified, hence their condition is unknown.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesSites of this period, should any be discovered, should be preserved at all costs. If preservationis not feasible, full excavation should be an extremely high priority. Since the124

number of sites of this period within the study area is likely to be small at best, preservationusing existing ordinances should be possible.Identification Goals• Detailed archaeological survey to locate sites of this period, and field checks tolocate map researched sites are recommended as the highest priority.• Additional map research and study of land records is also recommended to provideadditional information about native settlements and population movements.125

126

STUDY UNIT VIII.RESERVATION INDIAN AND CITIZEN INDIAN(A.D. 1677–present)Sub-Themes: A. Continuities with the past: native traditions redefined.B. Establishment of native schools.C. Native enclaves and citizen Indians.D. Early anthropological studies.Significance: RegionalBy the end of the 18th century, only four reservations survived in Virginia: the Pamunkey/Mattaponi, the Nansemond, the Gingaskin, and the Nottaway. Most of the other smallenclaves and settlements disappeared or merged with larger groups. The Chickahominy,plagued by neighboring English incursions on their lands, finally lost their reservationthrough illegal sale (Rountree n.d.: 5). Faced with few alternatives, the Chickahominybecame squatters on white-owned land, and eked out a scant living as farmers, whilesupplementing their diet and income with more traditional activities such as hunting,fishing, and trapping.Racial discrimination against Indians increased in the late 17th century, althoughIndians were not officially designated non-white until 1705. Economic deprivation,dependence, and discrimination led to further decline in tribal consciousness, althoughall surviving groups retained ties with Indians in other regions, and although in manyways altered, the reservation families continued to practice some elements of the “traditional”native lifestyle well into the 20th century.SUB-THEME A: CONTINUITIES WITH THE PAST: NATIVETRADITIONS REDEFINEDNative women continued to farm, adding cash crops such as cotton to their gardens(Stern 1952). Wild game and foods continued to play an important part in native diet.Livestock was introduced in the late 18th century, and some natives made pottery forthe tourist trade in the 19th century. Baskets were manufactured by most Indians untilthe mid-20th century, and some still retain that skill. Property types associated withtraditional life include beside (1) dwellings and (2) campsites, examples of those nativecrafts produced in some cases until the previous generation including canoes, baskets,pottery, and various hunting and fishing implements.SUB-THEME B: ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIVE SCHOOLSBy 1705, an Indian school was established at the College of William and Mary, and washoused at Brafferton Hall (Plate 3.3). The experiment did not last long, however, andmany of the native students were not of Powhatan origin. Some Virginia Indians werelater educated at Hampton Institute, established by the Freedman’s Bureau in the mid-19th127

Plate 3.3. Brafferton Hall.128

century. Properties include (1) school buildings, of which Brafferton Hall at the Collegeof Williamsburg is an example.SUB-THEME C: NATIVE ENCLAVES AND CITIZEN INDIANSMany Indians continued to live in the Lower Peninsula area. A small enclave ofnative-descended families resided in Yorktown in the early 20th century (Speck 1928),although these do not identify themselves as Indian (Rountree, pers. comm. 1985), andin 1970, several hundred residents of Newport News and Hampton claimed Indian descent(Feest 1978; Rountree 1973). Although major modern native political strengthderives from the two reservations of the Pamunkey and the Mattaponi, and from theChickahominy tribe, to the west of the project area, individual native families still residewithin our study region, whose history is closely tied to these tribes, and who tracetheir ancestry to the historic Powhatan (Rountree 1973). Resources associated with thissub-theme include (1) the dwellings of individual Indian families, and (2) the locationsof Indian servant activities, mainly associated with English settlements.SUB-THEME D: EARLY ANTHROPOLOGICAL STUDIESInterest in the surviving Virginia tribes, as well as in the Powhatan chiefdom, revived inthe late 19th century. The first of the early ethnographic studies of eastern Indians carriedout by the staff of the Bureau of American Ethnology, included descriptions of thePamunkey (Dalrymple 1858; Gatschet 1890-1893, 1894; Pollard 1894). Many of theseearly modern studies were concerned with questions of language survivals, etymologies,especially of place names, and with placing Virginia Algonquian within the largerframework of the Algonquian language family.Early 20th-century anthropological interest in surviving eastern Indians led to severalstudies by Mooney (1907), Speck (1928), and his students (e.g., Stern 1952). Mostof these studies were concerned with the questions of acculturation, cultural survivals,and material culture (Bushnell 1907). These early anthropological studies remain usefulas records of Indian life in the early part of the 20th century, although many of thetheoretical perspectives, particularly the concept of acculturation, are now out of favor.While interest in acculturation, material culture, and cultural survivals continuedto be reflected in works dealing with the Virginia Algonquian, a new interest in thewriting of Native American history, which came to be known as ethnohistory, emergedin the early 20th century. Maurice Mook may have been among the first to use the term“ethnohistory,” to describe his anthropological study of the Powhatan using documentarysources (1943).Another trend in historical research which emerged in the 1950s, was the study ofIndian-White relations. Washburn’s study of Bacon’s Rebellion (1957) and BernardSheehan’s (1980) literary analysis of contact period narratives raised issues of culturalbias, ethnicity, racism, and resistance as they related to Virginia Indian and White history.In spite of these studies, and more recent treatments by Rountree (1972, 1972a,1973, n.d., and others) and Puglisi (1985), little concomitant archaeological research129

has been done. The major exception to this general lack of interest in later historicperiod Indian communities and enclaves is the recently completed study of the Pamunkeyreservation by the staff of the VRCA. Resources associated with this sub-theme include(1) notes taken by early ethnologists, and (2) artifact and ethnographic collectionsmade by them.STUDY UNIT VIII: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitRegional. Although the physical presence of Indians in the study area in the late 18th,19th, and 20th centuries has been minimal, their impact on the shape of Tidewater societycontinues to be felt. To name only one example of the continuing influence of theVirginia Indians, native place names are still in common use for many locations withinthe study area. Native American museum exhibits at the Yorktown Victory Center, atthe National Park Service Center at Jamestown, the Jamestown Festival Park, and theCarter’s Grove Visitor Center attract many visitors yearly.Summary of Property TypesAlthough no archaeological sites of this period have been identified, potential resourcesmight include:(1) Single-dwelling sites. These would include domestic sites and associated fieldsand campsites.(2) Single-function sites. It is possible that natives continued to make use of specialresource areas such as quarries, although no documentary evidence for thisactivity exists for the period.(3) Trading posts and checkpoints. As the major form of interaction between theIndians and non-Indian residents of the Lower Peninsula after 1644 was thatassociated with trade, or with the Indians as scouts guides, evidence of theirpresence within the study area might well be reflected in English- built outposts,especially those near major travelling routes, both land and water.(4) Dwellings and work-areas of Indian servants. Documentary evidence for theuse of Indian servants by the English suggests that some might have been livingand working in the study area on English homesteads and plantations.(5) Indian schools. A school for native students was established at the College ofWilliam and Mary, and ultimately housed in Brafferton Hall. Whether otherIndian schools were present in the study area is not known.(6) Native artifacts and ethnographic notes collected by anthropologists workingin this and other areas of Virginia.130

Character of Existing DataWith the exception of Brafferton Hall, which is still standing, no archaeological or architecturalevidence for any of the resources listed above has been recovered for thestudy area, and very little documentary data is available for studying native life duringthis period.Criteria for EvaluationAs for all property types associated with the Protohistoric and historic Indian occupationof the study area, sites and structures associated with this study unit are of highestsignificance, regardless of integrity.Present Condition of Property TypesBrafferton Hall, location of the Indian School at the College of William and Mary, isstill standing, and is in excellent condition, although it has been heavily altered andrestored. No other sites of this period have been identified, and their condition is unknown.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesIdentification Goals• Conduct further documentary research to determine the extent and nature of nativepresence in the study area in the late 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.Evaluation Goals• Evaluate Brafferton Hall to determine if it contains any evidence of native use orpresence, and if it is of potential use for public education about native life in thearea.Treatment Goals• Given the great public interest in the history and culture of Native Americans, andtheir contributions to modern Virginia society, efforts to recognize their modernpresence within the study area are recommended. Museum exhibits, oral historyprojects, and further documentary research into the little known 19th and early20th century period of local Indian history are recommended as well. These efforts,alongside further archaeological and archival investigations of native life inthe Protohistoric and early contact period, will serve to enhance our understandingof Tidewater history as a whole.131

132

BIBLIOGRAPHY: STUDY UNITS V-VIIIBarbour, Philip1969 The Jamestown Voyages Under the First Charter, 1606-1609: DocumentsRelating to the Foundation of Jamestown. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,England.1972 The Earliest Reconnaissance of the Chesapeake Bay Area. Captain Smith’sMap and Indian Vocabulary. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography80(1): 21-51.Barka, Norman, and Ben McCary1969 The Chickahominy River Survey of Eastern Virginia. Eastern States ArchaeologicalFederation 26-27.Beverley, Robert1705 The History and Present State of Virginia in Four Parts. R. Parker, London.Binford, Lewis1964 Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Investigations of Cultural Diversity andProgressive Development Among Aboriginal Cultures of Coastal Virginiaand North Carolina. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.Bushnell, David I., Jr.1907 Virginia- From Early Records. American Anthropologist n.s. 9(1): 31-44.Dalrymple, Edwin A.1858 17-Word Vocabulary Collected from the King William County Pamunkey in1884. Historical Magazine and Notes and Queries Concerning the Antiquities,History, and Biography of America 1(2): 182.Feest, Christian F.1966 Powhatan, a Study in Political Organization. Wiener VolkerkundlicheMitteilungen 13: 69-83.1978 Virginia Algonquians. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 15,edited by William C. Sturtevant and Bruce Trigger, pp. 253-270. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, DC.Gatschet, Albert S.1890- Pamunkey Notebook. Manuscript no. 2197, on file, National Anthropologi-1893 cal Archives. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.Hening, William Waller (compiler)1823 The Statutes at Large, Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia from theFirst Session of the Legislature. R. and W. and G. Bartow, New York.133

Lewis, Clifford M., and Albert J. Loomie1953 The Spanish Jesuit Mission in Virginia, 1570-1572. University of North CarolinaPress, Chapel Hill.Lurie, Nancy Oestreich1959 Indian Cultural Adjustment to European Civilization. In Seventeenth CenturyAmerica: Essays in Colonial History, edited by James Morton Smith.University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.McCartney, Martha W.1984 The Draft of York River in Virginia: An Artifact of The Seventeenth Century.Southeastern Archaeology 3(2): 97-110.McCary, Ben C.1958 The Kiskiack (Chiskiack) Indian Site near Yorktown, Virginia. QuarterlyBulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 13(2).McCary, Ben C., and Norman Barka1977 The John Smith and Zuniga Map in Light of Recent Archaeological Investigationsalong the Chickahominy River. Archaeology of Eastern NorthAmerica 5: 73-86.Mook, Maurice1943 The Anthropological Position of the Indian Tribes of Tidewater Virginia.William and Mary Quarterly 23(2nd series): 27-40.1944 The Aboriginal Population of Tidewater Virginia. American Anthropologist46: 193-208.Mooney, James1907 The Powhatan Confederacy Past and Present. American Anthropologist n.s. 9:128-152.Mouer, Daniel1981 Powhatan and Monacan Regional Settlement History. Quarterly Bulletin ofthe Archaeological Society of Virginia 36: 1.1985 The Occaneechee Connection: Social Networks and Ceramics at the FallLine in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Paper delivered at the Middle AtlanticConference, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. April, 1985.Pollard, John Garland1894 The Pamunkey Indians of Virginia. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin17. Washington, DC.Puglisi, Michael1985 Survival and Revival: The Chickahominy Indians Since 1850. Manuscriptin author’s files.134

Quinn, David B.1977 North America From Earliest Discovery to First Settlements. Harper ColophonBooks, New York.Rountree, Helen C.1972a Being An Indian in Virginia: Four Centuries in Limbo. The Chesopiean 10(1):1-7.1972bPowhatan’s Descendants in the Modern World: Community Studies of theTwo Virginia Indian Reservations, with Notes on Five Non-Reservation Enclaves.The Chesopiean 10(3): 62-96.1973 Indian Land Loss in Virginia: A Prototype of United Stated Indian Policy.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofWisconsin, Milwaukee.n.d.The Powhatan Indians of Virginia: An Ethnography. University of OklahomaPress, Norman, Oklahoma. In preparation.Sheehan, Bernard1980 Savagism and Civility: Indians and Englishmen in Colonial Virginia. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, England.Siebert, Frank1975 Resurrecting Virginia Algonquian from the Dead: The Reconstituted andHistorical Phonology of Powhatan. In Studies in Southeastern Indian Languages,edited by James Crawford, pp. 285-453. University of Georgia Press,Athens, Georgia.Smith, John1884 A Map of Virginia, with a Description of the Country, the Commodities,[1612] People, Government and Religion. In Captain John Smith of Willoughby,edited by Edward Arber. The English Scholar’s Library, Birmingham, England.1884a The General Historie of Virginia. In Captain John Smith of Willoughby,[1642] edited by Edward Arber. The English Scholar’s Library, Birmingham, England.1959 A True Relation. In Narratives of Early Virginia, 1606-1625, edited by[1608] Lyon G. Tyler. Barnes and Noble, New York.Snow, Dean1980 The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press, New York.Speck, Frank G.1919- Manuscripts Relating to the Indians of Eastern Virginia. Numbers 1701946 (20: 4F1, 4F3, 4F4, 4F5, 4F8); 170 (21: 4F2). Mission file, Library of theAmerican Philosophical Society.135

Speck, Frank G.1925 The Rappahannock Indians of Virginia. Indian Notes and Monographs 5: 3.Heye Foundation, New York.1928 Chapters on the Ethnology of the Powhatan Tribes of Virginia. Indian Notesand Monographs 1: 5. Heye Foundation, New York.Stern, Theodore1952 Chickahominy: The Changing Culture of a Virginia Indian Community. Proceedingsof the American Philosophical Society 96: 2.Stern, Theodore, and Maurice A. Mookn.d. Field notes on Western Chickahominy. Manuscript on file, Library of theAmerican Philosophical Society 170 (20: 4F5d).Story, Thomas1747 A Journal of the Life of Thomas Story 1698-1705. Isaac Thomas, Newcastleon Tyne, England.Strachey, William1953 The History of Travell into Virginia Britania. Edited by Louis B.[1612] Wright and Virginia Freund. The Hakluyt Society, Cambridge, England.1964 A True Reportory of the Wreck and Redemption of Sir Thomas Gates, Knight,Upon and From the Islands of the Bermudas: His coming to Virginia and theEstate of that Colony then and after, under the Government of the Lord LaWarr.… In A Voyage to Virginia in 1609: Two Narratives, edited by LouisB. Wright. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.Taylor, Walter1948 A Study of Archaeology. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association69.Tooker, Elizabeth (editor)1979 Native North American Spirituality of the Eastern Woodlands. Paulist Press,New York.Turner, Edward Randolph, III1976 An Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Study of the Evolution of Rank Societiesin the Virginia Coastal Plain. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University.1982a1982bSocio-Political Organization within the Powhatan Chiefdom and the Effectsof European Contact, A.D. 1607-1646. Archaeological Society of VirginiaSymposium on European and Indian Adaptations, Washington, DC.A Re-examination of Powhatan Territorial Boundaries and Population,ca. A.D. 1607. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia37(2): 45-64.136

Washburn, Wilcomb E.1957 The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia.University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.Williamson, Margaret Holmes1979 Powhatan Hair. Man n.s. 14: 392-413.Wolf, Eric1982 Europe and the People Without History. Oxford University Press, Oxford,England.137

138

Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological ReportsTowaroward a ResourceProtection Process:James City County,York County,City of Poquoson,City of WilliamsburilliamsburgOLUME 2: SVOLUME2: STUDYUNITSNITSNITS IX-XXIIIEdited by Marley R. Brown III and Kathleen J. BragdonThird EditionOffice of Archaeological ExcavationDepartment of ArchaeologyColonial Williamsburg FoundationPO Box CWilliamsburg, Virginia 23187Marley R. Brown IIIPrincipal InvestigatorOctober 1986Third edition issued November 2001

TOWARD A RESOURCE PROTECTIONPROCESS: JAMES CITY COUNTY,YORK COUNTY, CITY OF POQUOSON,AND CITY OF WILLIAMSBURGVOLUME 2: STUDY UNITS IX-XXIIIThird EditionNovember 2001Office of Archaeological ExcavationThe Department of ArchaeologyThe Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

DISCLAIMERThe activity that is the subject of this report has been financed in part with federalfunds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. However, thecontents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Departmentof the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constituteendorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior.i

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITIONThe first edition of this report, completed in October 1985, was submitted to theVirginia Division of Historic Landmarks in fulfillment of a Survey and Planning Subgrant. Copies were also distributed to the planning departments of JamesCity County York County, the City of Poquoson, and the City oe Williamsburg, as wellas to appropriate libraries, institutions, and individuals.Because the original report was submitted in three volumes totalling over 1200 pges, itwas felt that a reorganization was necessary before it was distributed more widely. The secondedition was published in 1986 in a smaller typeface for wider distribution.This third edition, published in 2001, is designed for better readability and conversioninto digital formats. It has been divided into four separate volumes. Volumes 1 and 2 providethe introduction to the project and the “study unit narratives” that describe the background andcriteria 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 theevaluation, as well as (now outdated) management plans for each jurisdiction. Volume 4 containssupplementary 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, hasnot been modified.The reader is referred to Resource Protection Planning Revisited: James CityCounty, York County, and the City of Williamsburg, a short 1991 update of this documentproduced by Meredith C. Moodey (now Meredith Poole) of the Department ofArchaeological Research of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. All comprehensivesite records and notes are on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources,Richmond.iii

PROJECT MEMBERSProject Director:Contributing Authors:Research Director andReport Coordinator:Consultants:Project Managers:Cartography:Drafting:Interns:Other Contributors:Marley R. Brown IIIKathleen J. BragdonGregory J. BrownLinda K. DerryThomas F. Higgins IIIRobert R. Hunter, Jr.Craig LukezicLisa RoysePatricia SamfordAnn Morgan SmartKathleen J. BragdonKevin KellySam MargolinJames WhittenburgLinda K. DerryAndrew C. EdwardsHannah GibbsVirginia CaldwellNatalie LarsonLouisa WallerEmerson BakerPatricia KandleChester KulesaMelanie LiddleJohn Sprinkle, Jr.Christine StyrnaJeff HollandLeslie McFadenCassandra NewbyDavid T. RobertsAlan StrangeKathrine WalkerJ. Thomas Wrenv

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

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

LIST OF PLATESPlateixPage4.1 Kiskiack ................................................................................................ 424.2 Cross-Trenching ................................................................................... 444.3 Reconstruction of James Anderson Forges........................................... 474.4 Excavations behind the Peyton Randolph House ................................. 514.5 Aerial View of Carter’s Grove Plantation ............................................ 524.6 Late Nineteenth Century I-House ......................................................... 794.7 Ewell Plantation.................................................................................... 804.8 La Grange ............................................................................................. 824.9 Vaiden House ........................................................................................ 824.10 Allen’s Place ......................................................................................... 834.11 J.F. Gilmer’s Map, 1863 ....................................................................... 904.12 “Tending the Crops: Tobacco Fields” ................................................... 934.13 Sailboats Waiting to Unload Truck Farm Produce at Norfolk.............. 964.14 House near Toano with Agricultural Implements ............................... 1004.15 Stemming Tobacco by Machine ......................................................... 1044.16 Piggott’s Mill ...................................................................................... 1094.17 Amory’s General Merchandizing Store, Poquoson ............................ 1434.18 Norge Railroad Station ....................................................................... 1444.19 Viking Hall, Norge ............................................................................. 1484.20 Powder Magazine Williamsburg ........................................................ 1504.21 Early Twentieth-Cenntury Gas Station, Norge 167(Destroyed August 17, 1985) .............................................................. 1724.22 Bungalow, Williafnsburg .................................................................... 1734.23 Street Scene: Williamsburg 1913........................................................ 1734.24 Carriage House Inn and AMOCO Station, Williamsburg .................. 1744.25 Colonial Revival House, Williamsburg .............................................. 1764.26 Unidentified Store in Art Deco Style, Norge ...................................... 1834.27 Home on Hunt’s Neck Road, Poquoson ............................................. 1845.1 Children on the Porch of the Henderson House ................................. 2095.2 Uncle Daniel’s Cabin .......................................................................... 2355.3 Log Cabin with Catted Chimney ........................................................ 2355.4 Brush-Everard Kitchen ....................................................................... 2375.5 First Baptist Church ............................................................................ 2405.6 Freed Slaves at Yorktown during Union Occupation ......................... 2515.7 Interior of Home of Black Family, circa 1900.................................... 2595.8 Tenant Farm near Newport News, Virginia, circa 1901 ..................... 2595.9 Samuel Harris’ Cheap Store................................................................ 2605.10 Advertisement for Samuel Harris’ Cheap Store in circa 1898Directory ............................................................................................. 2605.11 Odd Fellow’s Lounge ......................................................................... 2615.12 Black Fairgrounds in Williamsburg, 1928 .......................................... 2625.13 James City County Training School ................................................... 267

LIST OF PLATES (cont’d)PlatePage6.1 Hickory Neck Christian Church ......................................................... 2956.2 Williamsburg Mennonite Church ....................................................... 2976.3 Administrative Building, Williamsburg Public Hospital, c. 1885 ...... 3046.4 Schoolhouse on Rte. 613 .................................................................... 3136.5 “An Old Type of Country School Building , 1924” ........................... 3146.6 York County Poorhouse ...................................................................... 3186.7 Greenhouse-Repiton Office (Traditionally thought to be theDebtor’s Prison).................................................................................. 3206.8 Powder Magazine ............................................................................... 3326.9 Du Chesnoy 1781, Map of Yorktown ................................................. 3356.10 Du Perron, 1781, Pla.n Des Poster D’York et Gloster........................ 3366.11 Abbott, 1862 campaign Maps… Yorktown to Williamsburg ............. 3386.12 Permanent Camp Inside Yorktown ..................................................... 3406.13 Mortar Battery and Barge on Wormley’s Creek ................................. 3416.14 Contrabands on Plantation .................................................................. 3426.15 Confederate Artillery at Yorktown ..................................................... 3426.16 Mines Store Alongside Railroad Tracks at Naval WeaponsStation ................................................................................................. 3436.17 Colonial Revival House at Naval Weapons Station ........................... 344x

LIST OF TABLESTablePage4.1 Population Size of Minimum Structure Count in 1625 forJames City County North of the James River ...................................... 134.2 Study Unit IX: Known Cultural Resources .......................................... 154.3 Study Unit X: Known Cultural Resources ........................................... 334.4 Study Unit XI: Known Cultural Resources .......................................... 584.5 Average Tidewater Farm Size: 1704-1815 ........................................... 864.6 Agriculture, James City County: 1840-1860 ........................................ 974.7 Agriculture: 1850 Census ..................................................................... 984.8 York and James City County Manufactures: 1810 ............................. 1034.9 James City County Manufactures: 1840............................................. 1054.10 Mutual Assurance Society Structure Types ........................................ 1124.11 Study Unit XII: Known Cultural Resources ....................................... 1164.12 Agricultural Statistics, 1860-1910 ...................................................... 1414.13 Population Schedules, 1860-1985 ...................................................... 1464.14 Manufacture 1860-1960 ..................................................................... 1514.15 Study Unit XIII: Known Cultural Resources ..................................... 1534.16 Agricultural Statistics 1890-1980 ....................................................... 1664.17 Manufacture, 1860-1960 .................................................................... 1694.18 Population Schedules, 1900-1985 ...................................................... 1704.19 Occupations of Selected Industries and Services, 1930-1960 ............ 1714.20 Study Unit XIV: Known Cultural Resources ..................................... 1775.1 Study Units XV-XX: Known Afro-American Cultural Resources .... 2105.2 Number of Blacks Imported to Virginia During the 17th Century ..... 2145.3 Quarter Sites as Referenced on Late 18th-Century Maps .................. 2365.4 Slaveholding Patterns in York and James City Counties, 1860.......... 2475.5 Black Sites as Referenced on l9th-Century Maps .............................. 2486.1 Surviving Records for Study Area Churches...................................... 2926.2 Study Unit XXI: Known Cultural Resources ..................................... 2996.3 Study Unit XXII: Known Cultural Resources .................................... 3236.4 Study Unit XXIII: Known Cultural Resources................................... 347xi

LIST OF FIGURESFigurePage4.1 Population Decline & Stabilization York County,1790-1860 ............................................................................................. 854.2 Population Decline & Stabilization: James City County,1790-1860 ............................................................................................. 854.3 Ratio of Sub-Groups of Population, James City County,1790-1860 ............................................................................................. 884.4 Ratio of Sub-Groups of Population, York County, 1790-1860............. 884.5 General Trends of Population Distribution, James City County,Land Tax Records—1815 ..................................................................... 914.6 General Trends of Population Distribution, York County, LandTax Records—1815 .............................................................................. 924.7 Plan of Mill from Oliver Evans’ The Young Millwright andMiller’s Guide, 1795 ........................................................................... 1074.8 Mutual Assurance Society, Plat, James Semple: 1801 ....................... 1144.9 Plan of.Maddox Farm Somerset County, Maryland ........................... 136LIST OF MAPSMapPage4.1 Study Unit IX: Geographic Extent ......................................................... 64.2 Study Unit IX Known Resource Distribution....................................... 154.3 Study Unit X Geographic Extent .......................................................... 224.4 Study Unit X Known Resource Distribution ........................................ 334.5 Study Unit XI: Geographic Extent ....................................................... 404.6 Study Unit XI: Known Resource Distribution ..................................... 574.7 Study Unit XII: Geographic Extent ...................................................... 784.8 Revolutionary War Era Road System ................................................. 1154.9 Study Unit XII: Known Resource Distribution .................................. 1154.10 Civil War Era Road System ................................................................ 1524.11 Study Unit XIII: Known Resource Distribution ................................. 1524.12 Study Unit XIV: Known Resource Distribution ................................. 1775.1 Study Units XV-XX Geographic Extent ............................................ 2095.2 Study Units XV-XX Known Resource Distribution .......................... 2106.1 Study Unit XXI: Known Resource Distribution................................. 2996.2 Study Unit XXII: Known Resource Distribution ............................... 3236.3 Study Unit XXIII: Known Resource Distribution .............................. 346xii

PHOTO CREDITSPlate(s)Photographer/Owner4.1-4.3, 4.5, 4.23-4.24, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.5.4-5.5, 5.9, 5.11, 5.13, 6.3,6.6-6.94.13, 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, 6.84.12-4.13, 5.2, 5.7 Huestis Cook, Valentine Museum, Richmond.5.8, 5.12 Library of Congress, Washington.6.5 From Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, editedby Camille Wells. Vernacular Architecture Forum,Annapolis, 1982.6.10 Princeton University Library.6.11 From Atlas to Accompany the Official Records othe 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 WilliamC. Davis. Volume 2. Doubleday, Garden City,New Jersey, 1982.6.16 From 50th Anniversary. 1918-1968, The NavalWeapons 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 STUDYUNITS (STUDY UNITS IX-XIV)Decades before 1607, when the first permanent British settlement was established, Europeans were exploring, trading, and attempting to colonize the shoresof the James and York Rivers. In the first years of British colonization, thepowerful Powhatan Confederacy was the dominant culture. Soon, however, the Britishgained ascendancy and embarked on a more-or-less systematic campaign of destructionof the local Indian population. New, mostly British immigrants soon arrived, and thepopulation began to grow rapidly. Expansion out of the James River Basin and intoYork County and surrounding areas accompanied this growth. By the early 18th centuryEuro-Americans had almost totally supplanted the Indians in the area.During the 18th century, the presence of the colonial capital at Williamsburg (establishedin 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 Williamsburgand Yorktown became small, locally-oriented towns serving as redistributive centersfor goods and services. Small farms dotted the landscape, specializing in the productionof wheat, corn, and other grains, as well as later attempts at market gardening. Inthis sense the Virginia Peninsula was representative of much of eastern Virginia at thistime. 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 resultingin 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 newimmigrants, including Canadians, Dutch, Hungarians, Poles, Russians, Spaniards, WestIndians, 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 neighboringurban 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 continuationof these same trends, greatly augmented by the thriving tourist trade created afterthe Williamsburg Restoration and the recreations of Jamestown and Yorktown by theNational Park Service.Euro-American cultural resources are usually much more visible, and in manycases much more easily protected, than prehistoric, Native American, or Afro-Americanresources. In part this is a reflection of the role of Euro-American descendants asmembers of the area’s dominant culture, for powerful and concerned citizens are able totrace and protect their “roots.” The bias in favor of cultural resources of Euro-Americanorigin is also partially a function of their structural permanence. Standing buildingsand structures have sometimes been used for 200 years or more, and at least a feware still in a good state of preservation. Many such buildings, of course, have beenrehabilitated or restored as part of the Williamsburg and Yorktown Restorations, while3

other, vanished buildings have been painstakingly reconstructed upon their original foundations.Most 17th-century structures and buildings are no longer standing, but this isalmost certainly due to impermanent building techniques, Virginia’s inhospitable climate,and the expansion in the 18th century which led to relocation or destruction ofmany of these resources. The archaeological sites associated with several of these buildingsand structures have been located, and retain sufficient integrity that many of thearchitectural details can be reconstructed from the archaeological remains.Like standing buildings and structures, Euro-American archaeological sites areoften fairly well preserved, particularly those of later periods. These sites have beenused to answer important historical and anthropological questions, ranging from settlementpattern to socioeconomic status and its material correlates. Because the documentaryrecord is often good, these sites can be used to answer powerful, historicallyspecificquestions.Much of the value of these sites, and of associated standing architectural properties,relates to the quality of the documentary record. The extraordinary amount ofhistorical research on the 17th- and 18th-century history of the area has resulted in anability to identify many particular properties to one or more clearly-defined, knownoccupants. Much less is known, unfortunately, about earlier or later properties, althoughscattered 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 beless likely to be preserved, they are also clearly underrepresented in the known architecturalrecord. Archaeological evidence in these cases, even without good documentarycontrol, takes on a different sort of importance, as it is often the only way to studythese under-represented classes. In these cases more general questions may be answered,relating to details of building construction, use patterns, ethnicity, and levels of materialpossessions.In both sorts of cases, the cultural resources, whether standing buildings or belowgroundarchaeological sites, are important tools for historical understanding. Like NativeAmerican and Afro-American sites, structures, buildings, and objects, they are avital part of the Peninsula’s heritage, and any damage done to them is damage done tothe heritage of the area as a whole.4

STUDY UNIT IX.THE FIRST CHESAPEAKE FRONTIER: EXPLORATIONAND THE VIRGINIA COMPANY SETTLEMENT(A.D. 1492–A.D. 1630)Major Theme: The transplantation and adaptation of British cultural formsto the Tidewater-Chesapeake.Sub-Themes: A. Early exploration and landfalls.B. Early interaction with Native Americans.C. Initial permanent settlement—the founding and growth ofJamestown.D. Early Company settlements and outposts.E. The Hundreds.Significance: NationalFor the major European powers, the discovery of the New World promised untold wealthand new resources. In a century or more of exploration, several nations had developedthe ability to discover and colonize. A few of these powers saw a future in the NewWorld: 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 factsof New World geography and climate were often vague, and this ignorance of potentialconditions frequently resulted in tentative, short- lived settlements. The 1585 settlementon Roanoke Island, for example, was an ill-planned venture, destined to fail. Theperiod was also a time of intense rivalries as each colonizing power attempted to consolidateits area of hegemony even while attempting to expand it. As a result, the boundariesbetween European powers in the New World were vague, and intrusions intoanother’s territory were common. The settlement of the Spanish Jesuit Mission in theChesapeake, in the late 16th century, is only one such example.By the early 17th century, however, British interest in Virginia was sufficient thata serious attempt at colonization could be made. The Virginia Company was establishedto provide the financial backing for the enterprise, and as a reward was given therights to the profits accruing from the potentially lucrative venture. The first 104 settlersarrived at Jamestown in 1607, establishing on this small island on the James Riverthe first permanent English settlement in the New World.The first years of settlement were the harshest ones, with a chronic shortage offood and a disastrous mortality rate. Typhoid, dysentery, and salt poisoning are nowblamed 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, asDale and Sir Thomas Gates instituted some needed reforms. A major new settlementwas founded upriver at Henrico, out of the disease-ridden oligohaline estuarine zone,where Jamestown was situated. Both population and food supply began to stabilize. By5

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 SamuelArgall again concentrated settlement around Jamestown. The mortality rate once againshot upward, with 105 to 115 of the estimated 415 people in the colony dead in thatsame year (Earle 1979: 115). Again the colony was barely clinging to existence.6

However, despite the near failure of the initial settlement, the English investorsstill hoped to turn Virginia into a paying venture. Using land as a lure, a new strategywas adopted during the 1610s. Settlement in the colony was opened to outside investmentgroups. In return for providing settlers, these private companies were granted vasttracts 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 beenseated (Hecht l981). Furthermore, Company employees were rewarded for their diligencewith small tracts of land as well. The shift to a privately owned, land-based agriculturalcolony, 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 inEngland. Tobacco was soon to begin shaping the entire economic system of the colony.These Company reforms fundamentally refocused the purpose of the colony. Asindividual settlers began to pursue their own personal gain by their own initiative theybecame increasingly conscious of the need to institute recognizable features of Britishsociety 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 firstsettlers took on a new importance. Ethnic minorities—Italian glassblowers, Frenchwinemakers, Dutch millwrights, and African servants—were assimilated to varyingdegrees into this Anglo-Virginian culture, each making a unique contribution to thedeveloping society.An equally important part of the adaptation process was the increasing immigrationof women into the colony. The first settlers were part of a military-based societywith little place for family life. As women were introduced, marriage and family lifebecame increasingly possible, and as women were more available to participate in bothagricultural and domestic life, a more stable type of lifeway was developed.Success of the settlers as farmers and their progress toward a permanentAnglo-Virginia alarmed the Indians of the Tidewater. In one massive effort they roseagainst the British in 1622, killing nearly one-third of them in a surprise attack. Resolvedto stay in Virginia, the British retaliated and, in spite of the effectiveness of thefirst Indian uprising, were able to stay.Historians have used a variety of primary sources to reconstruct this period. VirginiaCompany records and account books, personal correspondence, and land patentshave all been used. David B. Quinn (1977, 1984) has done the most exhaustive analysisof early British explorers’ accounts, while Lewis and Loomie (1953) have studied theaccounts relating to the Spanish Jesuit Mission. In neither case is there a great deal ofdocumentation.Early British colonization is somewhat better documented. An important source isthe compilation of Virginia Company records produced by Kingsbury (1906-1935),while Tyler (1907a) has compiled a set of early narrative accounts by the British settlersthemselves. Many more sources, of course, have been used, including maps and chartsproduced 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 atJamestown had been eroded away (Cotter and Hudson 1957). However, several piecesof evidence of early Company settlement have been found there. The Governor’s Land7

excavations have been equally informative, and the most extensive excavations of allhave been at Martin’s Hundred on Carter’s Grove Plantation. Virtually no other archaeologicalsites of the period have been found or systematically excavated, however,and even the very important Spanish Jesuit Mission has never been located despite agood deal of looking (Ben McCary, pers. comm. 1985).SUB-THEME A: EARLY EXPLORATION AND LANDFALLSThe earliest Europeans to see the James/York Peninsula were the British, French, andSpanish explorers of the mid- to late 16th century. The research of David Quinn andothers (Quinn 1977, 1984) has been the basis of current knowledge about these exploratoryefforts.According to Quinn, at least ten European exploratory parties entered the Chesapeakebefore 1607, including one which may have come overland from the RoanokeColony after 1586 (Quinn 1977). Any of these may have touched land and establishedcamps or ship repair stations. In addition to their permanent settlement, the SpanishJesuits may also have established both a temporary camp at the mouth of College orIndian 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 theirway northwards with the Chesapeake Indians, perhaps as far as the southern bank of theJames River, where they are rumored to have been living as late as May 1607 (Quinn1977: 438). Less well-documented but equally significant visits were paid by Frenchtrading vessels to the Chesapeake beginning in 1546 (Quinn 1977: 533).These landfalls, temporary camps, trading posts, and ship-repair sites are particularlyimportant because so little is known about them. It is unclear what the accoutermentsof early exploration parties were, what the physical form of the encampmentswas likely to be, or what material goods formed the parties’ gear and supplies. Even lessis known about the structure of their crews, and of their relations with one another andthe natives with whom they came into contact. It is difficult to envision the remainswhich 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 aEuropean presence in an area during this period.There are few descriptions of the structures or camps erected by early Europeanvisitors to the Chesapeake. Aside from these, however, there may also have beenship-repair sites, such as that encountered by the Spanish explorer Vicente Gonzalesnear Oregon Inlet in 1588 (Lewis and Loomie 1953: 188), and monuments or claimmarkersfor sponsoring monarchs (Quinn 1982: 132).The probable locations of these resources can be envisioned more easily. Landfallsand other evidence of early exploration will most likely be along the major navigablerivers, 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 oralong unstable tidal flats.Camps of the early explorers may have been slightly inland, probably on dry flatground. Again, many such sites may have been eroded away or buried as the shorelinesadvanced.8

There are no known archaeological sites or structures in the study area which dateto this earliest period. This is probably at least partially due to two factors: the erosionof the shoreline, and the lack of a systematic site survey in the study area. Given theirephemeral nature, such sites are likely to be difficult to find at best. Therefore, possiblesite locations should be carefully examined before development takes place. Such locationsinclude the mouth of College Creek, on the James River, and the mouth of IndianField Creek (now Field Creek), on the York River; it has been suggested that at one ofthese two locations the Spanish Jesuits stopped to establish a temporary camp.SUB-THEME B: EARLY INTERACTION WITH NATIVEAMERICANSThe first thoughts of colonizing the Peninsula began shortly after initial exploration.For the colonists, some contact with the local Native American population must havetaken place almost immediately. Each European colonist had to learn the rules of conductbetween himself and the Native American population. Misconceptions about theIndians, as the Europeans called them, were commonplace. Experience gained withnatives 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’spoint of view, see Study Units V and VI.)The character of interaction between Europeans and Native Americans was conditionedby the ultimate intent of each party. For the British colonists, eager to establishan economic foothold in a land of bountiful natural resources, the Native Americanswere 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. Theexact location of the permanent mission site is debated, but most scholars agree that itwas probably located along the southern bank of the York River, perhaps between themouths of Queens and Kings Creeks. A native of the James/York Peninsula, captured in1560 by a Spanish raiding party and baptized as Don Luis de Velasco, led missionizingSpanish Jesuits to that or a nearby location in 1570. A structure was built there to serveas both lodging and church, with eight priests and the acolyte Alonso de Lara living inone chamber of the building and the chapel occupying the other end.The Spanish venture, like many preceding and following it, ended in violence. Thegraves of the missionaries, all of whom were killed in an attack led by Don Luis in1571, may be near the site of the mission itself. Father Juan Rogel was later told byAlonso, who had been spared, that the slain priests were buried “in the chapel whereMass had been said” (Lewis and Loomie 1953: 120).Properties relating to interaction between the Europeans and Native Americansrange between those as apparently substantial as this mission, to those as impermanentas the sites associated with landfalls. Material remains of the brief encounters betweenNative Americans and European explorers, fishermen, and traders are even under idealconditions necessarily scattered and ephemeral. Perhaps the likeliest sites are thoseIndian villages at which some evidence of European contact can be found, as revealed9

y the presence of European-made artifacts. (For further discussion of Indian-Whiteinteraction 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, thoughtto be between Queens and Kings Creeks, has never been found, and no other propertiesassociated with this period have yet been located in the study area.SUB-THEME C: INITIAL PERMANENT SETTLEMENT—THEFOUNDING AND GROWTH OF JAMESTOWNThe Jamestown settlement, began in 1607, became the first permanent British settlementin America. Initially populated by only 104 colonists, it became the colony’s capitaluntil 1699 and the primary settlement center for the entire James/York Peninsula inthe early 1600s.The development and growth of Jamestown has been an important research topicfor historians, cultural geographers, and archaeologists. Extensive excavations havebeen performed by the National Park Service since 1934, resulting in the discovery ofover 140 structures and numerous other landscape features (Cotter and Hudson 1957).Unfortunately, few recognizable Company period features have been discovered, andlittle can presently be said about specific early 17th-century structures. It should beremembered, however, that most archaeology in Jamestown was done before the refinementof techniques for recognizing hole-set earthfast structures, and consequently someof Jamestown’s earliest buildings might have been missed.Documentary evidence indicates that by 1625, just past the end of the Companyperiod, 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 the16th and early 17th centuries. The earliest buildings were apparently earthfast, hole-setstructures which leave unique but sparse archaeological traces. Many were “puncheon”buildings, constructed on driven wooden posts; only related sets of postholes and occasionallysmall root cellars would remain. A fairly intensive archaeological investigationis needed to locate and identify these sets of postholes; surface survey or limitedsubsurface testing will usually not be sufficient. Public buildings, the church andguard-house, were probably similar in construction, if not in size.In addition to the dwellings and public buildings were outbuildings associatedwith the settlement. These included storehouses, barns, and other ancillary structures.Like the dwellings, they were probably hole-set structures leaving few archaeologicalremnants. Some of the industrial activities of the settlement—glassblowing, brickmaking,blacksmithing, and potting—would have been performed in relatively crude kilns andforges, and for various reasons these are more likely to be discovered archaeologically.The location of these activities, and of the dwellings and public buildings, wasapparently the western side of Jamestown Island and the base of the isthmus aroundGlasshouse Point which connected the island to the mainland. The mainland and theisland were regarded as separate settlements—Jamestown and The Island. The palisadedfort, burned in 1608, was located on The Island and has since probably been10

eroded away. Erosion is a continuing problem, as it is with many other early Companyperiod sites. Documentary evidence and underwater archaeology in the region suggestthat the James River has claimed as much as 250 feet of shoreline since 1607, much ofit around Jamestown Island. Despite National Park Service attempts at stabilization, theremains of many early Jamestown features and structures may already have disappeared.Some of the properties have survived, however. Among these are an early cemeteryand several industrial sites. The cemetery, discovered under and near the LudwellThird and Fourth Statehouse Group, contained at least 70 graves presumed to date tobefore 1620. Shiner (1955) believes that there are probably another 280 undiscoveredgraves in the nearby area, and perhaps another 300 have been eroded away as the shorelineadvanced. Since a building was constructed here by 1665, and known cemeteriesare usually kept sacred, Shiner suggests that the cemetery was filled up, abandoned, andforgotten long before the 1660s.A glassworks was located on Glasshouse Point at the edge of the isthmus connectingJamestown Island to the mainland. Part of an abortive attempt to set up a glassmakingoperation in the colony, it employed first Dutch and Polish and then later importedItalian glassblowers, but each was only active for a short time. Now preserved by theNational Park Service as the Glasshouse Ruins, it consisted of four components: a workingfurnace, 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 between1607 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 nearPitch 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 domesticstructures 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 aresult of shoreline erosion, since a considerable effort has been expended to find theoriginal fort. In any event, the area is now protected within Colonial National HistoricalPark.The huge assemblage of artifacts from the Jamestown excavations has also beenused 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 ANDOUTPOSTSJamestown, first settled in 1607, did not long remain the only British settlement on theJames. Peripheral settlements were soon established near the first settlement, both upstreamand downstream. Major settlements were eventually attempted upstream, but11

these larger settlements periodically expanded and contracted, as settlement policy waschanged and economic and demographic conditions fluctuated.When John Smith directed the colony in 1608, he dispersed settlers onto plantationsoutside Jamestown. After he departed in 1609, however, the colonists again retreatedto the vicinity of Jamestown Island, ostensibly for defense. Governor ThomasDale was successful a few years later in dispersing the population again. New settlementswere 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 consistentlyoccupied. Most likely consisting of little more than a group of crude huts, theywere, like Jamestown, located on the river shore. Since it is likely that the early settlerspreferred already cleared land, thus saving themselves labor, abandoned Indian fieldswere probably used whenever available.By 1613 a few major new Company settlements were documented—Henrico inmodern Henrico County and Bermuda Hundred and Shirley Hundred in modern CharlesCity County. Slightly later settlements appeared on both sides of the James. None ofthese are in the study area, however, where the only settlements were apparently thesmall peripheral suburbs of Jamestown and, starting in the 1610s, newly-seated privateplantations—the Hundreds.SUB-THEME E: THE HUNDREDSBeginning in the 1610s, the Virginia Company offered land for sale to private investorsin England. Particular plantations, often called Hundreds, were sold to be worked ascommunal 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. By1619 at least seven existed, the above four along with Flowerdew Hundred, CaptainLawne’s Plantation, and Captain Ward’s Plantation (Morton 1960). Only two of theselie within the study area: Argall’s Town and Martin’s Hundred.Along with Company outposts, these settlements grew and expanded. By the veryend of the Company period surviving documentary evidence, including a list of casualtiesof the Indian uprising and the 1625 James City County census, permits an evaluationof 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 52structures in present-day James City County in 1625. The number of structures wasundoubtedly actually higher, as there were surely uncounted dwellings at Pasbehaysand 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), 1.5miles northwest of Jamestown, and at Martin’s Hundred (JC115 and JC120), a fewmiles 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 Neckof Land and Archer’s Hope. A probable settlement model can be constructed, however,using documentary and archaeological sources.12

TABLE 4.1POPULATION SIZE AND MINIMUM STRUCTURE COUNTIN 1625 FOR JAMES CITY COUNTY NORTH OF THE JAMES RIVER 1Settlement Population Size No. of HousesPasbehays (Pasbehegh) 2 30 0Governor’s Land 41 4The Maine 2 8 0Jamestown 175 33Neck of Land 3 14 2Archer’s Hope 3 18 6Martin’s Hundred 31 7TOTAL 317 521From Baker 1985; includes only area in modern James City County.2Pasbehegh 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 othersimilar properties outside the study area suggests that within 500 feet of the shoreline isthe most sensitive zone. According to Keeler (1977), most sites were located on a hill orbluff overlooking a waterway.Like those at Jamestown, structures and features at these early settlements wereprobably highly impermanent, and therefore difficult to identify archaeologically. Expectedarchitectural forms include earthfast hole-set structures, log huts, or wattle anddaub 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-centurysettlements 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’sHundred, known as Wolstenholme Towne, Noël Hume (1982) uncovered the remainsof a palisaded fort, a church, and a domestic structure, as well as several burials probablyresulting from the Indian attack in 1622.The Maine, excavated by Alain Outlaw in 1976, revealed traces of at least twoearthfast domestic structures and two similar storage buildings (Outlaw 1980). Rangingin size from 270 to 440 square feet, they resembled structures found at WolstenholmeTowne and probably were used for similar purposes.A few other archaeological sites have revealed individual artifacts which can possiblybe dated to the Company period. While these do not necessarily indicate the presenceof a settlement on the site, they can suggest the presence of early 17th-centuryEuropeans nearby.At the Helmet Site (JC4), about five miles east of Jamestown, Painter (1956) founda siege helmet in one of two early 17th-century refuse pits. The helmet, at that time theonly British siege helmet found in North America, was of a type that could be dated tothe Company period, and would have been an important if possibly cumbersome part ofan early soldier-settler’s property. Another site, located somewhere on the Naval MineDepot in York County (exact location not given), has produced a cassabet, a similar but13

lighter helmet dating to the same period (Noël Hume 1963: 53). Since York County wasnot settled until the late 1620s, this helmet must either have been discarded after thattime or have been left by an early-period explorer or wanderer.SUMMARYOverall, then, this period is represented by no more than seven known properties inJames City County and one in York County, with none at all in the City of Williamsburgor the City of Poquoson. Documentary evidence has been extensively studied by a varietyof scholars, but there is a great need for more archaeological evidence from thisperiod to address questions that the documentary record cannot answer. There is preciouslittle indication as to whether many of these sites still exist, or have been destroyedby shoreline erosion and modern development. Clearly, however, if more activeefforts to locate and protect them are not initiated, they will not survive for long.STUDY UNIT IX: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitNational. The initial explorations of Virginia were made by British, French, Spanish,Dutch, and Portuguese adventurers. Important, if ephemeral, contacts with Native Americansof the region were made at various points, including some along the James andYork 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 establishedat Jamestown. Study of the process of British discovery, exploration, settlement, andadaptation to this area furnishes important information regarding the nature of Europeancolonization in general, and of the New World in particular. For its importance inthe colonization process, this study unit is assigned national significance.Summary of Property TypesThere are at least eight general property types in this study unit. These are:(1) Landfalls. These were probably distributed along the James and York Rivershores. The original number is unknown; many have probably been destroyedby erosion.(2) Ship-repair stations. These sites were probably distributed along the Jamesand York River shores. The original number is unknown; many have probablybeen 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 destroyedby erosion.(4) The Jesuit Mission. This important site was probably located between Kingsand Queens Creeks on the York River. It has possibly been destroyed.14

Map 4.2. Study Unit IX: Known Resource Distribution.TABLE 4.2STUDY UNIT IX: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJAMES 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./cemeteryJC115 Wolstenholme Towne (Carter’s AS III 09 Fortified ExcavatedGrove, Site C)villageJC120 Carter’s Grove, Site H AS III 09 Fortified Excavatedvillage47-9 Jamestown Island AS III 08 Town ProtectedU-20 Archer’s Hope AS DR 09 Settlement UnknownU-21 Argall’s Gift AS DR 09 Settlement UnknownU-24 Glebe Land AS I 09 Ecclesiastical UnknownYORK 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 theJames River, at Jamestown, Pasbehegh, and Martin’s Hundred. Among the mosttypical properties of the period, they can be used to establish characteristics ofthe early British settlement.(6) Public buildings. A few early public buildings were found in Jamestown, andthey were possibly located in peripheral settlements as well.(7) Churches and cemeteries. The old church tower and an early cemetery havebeen found in Jamestown. They were possibly located in peripheral settlementsas 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’sHundred. The original number is unknown; less than ten have been located.Early craft specialization is a particular local research interest, and these siteshave been used to define the precursors of 18th-century industrialization.Character of Existing DataVery little is known about the sites, structures, buildings, and objects dating to thisperiod, 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 firstsettlement, 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 isrelatively good, since they have been the subjects of lengthy reports and popular articles.Most structural remains are at least described, and artifactual remains have beenextensively analyzed. No buildings or structures of the period have been preserved,however, and therefore the relevant data is mostly documentary. Because most of thephysical remains have been removed from their original contexts, moreover, much dependson the quality of recording. Although field notes are generally very good, existingsite records provide only the sketchiest information. Comparison between sites isoften difficult, notwithstanding the excellent works of Cotter (1958), Lewis (1975),Outlaw (1980), and Noël Hume (1982). Most of the lack of real, wide-ranging synthesesis not the fault of the researchers, however, but instead is caused by the paucity ofknown material remains. Much more and better survey data is clearly needed before theperiod will be well understood.Criteria for EvaluationNational Register standards specify two types of evaluative criteria: type of significanceand 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 bemore difficult to establish, however.16

In view of the lack of material evidence for many property types, ideal conditionsmay not be achieved at most sites. Minimal integrity requirements are that the resourceshould be identifiable as a distinctive property type and that its relation to other propertytypes and its environment can be established. Physical integrity, while important, isnot 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 theNational Register, since all Register-eligible properties are by no means equal in researchimportance or public value. In this study unit, from a research point of view, themost important resources are those representative of a general property type (e.g., atypical early domestic property, camp, or landfall) or the unique, historically- importantbut unreplicated resource such as the Spanish Mission. Public values probably wouldhold all early sites and structures important, for the unique part that they played in thenation’s past, but would judge only the Spanish Mission and the first Jamestown fort(probably destroyed by erosion) overridingly significant.Present Condition of Property TypesErosion is a primary threat to most of these sites, since they were undoubtedly locatedalong the river shorelines. Development of unsurveyed shore properties is another majorthreat, difficult to assess because of the general lack of site-specific locational information.Several potential early explorer sites along the York River, and possibly eventhe Spanish Jesuit Mission Site, lie on now-restricted military reservations. Because ofthe difficulty of access to these sites, their present condition is almost impossible toestimate.Most identified and located properties have been excavated. One, WolstenholmeTowne, has been made into an interpretive exhibit after excavation, complete with apartially-reconstructed fort. The properties at Jamestown have also been opened to thepublic, albeit not always upon their original locations. Two groups of properties havealready been placed on the National Register of Historic Places: the Jamestown NationalHistorical Site and the Governor’s Land Archaeological District. The sites andstructures in Jamestown, administered by Colonial National Historical Park, are protectedand seem safe from developmental pressure, while the properties on the Governor’sLand 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 Registeronce they are discovered, but at this point there is no way of determining their condition.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesSince little is known about properties dating to this period, major efforts should focuson 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 thetasks of evaluating the potential of individual properties within the two currently-listedNational Register districts. Nomination of Register-eligible properties should immediatelyfollow discovery and determination of eligibility, while the general treatment goals17

and objectives, which should be considered for adoption as soon as possible, are ongoingstrategies designed for continued protection of these important properties.Identification Goals• A systematic examination and catalogue of all 15th- and 16th-century cartographicsources depicting the James/York Peninsula, along with an exhaustive search forearly written descriptions of the area in order to determine the locations of anylandfalls or encampments. Work along these lines is already being performed byMartha McCartney of the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks (n.d.).• A detailed study of the effects of shoreline erosion on documented archaeologicalsites, based on existing erosion studies. This would include an analysis of the probablelocations of such sites, and an evaluation of the position of these locationsrelative to the current river shorelines. Such a project would be ideal for an interestedstudent, particularly one with concurrent interests in riverine geology or sedimentology.• Following these studies, an intensive Phase I archaeological survey of a belt within1000 feet of the present James River shoreline should be performed. This survey,which should be done by a team of competent historical archaeologists capable ofrecognizing early-period sites, would be aimed at identifying visible archaeologicalremains for later detailed investigation. Funding for the survey may be solicitedfrom 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, aimedat identifying foodways, material possessions, and possible craft specialties of theearly settlers. This will also perhaps point out diagnostic features of such siteswhich can be used in on-the-ground site identification. The re-analysis may bedone by a local student, as part of a thesis project, or by professionals under aresearch grant. Jamestown, such an important part of American history, wouldlikely be an attractive object for private funding support.Registration Goals• Nomination of any discovered properties dating to this period to the National Registerof 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 theJames and York River shorelines. Properties to be developed within this belt arelikeliest to contain significant early archaeological sites. A document review andPhase I identification survey, at least, should be required by local planning authoritiesbefore development takes place.18

Treatment Goals• Preservation in place or, less preferably, Phase III excavation and detailed recordingof any 16th- or early 17th-century site discovered during development. Preservationcan be achieved by project redesign, easement, or some other non-financiallycostly 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 ArchaeologicalDistrict. As development pressure in James City County grows, plannersand cultural resource professionals should work with developers in attemptingto influence project redesign to avoid the intact historic resources.• Continued preservation of early Jamestown properties by Colonial National HistoricalPark. These resources are not currently in danger, and will not be so in theforseeable future.19

STUDY UNIT X.ESTABLISHMENT OF COLONIAL SOCIETY:DEVELOPMENT OF TIDEWATER SOCIETY ANDECONOMY (A.D. 1630–A.D. 1689)Major Theme: The development of a distinctive Anglo-Virginian lifestyle inresponse to the conditions of the Chesapeake.Sub-Themes: A. The origins of staple crop agriculture—tobacco and thebeginnings of the plantation system in the Chesapeake.B. Establishment of sustained political and economicrelations 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: NationalThe period between 1630 and 1689 marked a time of expansion, social, political, andeconomic experimentation, and stabilization. It was in this period that the distinctivefeatures of 18th-century colonial Virginian society were first developed, as the colonygrew and became established.In size alone the colony grew from a handful of small settlements scattered alongthe James River to one that extended to the Piedmont and which, in the older settledareas of the Lower Tidewater, was fairly densely populated. From a population of onlysome 2000-3000 in 1630, the colony grew to approximately 50,000 people by the endof the study period (Morgan 1975). By far the greatest number of new immigrants wereindentured 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 wasthese slaves who were to become the major part of the labor force in the late 17th andearly 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 KingsCreek and Felgate’s Creek on the York River. Much of York County was settled in the1630s, along with much of interior James City County. The Poquoson area was firstopened 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 Companyperiod was characterized by martial law and a political elite composed almostentirely of military leaders, but by 1630 the change to a civilian government was wellunderway. Kukla (1985) suggests that between 1635 and 1646 this transition was finallycompleted, and that a stable political system was in place and operating.But progress to that point was not without its difficulties. The key obstacles tosocial development in the middle two quarters of the 17th century were the harsh livingconditions 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 thelate marriage age of Virginia’s constant stream of new English immigrants. Most childrenwere orphaned before they came of age.Additional problems were imposed by the developing economic system. Althoughtobacco was readily marketable in England, prices were notoriously cyclical and resultedin an economy characterized by periodic “booms” and “busts.” These economiccycles varied regionally, in most cases being determined by the particular type of tobaccothat was cultivated. It is known that York County growers harvested sweet-scentedtobacco, prices for which probably fluctuated differently than those for other kinds. Forall growers, however, the tobacco economy resulted in a dependence on an unstableprice 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 majoritywere small farms, often less than 50 acres in size, but by the end of the period severalindividuals were able to accumulate enormous holdings. Out of these types of individualswould come the landed gentry which dominated the Colony in the next century.Various social classes became established and recognized during this period, asdivisions between wealthy and poor and between powerful and powerless grew wider.By 1689 there were at least six classes: the political elite (successors of thecouncilor-commanders of the 1640s and 1650s), small planters, freedmen (indenturedservants who had completed their service, but usually remained among the poor), indenturedservants, Afro-American slaves, and Indians. The last two groups, probably toan even greater degree than white indentured servants, were exploited as a labor supplyand 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 thedeaths of 500 white settlers, did not prevent a massive depopulation of the local NativeAmerican 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’sRebellion in 1676, Indians no longer posed any serious threat to Anglo-Virginians excepton the very edges of English settlement. In the 1680s the price of tobacco finallybottomed out, forcing many small and marginal planters to make permanent adjustmentsto lower incomes. In response to a severe shortage of white indentured servantsin 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 laborforce 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 Virginianswere beginning to replace the English-born in positions of political authority. As the18th century dawned, the distance between the wealthy and the small planters was wideningconsiderably. Opportunities for upward advancement were lessened, and Virginiawas 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 theCrown to prospective colonists or their sponsors), and various compilations of laws(e.g., Hening 1809-1823; McIlwaine 1914, 1915). York County (including the present-dayCity 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, andprobate records, and by the Death Register for the 1660s. Poquoson, in fact, has some ofthe best demographic information in the study area, as New Poquoson Parish’s Birthand Death Registers cover the period from 1647/8 onward. Unfortunately less informationis available for James City County, whose records were removed to Richmond forsafekeeping during the Civil War and, while there, ironically, were burned.Several secondary sources have summarized the data from these records. Theseinclude Nugent (1929-1931) and Gregory (1935). Various factors relating to 17th-centuryChesapeake settlement have been carefully analyzed as well (Tate and Ammerman 1979),while the York County Project, on a more specific scale, is presently interpreting thehistorical data relating to York County and the surrounding areas during this period.Architectural historians have joined with archaeologists and social historians toproduce 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 tohave 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 oncratchets, raftered houses, and turf-, earth-, and log-walled houses. The earliest buildingsappear to have been puncheon-, palisade-, or cratchet-built, but by the second halfof the century framed buildings on blocks, log houses, and hole-set buildings with interruptedsills had become more common (Carson et al. 1981: 148-155). Noting that allthese are technically impermanent forms, they speculate that the high mortality rate andeconomic conditions resulted in the builders’ decisions to construct buildings that wouldnot need to last more than a decade or two. More permanent forms were being built bythe well-to-do, in Jamestown and elsewhere, and by the later 17th century brick structureswere quite common. The choice of architectural form was based on circumstance23

as well as wealth. Many well-to-do planters built only earthfast structures, such as ColonelThomas 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 increasinglycommon by 1650, however. Many such structures were built in Jamestown between1650 and 1690, and in fact most of Jamestown’s buildings during that period wereapparently made of brick. These brick structures are much more likely to be discoveredduring normal archaeological survey, and clearly non-brick earthfast structures are lesswell known by virtue of their impermanence.Standing architecture of the 17th century is now very rare, and no more than six17th-century structures exist in the entire Chesapeake (Carson et al. 1981). There areno standing buildings in the study area built before 1689.Archaeological studies of the period have focused mainly on Jamestown, but othersites from the period have been excavated at Green Spring Plantation (JC-9), theGovernor’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), andRiver Creek (YO67). Digging at Jamestown between 1934 and 1958, the National ParkService uncovered approximately 140 structures, including a church, mansions, rowhouses, single houses, outbuildings, workshops, and wells, along with 96 ditches, numerouswalkways, and craft-related features such as forges, kilns, a baking oven, and astructure used for malting and brewing beer and ale (Cotter and Hudson 1957). Cotter(1958) identified 25 buildings as 17th-century dwellings, with another ten possibledwellings 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 themabout a dozen Families [for all the houses are not inhabited] getting their liveings by keepeingof ordinaries, at exstreordnary rates (reprinted in Andrews 1915: 70).The Jamestown excavations were performed by a group of talented Park Servicearchaeologists, 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 beenexcavated 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 wasthen done by digging three-foot wide trenches 50’ apart, and following any archaeologicalremains that were uncovered.These techniques were effective for finding brick foundations and certainnon-structural features, but did not prove effective for identifying the posthole patternsindicative of early hole-set buildings. Conversely, the earlier techniques were moreeffective for finding posthole patterns, but at that time they were not always interpretedas structural remains. Perhaps as a result, while the brick buildings of 17th-centuryJamestown are fairly well-located, it is unclear exactly how many hole-set dwellingsand outbuildings were existing at the same time.24

Archaeological techniques on the other excavated sites have been somewhat morerefined, as experience has taught archaeologists that such hole-set structures do existand that “open-area excavation” is most effective for defining posthole patterns andnon-structural features. Kelso (1972, 1984), Outlaw (1980), Noël Hume (1982), andLuccketti (cited in Carson et al. 1981) have since all been able to accurately date anddescribe early hole-set structures dating to this period.SUB-THEME A: THE ORIGINS OF STAPLE CROPAGRICULTURE—TOBACCO AND THE BEGINNINGS OF THEPLANTATION SYSTEMIt was in this period that the tobacco-based economy really exploded, as it was realizedthat tobacco was the one truly marketable commodity of the colony. This is not to saythat the growing of other crops (particularly corn) and the raising of livestock were notalso important—they were—but simply that tobacco came to furnish for some the routeto 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, whenproduction rose from 2000 pounds to roughly 260,000 pounds—a 13,000% increase. In1628 about 500,000 pounds of tobacco were exported from the Colony (Gray 1933), butby 1689 the amount had grown to an amazing 15,000,000 pounds (Bruce 1896). Themagnitude of this change is reflected both in settlement pattern and property layout.A dispersed settlement pattern is a natural result of tobacco cultivation, and duringthis period plantations are scattered throughout the study area. One of the interestingfeatures of this settlement pattern is the absence of towns, as most of the functions laterperformed in urban centers were now concentrated on individual plantations. AlthoughGrim (1977) identifies several incipient service centers during this period, suggestingthat these areas were the most likely precursors of the 18th-century urban centers, clearlythey were not yet towns.One of these incipient service centers was at the mouth of Wormley Creek onthe 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 Churchwas replaced by a Second, which was not replaced itself until 1697 when Grace EpiscopalChurch was built in newly-established Yorktown. Associated with the First Churchwas the tomb of Major William Gooch, buried in 1655, and at least two other mid17th-century burials.The earliest nucleated settlement, at Jamestown, was still important as the colony’spolitical center, but its status as an economic center was never firmly established despitelegislative 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 tolargely ignore the port at Jamestown. And even Jamestown’s political function wasreduced during this period, as county courts took over many of the day-to-day administrativefunctions.Instead, a typical property type of the period is the plantation, a self-sufficient orsemi-self-sufficient unit consisting of some combination of the following: a main dwelling25

house, agricultural fields, gardens, ancillary outbuildings, slave quarters, and craft-relatedfeatures such as brick kilns, forges, or potteries. There is even some evidence, from theBerkeley settlement in Charles City County, that public buildings were sometimes alsolocated on very large plantations.A 1686 letter from Virginia planter William Fitzhugh describes a typical largeplantation:The plantation where I now live contains one thousand acres at least, seven hundred acres ofwhich are a rich thicket, the remainder good heavy plantable land without any waste eitherby marshes or great swamps...and upon it, there are three quarters well furnished with allnecessary houses, grounds and fencing, together with a choice crew of negroes at eachplantation...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 brickchimneys, four good cellars, a dairy, dove cot, stable, barn, henhouse, kitchen and all otherconvenienceys and all in a manner new, a large orchard of about 2500 apple trees, mostgrafted, well fenced with a locust fence,...a garden a hundred foot square well paled in, ayard wherein is most of the foresaid necessary houses pallisadoed in with locustpuncheons....[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 consistingonly of a farmhouse with one or more outbuildings and a few acres of fields. Plantationhouses were distinguished by a variety of architectural forms. Wealthy planters oftenlived in two-unit “hall-parlor” houses, containing two rooms, a larger hall with an exteriordoor 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, weretypical 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 dwellingsleave little easily-seen archaeological evidence, the homes of the less wealthy, tenantsand poor landowners, are still fairly poorly understood.The locations of 17th-century plantations are fairly predictable, as they are linkedto 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 settlementpattern 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 transportationand soil fertility. Transportation in the 17th century was mostly waterborne,along the major streams and their tributaries. Since tobacco crops had to be transportedby water, it made sense that most plantations would be near streams.According to the Augustine Hermann map of 1673 (Hermann 1673), plantations inthis period were spaced an average of 0.6 miles apart along the waterfront (Smolek andClark 1981). About half of the plantations in the Chesapeake were less than 500 feetfrom 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 Englanddictating what uses were appropriate for different types of soil. To the English, the typeand 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, asby 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 markedthe land as “second rate,” while the presence of even more spicewood along with smallertrees made it “third rate.” Myrtle bushes meant that it was “fourth rate” land (Stilgoe1982).Since the best agricultural soils are located along the waterways, the two factorsundoubtedly combined to produce an idealized settlement distribution. Studies by Walshof early land patents in the Chesapeake suggest that the best agricultural lands, near therivers, were patented first (Lorena Walsh, pers. comm. 1985). By comparing existingmodern soil surveys with 17th-century tract maps, she was able to predict the occurrenceof 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. Atthe Governor’s Land, Outlaw (1975, 1980) was able to identify the archaeological remainsof 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, revealingthe remains of a 20.5' × 16.5' earthfast domestic building dated to 1625-1650 (Outlaw1980). 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' dwellingbuilt around 1648. The other six sites were only tested, and little is known about thesubsurface extent of the actual physical remains.In addition to the early settlement of Wolstenholme Towne, Noël Hume’s excavationsat Carter’s Grove Plantation have revealed the remains of a plantation thought tobelong to William Harwood, new governor of Martin’s Hundred after its reoccupationin the mid-1620s. A 22' × 18' hole-set dwelling with five outbuildings was found at SiteA (JC116), along with a 19' × 17' roofed cellar used as a trash pit. Sites B and E (JC113and JC117) also produced evidence of hole-set structures dating to the second quarterof the 17th century (Noël Hume 1982).At the Kingsmill Plantations, Kelso (1984) discovered an entire series of mid- tolate 17th-century properties. Two earthfast buildings, representing successive buildingperiods, were found at Littletown Tenement (JC35), and at least five earthfast structureswere found at nearby Kingsmill Tenement (JC39). All are dated to before 1660. Otherearthfast structures were uncovered at Kingsmill Plantation (JC37) and Pettus Plantation(JC33), the latter dated to between 1641 and 1700. Possible slave quarters, alsoearthfast, were found at Pettus Plantation and Utopia Cottage (JC32), although Kelsorightly points out that in neither case can it be conclusively proven that blacks livedthere.The Bennett Farm and River Creek Sites in Poquoson have been excavated byNicholas Luccketti (cited in Carson et al. 1981). At Bennett Farm (YO68) Lucckettifound a 34' × 20' hole-set dwelling built by a small planter, Humphrey Tompkins, in the1640s. 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 POLITICALAND ECONOMIC RELATIONS WITH THE INDIANS—TRADEAND WARFAREThe local Native American population was seen as a menace at the start of the studyperiod, but this did not prevent economic interaction from taking place. Trade betweenIndian and White continued to be important, and the Indians continued to be seen asmajor suppliers of food. Although trade did occur, however, in many cases the whiteleaders now simply plundered the Indians’ fields and took their crops, later to be sold topoorer white settlers at a substantial profit.Periodic attacks on Indian villages continued unabated, but the settlers’ fears ofanother uprising led to a demand for more tangible defensive measures. As early as1622 a plan had been proposed for a palisade to extend across the lower James/YorkPeninsula, and in 1634 this palisade was finally constructed. Stretching between thehead of College Creek and Chiskiack (or Kiskiack), at the head of Queens Creek, itspanned 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 establishedat Middle Plantation to maintain the planned palisade. Sitting on the divide between theJames and York River drainage basins, the location of Middle Plantation was alwaysconsidered important. By 1676, it was recognized as “the very Heart and Centre of thecountry” (reprinted in Andrews 1915: 121). It was later said to have beenthe greatest thorough-fair in Virginia, Nature having so contriv’d it that by Reason of twodeep unfordable Creeks, which extend themselves from James and York Rivers, and almostmeet at this Place, all Passengers in going up or down this most populous Part of the Countrymust travel through this Pass, and the roads leading to it...are so good and level thatCoaches and Wagons of the greatest Burden have an easy and delightsome Passage (reprintedin Anonymous 1930: 323-337).Settlers willing to take up residence at Middle Plantation were promised fifty acresof land plus relief from certain taxes (Morton 1960: 124). Noël Hume (1963: 175) statesthat very little is known of the actual appearance of the settlement, and suggests that itwas merely a scattering of houses and worked fields extending along the line of thepalisade. It had become more complex by the later 1600s, as attested by the order of theHouse of Burgesses in 1676 that arms and ammunition should remain there in a “publicMagazine.”Properties associated with economic and military interaction with Native Americanswill probably be distinguished by the presence of European trade goods in NativeAmerican assemblages, or conversely by Indian goods in European assemblages. Sitesassociated with military interaction include the palisade itself and features related to theupkeep of the palisade.Interaction was probably area-wide, although after 1634 the Native American presenceon the lower James/York Peninsula became less and less. Sites or structures alongthe palisade, of course, are particularly significant as possible locations of interactionbetween white and Indian.Few properties dealing with this theme have been examined. The 1634 palisadehas been identified in at least two places (WB4 and WB11). Several features have been28

identified as being part of Middle Plantation, but most of these appear to be domesticsites with little evidence of major economic or military contact with the Indians.SUB-THEME C: ESTABLISHMENT OF A POLITICAL ELITEIn 1618 martial law in the Virginia colony was officially replaced by English commonlaw, but the influence of the military leaders was by no means ended. As civil officeswere created, however, a unique brand of leader emerged. Kukla (1985) refers to theseleaders as “councilor-commanders” and suggests that during the 1620s they had a greatdeal of power. They retained this power into the 1630s.Between 1635 and 1646, however, the transition to a civilian political elite wasessentially completed (Kukla 1985:282). This elite was entrenched by their control ofthe county court, an institution brought over from Britain and quickly established in auniquely Virginian hybridized form. By the early 1640s these monthly courts had largelytaken over the functions performed by the Jamestown Court during the Company period.The courts, closer to the residents of the expanding counties, effectively permittedthe widely dispersed settlements typical of the era.The creation of a bicameral legislature in the early 1640s fostered the new sort ofelite. 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 Governorand his Council. It would later be the Burgesses who were, in the 18th century, involvedin the protests against the Crown’s policies and actions.The new political elite was different from their predecessors in one other importantway. After the 1640s or 1650s many of the elite were native-born Virginians, withties 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 mosteffectively demonstrated. Angered by Governor William Berkeley’s Indian policy, aswell as by certain other issues, several wealthy planters joined with Councilor NathanielBacon in a short-lived revolt. Bacon’s Rebellion was put down within a year, but thepower 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, andColonel Thomas Pettus’ home at Littletown can all be used to study the differencesbetween 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 willbe on the best agricultural land, normally near a waterfront.Extensive excavations have taken place at Green Spring Plantation (JC9), theDrummond 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, butby 1658 York County residents had rented the house of a Captain Robert Daldrey toserve as their permanent court. This home, probably located in Yorke Village, was used29

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. Alarge row house, the Ludwell Third and Fourth Statehouse Group, was excavated byNational 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, atleast tangentially, with governmental activity. These include Structures 17 and 19, possiblyinns or taverns, and Structure 112, an extremely large house at the north end of theisland which may also have served as an inn (Lewis 1975: 310).SUB-THEME D: STABILIZATION AND MATURATION OF ANATIVE WHITE POPULATIONThe stabilization of the Colony in the second quarter of the 17th century created theconditions in which stable marriages and family lives could develop. Children wereborn in ever greater numbers, and the decreased mortality rates meant that more andmore 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 itsinstitutions to their needs.Among the first results of this process was a degradation of the quality ofVirginia-made material objects. Ivor Noël Hume has suggested that this is a naturaloutgrowth of the stabilizing of the Colony. The first settlers came from Europe, with itsguild system and relatively high standards of manufacturing quality. The settlers’ children,untrained in the regimented and effective craft shops of Europe, could hardly beexpected to produce as efficiently and would be willing to settle for poorer qualitygoods. This, coupled with trans-Atlantic trade interruptions resulting from Europeanunrest 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 centurysaw an upturn the quality of goods.Many craftsmen were practicing their trades by that time. Artifactual and documentaryevidence from Jamestown suggests that at some time the settlement containedthe 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, tobaccopipe maker, armorer, gunsmith, brazier, jeweler, basket maker, refiner, perfumer,and glover (Cotter 1957).Clearly the products of these craftsmen, if identifiable, could be profitably studiedto determine the extent of the Colony’s economic independence from England. As thepercentage of native-born in the population went up, it might be expected that the methodsand extent of craftsmanship would change.The maturation process can be also be studied by comparing the material remainson early and later 17th-century properties. Particularly interesting are those propertieswith long periods of occupation, where a native European passed his property to hisVirginia-born children. One such site is Littletown (Pettus) Plantation, passed from30

Colonel Thomas Pettus in 1669 to his son, also named Thomas. Unfortunately fairlylittle is known about the younger Thomas, but an inventory taken at the time of hisdeath is available (Kelso 1984: 211-212). More investigations of the differences betweenthe 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 OFSLAVERYSlavery was not a particularly noticeable feature of Virginia’s society in the first half ofthe 17th century, as indentured servants performed most of the functions that later wouldbe taken up by slaves. Small numbers of African slaves had arrived as early as 1619, butthey had little impact on the economy for many years. Morgan (1975: 297-298) arguesthat it was not until the mortality rate dropped, making it probable that a worker wouldsurvive longer than a typical servant’s indenture, that slavery became economicallyadvantageous. By 1660 or so, however, the wealthier planters began to see the value ofowning slaves.The slaves who worked the tobacco crops probably lived much as their 18th-centurysuccessors did, in communal quarters near the fields. These quarters were most likelyeven 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 thefloor for food storage.Two possible slave quarters have been excavated by Kelso (1984) at KingsmillPlantations. The first, at Utopia Cottage (JC32), was a 29' × 18' hole-set structure datedbetween 1660 and 1710. Kelso suggests that this may have been occupied either bytenants, indentured servants, or slaves; the faunal assemblage suggests tenants, but theceramic assemblage is that of the very, very poor. One possible interpretation offered byKelso is that both tenants and slaves lived on the property, with the slaves perhapsoccupying a smaller earthfast building found slightly north of the cottage (Kelso 1984:104).At Littletown (Pettus) Plantation (JC33), Kelso suggests that the slaves may havelived either in the east wing of the manor house, or in a separate earthfast structurefound nearby (Kelso 1984: 103-104).SUB-THEME F: ACHIEVEMENT OF DOMINATION OVER THEINDIANSThe Indian uprising of 1622 had disastrous consequences for the young colony, as roughlyone-third of the settlers were killed. Even in 1634, when the trans-peninsula palisadewas built, the British continued to fear the Indians. A second uprising in 1644 was lesseffective than the first, killing 500 settlers but mostly in the outlying areas around theFall Line and on the south side of the Upper James. In Surry County, tensions were notreduced until the 1660s, however (Kelly 1979), and fears of the Indians continued evenin the areas protected by the palisade. This fear was ostensibly the reason behind Bacon’sRebellion in 1676.31

In effect, however, the fate of the local Indians had been settled long before. Amassive depopulation of the area was a result of a combination of warfare and susceptibilityto introduced European diseases, to which the Indians had not been previouslyexposed. By the end of the study period most of the Indians on the Peninsula had eitherbeen eradicated, enslaved, or expelled.Properties associated with this domination process are Indian villages of the periodand possibly some plantations, where Indians may have been used as slaves. Quarters,probably used by black slaves or white indentured servants, may also have beenoccupied by Indian slaves. An Indian presence may be discerned from Indian artifactsin the assemblage, but to date no such sites have been positively identified in the studyarea.SUMMARYThis is one of the most important, but least understood, periods in Virginia’s history. Ithas been the subject of a great deal of study by historians, architectural historians, andarchaeologists. Unfortunately, however, the known data base is relatively small. Culturalresources therefore assume a research significance purely on the basis of theiruniqueness, and become extremely valuable to a variety of scholars.Some 41 properties have been located in the study area, and about 20 have beenextensively excavated. Little is known about the homes of small planters, tenants, servants,or slaves, or about the distinguishing characteristics which make their homesdifferent than those of the wealthier planters. Beside these, particularly important resourcesinclude craft-related features, churches and places of assembly, and specificagricultural features indicating farmstead layout, such as fields, ditches, and wallows.STUDY UNIT X: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitNational. 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 theColony would not survive. After 1630, however, stability was rapidly achieved. Alongwith 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 theAmerican Colonies. Like New England and the northern colonies, or the colonies to theSouth, the Chesapeake colonies were unique societies, developing unique institutions.Along with the distinctive cultural institutions developing in other colonies, these wereto mold and shape pre-Revolutionary America. The period 1630-1689 is highly crucialin the development of the Colonies, and the study area is central to the study of theChesapeake colonies. The study unit is therefore assigned national significance.32

Map 4.4. Study Unit X: Known Resource Distribution.TABLE 4.3STUDY UNIT X: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJAMES CITY COUNTY:JC 4 Helmet Site AS III 09 Trash pits Excavated?JC 9 Green Spring Plantation AS III 05 Plantation ExcavatedJC 32 Utopia Cottage AS III 09 Domestic Exc./pres.JC 33 Pettus Plantation AS III 09 Plantation ExcavatedJC 35 Littletown Quarter AS III 09 Slave quarter ExcavatedJC 38 Harrop Well AS III 09 Well Exc./erodedJC 39 Kingsmill Quarter AS III 09 Domestic/ Excavatedslave quarterJC 41 The Maine (GL-12, -13) AS III 08 Ossuary/ Exc./p.pres.dom./cemeteryJC 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. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJC 43 Drummond Site (GL-20, -21) AS III 08 Plantation ExcavatedJC 49 Dow Badische Barrel Well AS III 10 Barrel well Exc./erodedJC 54 Archer’s Hope Site AS I 09 Domestic/ Cultivatedagricultural?JC 55 Archer’s Hope Site AS I 09 ?/domestic/ Cultivatedagricultural?JC 85 Marable Site (GL-16, -17) AS III 08 Domestic CultivatedJC 90 Sherwood-Wilkenson Site AS III 08 Domestic? Cultivated(GL-24)JC 94 Ollister Site (GL-30) AS III 08 Domestic? UnknownJC 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 UnknownJC 103 Hobson Site (GL-41) AS III 08 Domestic? UnknownJC 104 Tallent Site (GL-42) AS III 08 Domestic? Destroyed?JC 113 Carter’s Grove, Site B AS III 10 Unknown ExcavatedJC 114 Carter’s Grove, Site D AS III 10 Unknown ExcavatedJC 116 Carter’s Grove, Site A AS III 10 Unknown ExcavatedJC 117 Carter’s Grove, Site E AS III 09 Unknown ExcavatedJC 304 None AS I 08 Unknown Cult./p.dest.JC 353 GL-26 AS I 08 Camp/dom.? Cultivated47- 9 Jamestown Island AS III 08 Town ProtectedYORK COUNTY:YO 17 Yorke Village AS III 11 Eccesiastic./ Unknowncemetery/domesticYO 248* None AS I 10 Domestic? UnknownCITY OF POQUOSON:YO 67 River Creek (Roberts AS I 11 Domestic Destroyed?Landing Village)YO 68 Bennett’s Farm AS I 11 Domestic? DestroyedYO 70 Bennett’s Farm AS I 11 Domestic? Cult./thr.YO 78 None AS I? 11 Unknown DestroyedYO 79 None AS I? 11 Unknown UnknownYO 83 None AS I? 14 Unknown CultivatedYO 84 Oxford Tidemill Stone AS I 14 Mill UnknownYO 97 None AS I? 11 Domestic Destroyed?CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:WB 4 Palisade of 1634 AS I 06 Palisade UnknownWB 11 Palisade of 1634 AS MR 06 Palisade UnknownJC 145 None AS I 06 Domestic Lumbered34

Summary of Property TypesProperty types in the study unit include:(1) Large plantations. These are relatively rare, but perhaps the most intensivelystudied properties of the period. Green Spring Plantation, home of GovernorWilliam Berkeley, is an excellent example of this type of resource, and is onthe National Register. Most of these properties were probably on prime agriculturalland, along a major waterway.(2) Domestic properties and farms of the small to middling planter. This is one ofthe most underrepresented property types, yet probably was the most common.Some of the sites at Kingsmill, Martin’s Hundred, and the Governor’s Landmay fall into this group. Like the large plantations, they were probably locatedalong or near a navigable waterway.(3) Tenant farms. Tenant farmers comprised an important but little understood segmentof the society. Utopia Cottage, at Kingsmill, may have been an exampleof a tenant farmer’s dwelling, but few others have been investigated. Thesefarms were probably on the more marginal agricultural land adjoining plantations.(4) Slave/servant domestic properties. Little is known about the lives of slaves orservants 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 classdistinctions became more rigid.(5) Public buildings. Public buildings could be found in the emerging “servicecenters”—Middle Plantation, Yorke Village, etc.—as well as Jamestown andperhaps some of the larger plantations. Court sessions, for example, were apparentlyheld in private dwellings in many instances, mostly at accessible andconvenient locations.(6) Churches and cemeteries. These properties are obviously less well known thanlater, more permanently-built churches of the 18th and 19th centuries.Non-ecclesiastical cemeteries are difficult to find, although churchyard burialshave been discovered.(7) Commercial sites. Found mostly at the emerging service centers, these siteswere undoubtedly increasingly common at the very end of the study period.(8) Taverns and ordinaries. These properties were probably found at major crossroadsand in the service centers. Few have yet been positively identified.(9) Industrial properties. Increasing craft specialization on the plantations and inthe service centers resulted in an increase in the number of industrial properties.Mills, brick kilns, potteries, and forges have all been located. By the l680spotteries had been established at Jamestown, Green Spring Plantation, and theChallis Site (Lewis l975); various other craft sites have been found at theselocations as well, most notably at Jamestown.(10) Landings and wharfs. By 1635, the landings of Poquoson were importantshipping centers, and the landing near Middle Plantation soon became impor-35

tant as well. Landings were probably located near plantations at major stationsalong the navigable streams.Character of Existing DataMaterial remains from this period are very poorly understood, since few sites have beenidentified and/or excavated. Excavations at Jamestown, the Governor’s Land, Martin’sHundred, Kingsmill, Bennett Farm, and River Creek have recovered data from aboutfifty sites, but only a few have been intensively studied. Much less, for example, isknown about these sites than about sites of the Virginia Company period (1607-1624),which has received considerably more scholarly attention. Coupled with the lack ofextensive documentary information, the period becomes one of the least known inVirginia’s entire history.Site by site analysis can be a frustrating exercise. Little detailed information isavailable on the existing archaeological site records for most properties, and comparisonsare difficult. Since no structures survive, architectural data must come from theexcavations as well. Fortunately, architectural data is well summarized in Carson etal. 1981. The sheer lack of volume of analyzable data, however, points up the fact thatidentification of more sites is needed.Criteria for EvaluationNational Register criteria are as hard to apply here as in the previous study unit. Althoughmany properties can be judged significant, particularly under Criterion A orCriterion D, integrity varies greatly from property to property. Minimally a propertymust contain sufficient archaeological or architectural remains to evaluate its relationshipto the natural landscape and to other contemporary property types.Like the earliest Euro-American study unit, however, physical site integrity is oftennot as important from a scholarly standpoint. The most significant resources, interms of research potential, are those sites typical of an underrepresented property type(e.g., small plantations). Public values and community interests are probably strong forall property types of this period, but especially for public buildings, churches and cemeteries,and large, imposing plantations.Present Condition of Property TypesSince these sites are often near the river shore, erosion is a significant problem. It hasalready destroyed several sites (e.g., the Harrop Site except for the well). With no standingarchitecture or other above-ground evidence of most sites, they are often invisibleuntil encountered below ground. Development is therefore a major threat, and it is difficultto 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 HistoricPlaces: Green Spring Plantation, Kingsmill Plantation, William Gooch Tomb and YorkeVillage, Jamestown National Historic Site, and the Governor’s Land ArchaeologicalDistrict. Many more are undoubtedly eligible for nomination, although their degree of36

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

Registration Goals• Nomination of suitable identified properties of the small to middling planter, tenantfarmer, or craftsman for placement on the National Register, under Criterion Aor Criterion D. No such properties have yet been identified to the level of detailthat a suitable candidate can at this time be proposed.Treatment Goals• Preservation or Phase III excavation and detailed recording of any preserved17th-century archaeological site or structure discovered during development, particularlyif the resource is identified as one of the more significant sites describedabove.• Continued preservation in place of National Register properties Green Spring Plantation,Kingsmill Plantation, William Gooch Tomb and Yorke Village, andJamestown National Historical Site.• Preservation in place of registered sites in the Governor’s Land ArchaeologicalDistrict. As development pressure in James City County mounts, this will requirea cooperative effort of planners, developers, and cultural resource professionals.38

STUDY UNIT XI.EXPANSION AND DIFFERENTIATION OF COLONIALSOCIETY 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 localcraft 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: NationalThe 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, resultingboth from natural increase and immigration. Continual expansion into new, unexploredareas to the west was caused by the need to migrate westward to obtain sufficientagricultural land. The landed gentry that remained, meanwhile, continued to importslaves by the thousands.Despite the westward expansion of Virginia settlement, the study area remainedthe 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 1500around 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 establishedin 1691, and Williamsburg in 1699. By the early 1700s both were developingrapidly.By the beginning of the 18th century, however, the area was still dominated by thegreat plantations, owned by a wealthy and powerful gentry and producing massiveamounts of tobacco. Most of the population still lived on plantations and farmsteads, asthe small planter, owning a little land and a few slaves, and the tenant farmer continuedto eke out an existence, often on marginal agricultural land.These plantations and farmsteads were connected by a fairly well-developed systemof roads. While the earliest transportation was almost entirely waterborne, and consequentlymost settlements were on the waterfronts of navigable rivers and creeks, bythe 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 valuablepredictor of site location, since most dwellings were located along a main road or one ofits arterial branches.39

Map 4.5.As the Lower Tidewater became more and more urbanized around the new capitalat Williamsburg, and the nascent urban centers at Yorktown and Hampton, tremendouschanges 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 developmentof the rural farms and plantations, and the relationships between the two are keysto understanding this period.Historical studies of 18th-century Virginia are a long-standing tradition. The ResearchDepartment of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, the History Departmentof the College of William and Mary, and the National Park Service have all produceddetailed histories of individual 18th-century properties, utilizing deeds, tax records, andprivate correspondence.Scholars involved in the York County Project have amassed a variety of colonialrecords for York County, and have for several years been in the process of analyzingthese records. One result has recently been published by Peter Bergstrom and MarkFerguson of the Research Department of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Usingthe Land Patents, Quit Rents, deeds, and other sources, they have constructed a cadastralmap for York County in 1704 (Bergstrom and Ferguson 1985). Biographies arebeing 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. Theseprobate inventories, showing the possessions of the recently deceased, are particularlyuseful records for comparison with archaeological assemblages (Beaudry 1975). Otherresources include journals, diaries, and newspapers. The Virginia Gazette, a newspaperestablished 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 militarycartographers, including Alexandre and Charles Berthier and several others, constructed40

detailed maps of Williamsburg, Yorktown, and the James/ York Peninsula. Probablyoriginally used for troop movements or as billeting plans, these maps have been used bythe Research Department of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and by MarthaMcCartney of the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks to identify sites extant atthis period. Particularly significant among these maps are: the unknown Frenchman’sMap (1782) and the Desandrouins Map (1782), showing the plan of Williamsburg, andthe Berthier Map of the James/York Peninsula (1781), showing roads and individualstructures in James City and York Counties. (For a list of sites identified from the lattermap, see Table 4.4, sites marked “MR”).Architectural studies of this period have been blessed by the presence of a fairlylarge number of extant standing structures. There are 88 original buildings inWilliamsburg alone, and close to ten in Yorktown. Architecturally important plantationhouses 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-floorrooms, had a larger principal room entered from the outside (the hall) and a smallerinner 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 simplyadaptations of this basic design.The Georgian house had its beginnings in the early eighteenth century. Accordingto Upton (1980: 212), typically a Georgian house had a “double-pile, central-passageplan set in a cubical mass with a repetitive, well-ordered facade.” The first Georgianmansion in the study area was the Governor’s Palace in Williamsburg (CW-20A), builtaround 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, andthroughout the 18th century.Deetz (1973) and Glassie (1975) have argued that the Georgian house, with itsstrictly-balanced bilateral symmetry, mirrors cognitive processes in the minds of theGeorgian-period planters. Using a method of structural analysis borrowed from Glassie,and ultimately partially derived from formal semantic analysis, Deetz (1973: 32) suggeststhat many aspects of culture, including foodways, furniture decoration, settlementlayout, and gravestone design, also spring from the new scientific natural philosophy ofthe period. The new Georgian mind-set, as he calls it, is therefore subject to study inboth archaeological and architectural remains.Architectural remains are more common during this period than during the 17thcentury, since a greater percentage of structures were well-built, “permanent” buildings.By this period most dwellings were made with brick foundations. Foundations andbrick chimney bases are likely to survive archaeologically, and for this reason the generalplan 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 Plate4.1). Well- built frame structures also survive in some places, and many in Williamsburg’sHistoric 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 BryanManor (YO7), built on a foundation of bog iron.Most of the archaeological evidence thus far recovered for this time period hascome from the excavations in and around the Historic Area of Colonial Williamsburg.The enormous amount of archaeological work done in Williamsburg since 1928 hasinvolved the investigation of 145 properties and the exposure of the foundations of wellover 300 18th-century structures. (For a summary of surveyed and excavated sites to bediscussed in the following sections, see Table 4.4.)The first excavations, in 1928, were performed by Restoration architects at the siteof the Capitol and at the Raleigh Tavern. Only the brick foundations of these structureswere recorded, and little attention was paid to stratigraphic or artifactual data. In November1928 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 WrenBuilding on the campus of the College of William and Mary, and when he left in Septemberthe work was carried on by John Zaharov. In the meantime landscape architectArthur Shurtleff (later Shurcliff) was excavating with his own crew, supposedly searchingfor garden remains. Reverend W.A.R. Goodwin, discovering this crew digging onthe First Theatre site in 1930, suggested that their work be halted and only the more42

professional work of Duell and Zaharov be permitted. Duell returned in 1930 to excavateat the Governor’s Palace. Upon Zaharov’s departure, Herbert S. Ragland was hiredto assist him.Duell and Ragland continued the previous policy of searching mainly for brickfoundations, but they kept more detailed notes, recording some stratigraphic informationand general provenience of certain artifacts, and even screened some of the excavatedmaterial. In the 1930 season the work at the Governor’s Palace and at the RaleighTavern site was continued, along with the testing of several other sites in the HistoricArea (Duell and Ragland 1930).Duell soon departed and Ragland became head archaeologist. After 1930 excavationwas speeded up to keep up with the reconstruction work in the Historic Area, andRagland resorted to new methods for rapidly finding the brickwork. A standard systemof “cross-trenching” was instituted, with shovel trenches dug across a property, usuallynortheast to southwest, at roughly five-foot intervals (see Plate 4.2). When foundationswere encountered the dirt around each side was excavated to expedite mapping andphotography. 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 stilldevoted 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 putin charge. With the exception of the years 1939-1940, when Francis Duke excavated afew properties, Knight continued to be in charge of archaeology into the late 1950s. Hewas responsible for the excavation of 64 properties, including some of the most importantsites in town. Knight continued Ragland’s policy of systematic cross-trenching andexposure of foundations, and his meticulous drawings (like those he did for Ragland)furnished valuable data for building reconstruction. Only rarely did Knight describestratigraphic context or artifactual content, however, and it was not until Ivor NoëlHume arrived in 1957 that these important data categories were first seriously considered.Noël Hume took charge of Colonial Williamsburg’s archaeology program in 1957and soon began a series of careful and complete excavations. With his encyclopedicknowledge of colonial artifacts and meticulous excavation technique, his site reportsare critical data bases for the 18th-century archaeology of the study area. In the late1950s and early 1960s he and his colleagues investigated one or two properties peryear: 1957, the Pitt-Dixon House; 1958, the George Wythe House and the Peter ScottHouse; 1959, the Teterel Shop and the Coke-Garrett House; 1960, the Anthony HayShop; 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, andCarter’s Grove; 1966-1967, the James Geddy House; 1968, the Alexander Craig Houseand the Nicholas-Tyler House; and 1969, Prentis Store. In the 1970s and early 1980scame a string of other important projects: 1972, the President’s House; 1975-1976, theJames 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 ArchaeologicalExcavation (O.A.E.), under Marley Brown. Since 1982 the O.A.E. hasconducted six major projects: at James Anderson Forges, the 1930s Firehouse, NicolsonHouse, the Peyton Randolph House, Tazewell Hall, and the Green Hill property.Investigations at Yorktown have involved both the National Park Service andSouthside Historical Sites, Inc. Park Service archaeologists have excavated several properties,including the Courthouse Site (99-28), Bellfield Plantation (YO64), and ArcherCottage. Norman Barka of Southside Historical Sites, Inc. has more completely excavatedseveral other properties, including the Rogers Pottery Factory (YO102), the BallardHouse (YO101), the Smith House (YO100), the Nelson House (YO99), and sites affiliatedwith the Yorktown Battlefield.At least 518 sites have been identified in the study area. Many of these have beenlocated only through map research, however, and many more only through limited surfacesurvey. The few intensive surveys and site examinations that have been done in thestudy area include: the York County Survey (V.R.C.A., 1979-1980); the first Governor’s44

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 (Collegeof William and Mary, 1983); the Second Street Extension Survey (ColonialWilliamsburg Office of Archaeological Excavation, 1983); the Route 199 ExtensionSurvey (Colonial Williamsburg Office of Archaeological Excavation, 1985); and theChickahominy River Survey (Barka and McCary, 1967-1971).Most of these surveys identified 18th-century structures or features, but to daterelatively few sites have been thoroughly investigated. The majority of these are at theCarter’s Grove, Littletown, and Kingsmill plantations, where extensive excavations havetaken place since the early 1970s (Noël Hume 1979; Kelso 1972, 1984). Other excavatedsites include: Green Spring Plantation (JC9), built by Sir William Berkeley butused in the eighteenth century as well (Caywood 1955); the Drummond Site (JC43), aplantation occupied between 1648 and 1820; Burke’s Corner (YO15), a Quaker domesticsite (Outlaw 1974); and College Landing (WB3), site of an 18th-century tobaccoinspection station.Many military sites from the Revolutionary War era have been excavated (for acomplete description, see Study Unit XXIII). Among the most interesting are theYorktown shipwrecks, vessels probably scuttled in the York River by Lord Cornwallisduring the Battle of Yorktown. Underwater archaeologists have investigated several ofthese merchant vessels, and at least one (YO88) has been the subject of an extensiveexcavation (U.A.S., V.R.C.A. 1981).SUB-THEME A: INCIPIENT INDUSTRIALIZATION AND THEDEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL CRAFT SPECIALTIESThe beginnings of an industrialized economy were evident during this period with theemergence of local craft specialization. While craftsmen and artisans were employedon the large plantations, and in fact slaves were often trained to fill these roles, themagnitude of their production was necessarily limited by the needs and resources of theindividual planter. As the urban centers in Williamsburg, Yorktown, and Hampton beganto expand, craftsmen were drawn away from the large plantations. These middle-classcraftsmen, who normally were small planters as well, began to congregate in the urbanareas as they became centers for trade and assembly. Increasing trade specialization inthe emerging cities, particularly at Williamsburg, led to the development ofoccupationally-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), basedon research reports of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, shows the developmentof 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, andbrick kilns. Many of the actual shops were adjacent to or even within the craftperson’sresidence, and in many cases the tools of his trade were scattered throughout the property.Potteries, mills, and forges, among other properties, also leave distinctive structuralremnants 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 mainlyin the urban centers. The homes and shops of several urban craftspeople have beenreconstructed upon their original foundations, and the excavations leading to those reconstructionshave 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 ScottHouse). It is important to note that all of these properties housed more than one ownerin the study period, and in many cases several crafts were practiced on the same propertyduring the 18th century. For example, the James Geddy Site was occupied by agunsmith and brassfounder, an ironworker, and a silversmith and clockmaker (NoëlHume 1970). Only through careful stratigraphic and architectural interpretation canthese complications be worked out and studied.Early excavations, during the years 1929-1957, are less helpful in this regard sincethe goal was only discovery of the brick foundations. The quantity and spatial arrangementof non-brick features and artifacts was hardly considered, and the archaeologicalevidence alone could rarely even adequately pin down the construction date for thebuilding. 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 ofparticular properties, including the Anthony Hay Shop, the James Geddy Shop, and theJames Anderson Forges.At the Anthony Hay Shop (CW-28D), Noël Hume recovered an artifact assemblageclearly associated with the cabinetmaking trade, along with a group of finds eastof the shop which indicated the contemporaneous presence of a small furnace the cabinetmakerused 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 awide 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 ofeighteenth century craft specialization at this particular site (Noël Hume 1970).The James Anderson Forges (CW-10A,E&G) were not built until the 1770s, butthe 1975 excavations on this property have been very valuable in analyzing later colonialblacksmithing 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 excavatedby the Colonial Williamsburg Office of Archaeological Excavation (see Plate 4.3), andadditional information about this important local industry has been obtained.Another important local industry, William Rogers’ Pottery Factory (YO102), hasbeen excavated in Yorktown. Barka (1979) uncovered a 21' × 14' kiln made of brick andmarl. 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 inWilliamsburg, located in the northeastern part of the town, is shown on both theFrenchman’s Map (1782) and the Bucktrout Map (1800), although it has not been locatedin excavations. Kelso (1972) also found evidence of possible tanning vats at Carter’sGrove Plantation (JC110), suggesting that individual planters were still employing tannerson their plantations around mid-century, and not necessarily relying on the urbantanners.47

Brickmaking was probably easier done near the site of construction, thus eliminatingthe need for transportation of the bricks, and it is likely that this trade was notcentralized to any great degree in the urban centers. Brick clamps have been found atmany 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 everystream contained one or more mills, while windmills could often be found on suitablehigh ground. Burwell’s Mill (YO385), a water gristmill on Kings Creek nearWilliamsburg, was surveyed in 1983 (Hunter 1984). Several other water mills havebeen discovered—Johnston’s Mill on Halfway Creek (JC36), Coleman’s (Powell’s) Millon Mill Creek (JC46), Ludwell’s Mill on College Creek (WB17), Durfey’s Mill onGrices 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) andYorktown Windmill (YO13)—have been identified, but the locations of other windmillshave not yet been pinpointed.SUB-THEME B: INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF SLAVERYBy the end of the 17th century, the institution of slavery in the colonies had been firmlyestablished. The majority of the slaves were involved in tobacco cultivation, althoughnumerous black craftsmen and artisans were working in the study area throughout the18th century. Slave importation had increased dramatically during the century, so muchthat by 1750 blacks composed nearly 40% of the population.As the 18th century progressed, the social and economic distance between thesmall planters and the elite planting gentry was intensified. One’s position in the socialhierarchy, not solely governed by the ownership of land, was highly dependent on theownership of at least some slaves (Isaac 1982). Relatively few planters held very largenumbers of slaves, these being at the very top of the hierarchy, but 75% of all familiesowned at least some.During the 18th century, the large-scale tobacco planters, requiring labor to harvestthe crops, were the primary utilizers of slaves. These slaves were housed in discretesettlements, called quarters, usually situated away from the plantation house andnear the fields (Kelso 1984).Aside from agricultural labor, support services were also needed, includingblacksmithing, cooperage, carpentry, shoemaking, and spinning and weaving. Thesewere usually provided by skilled black craftsmen working on the plantation. Personaland household servants also made up part of the slave population, and occupied positionssuch as cooks, butlers, maids, and stablemen. These workers fared better than thefield hands, and many of the household servants, at least, lived in the better-maintainedoutbuildings nearer to the manor house.In addition to providing labor for the agricultural economy, slaves were also instrumentalin 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 ofslave-holding must encompass both the rural plantations and the urban centers. Most ofthe archaeological work on slave settlements, however, has been focused on the largeplantations.William Kelso, in his work at Kingsmill, has identified five possible slave quarters:Littletown Quarter (JC35), Kingsmill Quarter (JC39), North Quarter (JC52), Bray’sLittletown (JC34), and Hampton Key (JC44). All contained root cellars, apparently acommon feature of slave houses. The discovery of a root cellar beneath Bray’s ownhouse (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 orYorktown, and little is known archaeologically about the material remains of urbanslaves. 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 wouldnot leave extensive brick foundations, or in some of the outbuildings also used for otherpurposes. The bias toward brickwork in early Williamsburg excavations has obviouslybeen responsible for our current lack of knowledge about this important aspect of coloniallife. One attempt to remedy this neglect is the proposed excavation by the ColonialWilliamsburg Office of Archaeological Excavation of the Brush-Everard property(CW-29E), intended partially to investigate the lives of the household servants of ThomasEverard. (For a further discussion of this period from the Afro-American viewpoint,see Study Unit XVII.)SUB-THEME C: GROWTH AND SOLIDIFICATION OF THEGENTRY CLASSEven 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 ofconsolidation. No longer unchallenged as the masters of a changing world order, theyreacted by attempting to make their hegemony seem ordained and self-evident, as partof 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 expressthrough visible symbols their political and social power.The power of the planting aristocracy in the cities was felt whether they ownedhomes in the urban area, as many did, or left their plantations only when the Burgessesmet. The archaeological evidence for the growth of their social, economic, and politicalpower 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 werejoined by an emerging gentry class arising in the city. Wealthy merchants could obtainthe title of gentleman, as could educated clergymen (Isaac 1982: 132). This emerginggentry class, pressured like the planting aristocracy from below, strove like them toestablish the legitimacy of the social order.Archaeologically and architecturally, this process is reflected in the increasing elaborationof homes, outbuildings, and gardens. Man-made landscape features are particularlyimportant as reflections of ideology (Leone 1983), and the spatial arrangement offeatures on a property may be used to understand some of the outward manifestations ofwealth and power.49

The homes and estates of the gentry can be found both in the urban centers and onthe plantations. Unfortunately the early excavations of homes of the elite in Williamsburg,by concentrating exclusively on brick foundations and other structural remnants, neglectedimportant man-made landscape features such as fence lines, garden remains,and non-brick structural remains. Reconstructions of formal gardens were based mainlyon 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 wereinterpreted based on a set of three flights of brick steps which identified the location ofthe three planting terraces (A. Noël Hume 1974).In recent years garden remains have received more attention, and Audrey NoëlHume (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 and1968. John Custis was a wealthy landowner himself, whose avocational interest in gardeningappears in his numerous letters. Aside from these gardens, however, no other setof formal gardens has been systematically excavated in Williamsburg, though the excavationssince 1957 have produced some partially-interpreted data on fence lines, plantingfeatures, and other garden remains. The recent excavations by the ColonialWilliamsburg Department of Archaeology have shown a little more evidence of gardenfeatures, 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 alterationsto 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 tothe actual dwelling houses, archaeologists have discovered and identified kitchens,smokehouses, dairies, laundries, sheds, privies, and stables. The plans of the brickworkfound on most of these properties have been prepared, and detailed architectural reconstructionshave been made. Important recent work has included that at the PeytonRandolph House (Plate 4.4), where a combination of archaeological and architecturalresearch 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 gentryhas recently been collected by the Office of Archaeological Excavation at TazewellHall as well.The mansions, gardens, and holdings of the large planters outside of Williamsburghave received a lot of attention for several years. At Carter’s Grove (Plate 4.5) Kelsoand Noël Hume have each analyzed the growth of the plantation throughout the eighteenthcentury (Kelso 1972; I. Noël Hume 1974), and Kelso has similarly looked atBray’s Littletown and Burwell’s Kingsmill Plantations (Kelso 1984). Other excavationshave occurred on the Drummond Plantation (JC43) and Sir William Berkeley’sGreen Spring Plantation (JC9). Map research has shown that a large number of otherplantations remain to be analyzed, however, and important gaps in the record of therural gentry remain to be filled.Homes and properties of small planters, craftsmen, and artisans are important comparativemodels, since they reflect changes in the economic affluence and self-estimationof these individuals as the gentry entrenched themselves. A few middle-class domesticsites have been identified and excavated, both in Williamsburg and elsewhere, but many50

Plate 4.4. Excavations Behind the Peyton Randolph House.more remain to be discovered. One uniquely archaeological problem with the study ofthese 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 carefularchaeological survey and excavation, as the remains of these structures are likely tobe difficult to find.SUB-THEME D: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COLONIALCAPITAL AT WILLIAMSBURGJamestown continued as capital of the colony for more than twenty years after it wasburned by Bacon’s rebels in 1676. By 1699, however, a new, planned capital was to be51

Plate 4.5. Aerial View of Carter’s Grove Plantation.established in a more convenient location. The site chosen was Middle Plantation, thesettlement begun in 1634 to maintain the trans-peninsula palisade but which had since1695 been the site of the College of William and Mary. At the time deliberations weretaking place, it had “a church, an ordinary, several stores, two mills, a smiths shop, agrammar school, and above all the Colledge” (reprinted in Anonymous 1930: 323-337).Governor Francis Nicholson designed the new town, to be called Williamsburg inhonor of King William of England. Carefully planned, the new Capitol was placed onthe east end of town, opposite the College and joined to it by a great street, Duke ofGloucester. Bruton Parish Church, originally constructed in 1683, was rebuilt, and apowder magazine and gaol were constructed. Half-acre lots were sold, with the provisionthat 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 itspublic buildings: the Capitol (CW-8C), the Courthouse of 1770 (CW-19C), the PublicGaol (CW-27B), and the Powder Magazine (CW-12A&B). As centers for lawmaking,the administration of justice, and the protection of the administrative apparatus, thesebuildings were crucial to the town’s public functions. The location, cost, and eleganceof 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 thesepublic buildings beyond the pervasive cross-trenching for foundations. Re-analysis ofsome of the artifacts collected during the cross-trenching may help to define function a52

little better, and clearly a comparison of their plans with public buildings in other capitalscould reveal the particularly Virginian modifications of English colonial governmentalstructures.The actual growth of Williamsburg as a town has been studied both through itsdocumentary research (Liddle and Styrna 1985) and through architecture. The Governor’sPalace, home of the head of the colonial administration, was extensively excavated in1929-1932, although once again stratigraphic units were not seriously considered. Artifactswere collected by general provenience and excavated earth was apparently screenedthrough 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 wealthand power, may provide material evidence of the Governor’s administrative role.The capital, as the center for lawmaking and the administration of justice at thehighest level, naturally became increasingly cosmopolitan. Gentlemen from all over theColony met here twice a year, often for long stretches at a time, and the provision ofservices and diversions for these important men was a trade in itself. The first newspaperin Virginia, the Virginia Gazette, was published in Williamsburg, and a playhousewas established in 1716 near the Governor’s Palace. The only archaeological evidenceof both, at the Printing Office (CW-18H) and the First Theatre (CW-29G), was recoveredin the 1930s, and little was located beyond the brick foundations and a few otherfeatures.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), ChristianaCampbell’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 PerryOrdinary (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. Alongwith the Governor’s Palace, this was one of the first excavations in Williamsburg, andthe foundation was carefully measured and photographed. Artifacts were collected bysite-wide provenience and earth was apparently screened. All of the other taverns exceptWetherburn’s were excavated in the period 1931-1957, when detailed recordingwas not possible and only the foundations were exposed and mapped. The Wetherburn’sTavern excavation was performed by Noël Hume in 1965-1966. Using both architecturaland artifactual data he was able to produce a detailed reconstruction of the historyand importance of the property (Noël Hume 1969). A re-excavation of the Marot’sOrdinary property, in addition, has been initiated by the Colonial Williamsburg Officeof Archaeological Excavation.The growth of the town itself may also be reflected in the spatial organization ofthe city and of outlying service industries, including the ferries and wharfs at CollegeLanding and Capitol Landing. Transportation was important to the visiting Burgesses,and therefore became a crucial service industry in the vicinity of the waterways. Littlework has been done in this area beyond the 1976 College Landing survey, which identifiedthe presence of a ferry from documentary sources with some possible archaeologicalevidence (Hudgins 1977).53

SUB-THEME E: DEVELOPMENT OF A MARKET ECONOMYThe growth of a market economy in the study area was partially the result of the developmentof the urban centers and the increasing relocation of craft specialists into thecities. As planters, servants, and slaves became more dependent on the emerging urbanindustries, a centralized system of services, goods, and exchange developed. The foci ofthis system were the urban craftsmen, but the planter aristocracy kept control throughtheir political and economic power.Tobacco continued to be a primary cash crop, and was sent directly to England forsale. The English “factor,” assigned by the planter to sell his crop in Europe, was consignedthe crop by the planter in exchange for credit used to buy English goods. Thissystem, where the large planters consigned their own crops and those of poorer neighborsdirectly to a dealer in England, gave enormous power to these large planters inrelation to their neighbors. In many parts of Virginia, however, merchants from Scotlandsoon established trading stores in the Colony itself, selling English goods at a highmark-up and purchasing tobacco directly from the growers (Isaac 1982: 137). Thoughnot particularly important on the James/York Peninsula, where consignment remainedthe rule, these merchants would become an extremely important factor in the Colony’seconomic life.As fewer and fewer goods were made directly on the plantation, however, localmerchants became more important in providing foods, furnishings, and tools. Sellingboth Colony-made and European-made goods, these merchants were able to provide anessential service in the new urban centers.Many of the large merchants were also part of the aristocracy, and their economicpower was strongly felt. A large proportion were middle-class tradesmen and smallplanters, however, simply providing a service for the elite planting gentry as well astheir neighboring craftsmen and small planters.Merchant sites are located mostly in the urban centers. In Williamsburg they wereclustered along Duke of Gloucester Street, the town’s main thoroughfare. The sitesthemselves consist of either large or relatively small stores, often located adjacent to theowner’s dwelling house.The growth of the merchant trades in and around Williamsburg has been partiallystudied 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), theCarter Apothecary Shop (Unicorn’s Horn) (CW-17A), the Pasteur-Galt Apothecary,McKenzie Apothecary, Dr. Gilmer’s Apothecary, and Hunter’s Store (ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation n.d.). Again most of the work has been spatial in nature, mappingthe brick foundations of the structures themselves.A burgeoning market economy also expedited the importation of English goodsand the distribution of these goods, along with locally-made American products. By the1760s, when creamware was introduced, a virtually world-wide market was opened upfor 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 thepoor, 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 valuablecontribution to the study of marketing, and the partially-provenienced artifactsrecovered on a wide variety of Williamsburg sites, along with those found outside ofWilliamsburg, have never been analyzed in this way.SUB-THEME F: DIVERSIFICATION OF TIDEWATERAGRICULTUREAlthough the urban centers continued to grow and expand, the rural land-holdings continuedto be the base upon which the economy depended. Tobacco, which was to shapeVirginia’s economy for 300 years, was introduced in the colonies in the early 17th centuryby John Rolfe. He experimented successfully with West Indian and Venezuelantobacco and within a few years the colonies were exporting tobacco to a ready market inEngland. Tobacco farming became the Tidewater’s main industry, one that providedenormous wealth for its largest planters.Beginning in the early 18th century, however, economic advantages shifted to livestockand grains, especially wheat (Sheridan 1984: 45). The transition from single- tomulti-crop agriculture transformed colonial society and economy. Planters, instead ofbecoming more specialized, had to begin to supply a wider range of goods in order topreserve their own self-sufficiency and to maintain their self-proclaimed position at thetop 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 weretransported for sale. College and Capitol Landings (WB3 and WB5), near Williamsburg,and Great Marsh, Messick Point, and Tinkersheires Neck, in Poquoson, were importantshipping points (Hudgins 1977; Watkins 1981). By 1730 formal tobacco inspectionwarehouses 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 until1778, when the number of inspectors was reduced to one (Hudgins 1977: 19). By thistime the planters had started to diversify their crops, and tobacco no longer held such anoverriding importance.The extensive excavations performed by Kelso and others at Carter’s Grove andthe Kingsmill Plantations, which consider landscape features as well as structural ones,have indicated that crop diversification may be partially reflected in archaeologicalremains. At Littletown Plantation (JC34) Kelso was able to define a series of ditchesdividing the land into 2.5 acre plots, and using documentary evidence from 1736-1744he suggests that this may have represented a divided-field system used for crop rotation(Kelso 1984: 146). Direct archaeological evidence for crop diversification may consistonly of these kind of landscape features, but more indirect evidence, including the recoveryof specialized agricultural implements, may provide some further clues.55

SUMMARYThe period 1689-1783 is perhaps the most completely studied of all six of theEuropean-American study units, with the work of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,the National Park Service, and others. Some 518 archaeological and architecturalsites have been identified, and physical archaeological and architectural remains havebeen 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. Homesof the small and middling planters have been relatively little studied, and the homes andshops of early craftspeople need to be investigated more extensively. Early mills orpotteries would be highly significant sites, as would any evidence of early lumbering,livestock raising, or shipping. Particularly little is known about urban slave life. Studiesof the housing and work-places of urban slaves and servants would be an especiallyuseful means of fleshing out the history of the period.STUDY UNIT XI: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitNational. After 1689 the study area assumed a new character. The stable, well-orderedChesapeake society of the previous century developed further along independent lines.As Virginia grew, its influence expanded, and the influence of Virginia’s capital grewconcurrently. The presence of Virginia’s capital city at Williamsburg made the studyarea a central one in Virginia’s colonial political and social history. The importance ofVirginia, and particularly this part of Virginia, in the social, economic, and political lifeof the American Colonies gives this study unit national significance.Summary of Property TypesThere are at least 16 property types in this study unit. These are:(1) Large rural plantations. Along with urban domestic properties, this is probablythe most intensely studied type of resource in the area. Large plantationswere investigated at Carter’s Grove and Kingsmill, while large plantation houseshave been found at Bryan Plantation, Kiskiack, and Porto Bello.(2) Plantations of the small to middling planter. One of the most underrepresentedproperty types, these were also among the most common, far more so than thelarge gentry-owned plantations. Some of the Kingsmill sites and structuresmay have been owned by small planters or tenants (Kelso l984), but few othershave been studied.(3) Tenant farms. None of these have yet been closely studied, yet it is knownthat 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 CityCounty by 1800, while only four families, eleven persons in all, were listed asfree blacks in the 1782 Williamsburg Census (see Study Unit XVII). The exactlocations of free black settlements are unknown, and their positions in the overallsettlement pattern must be analyzed.(5) Urban domestic properties. Certainly the most intensively studied propertytype, at least in Williamsburg, these sites and structures continue to be excavatedby the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation as interpretive projects arebegun. In many cases, shop complexes are associated with the dwelling, makingthese sites significant in the study of craft specialization.(6) Urban plantations. These resources are not very well understood, although afew have been excavated in Williamsburg. Lying mostly on the outskirts of theurban centers, they seem to share some characteristics with rural plantationsbut 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, andundoubtedly some have been excavated during the Williamsburg investigations.As discussed in Study Unit XVII, however, urban slave quarters are probablyhard to identify without good documentary evidence. At least one57

TABLE 4.4STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJAMES CITY COUNTY:JC 7 Lightfoot Site AS II 05 Unknown P.preservedJC 8 Joseph Pettit Site AS III 05 Trash pit ExcavatedJC 9 Green Spring Plantation AS III 05 Plantation ExcavatedJC 24 None AS I? 08 Unknown CultivatedJC 32 Utopia Cottage AS III 09 Domestic Exc./pres.JC 34 Bray Plantation SB III 09 Plantation ExcavatedJC 35 Littletown Quarter AS III 09 Slave quarter ExcavatedJC 36 Johnston’s Mill AS I 09 Mill UnknownJC 37 Kingsmill Plantation SB III 09 Plantation ExcavatedJC 38 Harrop Well AS III 09 Well Exc./erodedJC 39 Kingsmill Quarter AS III 09 Domestic/ Excavatedslave quarterJC 40 Burwell’s Landing AS III 09 Plantation? ExcavatedJC 43 Drummond Site (GL-20, -21) AS III 08 Plantation ExcavatedJC 44 Hampton Key AS III 09 Slave quarter ExcavatedJC 45 Tutter’s Neck AS III 09 Domestic? ExcavatedJC 46 Coleman’s (Powell’s) Mill AS I 09 Mill UnknownJC 48 Martin’s Hundred Graveyard AS I 10 Cemetery UnknownJC 50 Chickahominy Shipyard Wreck AS I 04 Shipwreck ThreatenedJC 52 North Quarter AS III 09 Slave quarter ExcavatedJC 54 Archer’s Hope Site AS I 09 Domestic/ Cultivatedagricultural?JC 62 Structure Site AS I 09 Domestic? UnknownJC 63 Bland Plantation SS I 09 Plantation ThreatenedJC 64 Bland Plantation SS I 09 Plantation ThreatenedJC 65 Maupin House AS I 09 Domestic UnknownJC 66 Burnt Ordinary AS I 02 Domestic UnknownJC 67 Slater Site AS I 06 Domestic UnknownJC 68 None AS I 09 Domestic UnknownJC 76 Aperson Site AS I 06 Domestic CultivatedJC 77 Stone House SB I 02 Domestic UnknownJC 79 Lane House AS I 06 Domestic UnknownJC 80 Walsh House SB I 05 Domestic UnknownJC 84 GL-14 AS III 08 Unknown CultivatedJC 85 Marable Site (GL-16, -17) AS III 08 Domestic CultivatedJC 86 GL-18 AS III 08 Brick clamp CultivatedJC 87 GL-19 AS III 08 Brick clamp CultivatedJC 88 GL-22 AS III 08 Unknown CultivatedJC 89 GL-23 AS III 08 Brick clamp CultivatedJC 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. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJC 92 GL-28 AS III 08 Domestic UnknownJC 94 Ollister Site (GL-30) AS III 08 Domestic? UnknownJC 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? UnknownJC 99 Thomas Easter Site (GL-35) AS III 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 100 GL-36 AS III 05 Unknown UnknownJC 101 Gilliam (Workman-Humbler) AS III 08 Domestic? CultivatedSite (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? UnknownJC 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 UnknownJC 107 None AS I 08 Boundary UnknownmarkerJC 108 None AS I 08 Boundary UnknownmarkerJC 109 Carter’s Grove Plantation SB III 09/ Plantation Protected10JC 110 Carter’s Grove Tannery (?) AS III 09 Tannery? ExcavatedJC 111 Carter’s Grove Brick Clamps AS III 09 Brick clamps ExcavatedJC 112 Carter’s Grove AS III 10 Domestic ExcavatedJC 123 Powhatan Farm SB I 05 Plantation? DestroyedJC 124 Hickory Neck Church SB II 02 Ecclesiastical GoodJC 138 None AS I 10 Domestic UnknownJC 139 Poplar Grove SB I 10 Plantation UnknownJC 157 None AS I? 08 Unknown UnknownJC 160 Governor’s Land #10 (GL-10) AS I 08 Hunting stat./ Cult./thr.domesticJC 165 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 166 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 167 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 168 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 169 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 170 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 171 Moody’s Wharf AS MR 03 Domestic/ Unknowncommercial?JC 172 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 177 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 186 Shellfield Plantation AS MR 06 Plantation UnknownJC 187 None AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownJC 188 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownJC 193 Six Mile (Allen’s) Ordinary AS MR 05 Tavern Destroyed?JC 238 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown59

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJC 239 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownJC 242 None AS MR 09 Unknown UnknownJC 244 Battery AS MR 09 Battery UnknownJC 245 Battery AS MR 09 Battery UnknownJC 246 None AS MR 09 Unknown UnknownJC 247 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownJC 291 Windsor Castle SB I 02 Domestic ExcellentJC 298 GL-21 AS I? 08 Cellar/surface Cult./thr.scatterJC 313 GL-11 AS I 08 Domestic? Cult./erodedJC 318 GL-16 AS I 08 Sawmill/ Erodedferry/wharfJC 326 None AS I 05 Domestic UnknownJC 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.domesticJC 358 GL-31 AS I 08 Domestic CultivatedJC 359 Rt. 199 Ext. A-3 AS I 06 Mill dam Good47- 4 Powhatan Creek SB I 08 Domestic Unknown47- 7 Harris House SB I 05 Domestic? Poor47-27 Warrenton SB I 05 Domestic Good47-43 Amblers on the James SB I 08 Domestic Unknown47-46 Colonel George James Place SB I 02 Domestic Unknown47-58 Drinking Spring AS I 05 Domestic Destroyed47-87 Durfey’s Mill DS I 09 Mill DestroyedU- 1 Challis Site AS I ? Industrial UnknownU- 3 Chickahominy Church Site AS I 05 Ecc./cemetery DestroyedU- 11 Merry Oaks Site AS I 02 Domestic UnknownU- 22 Coles (Barrett’s) Ferry AS I 05 Ferry UnknownU- 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 UnknownU- 28 Spratley House Site AS I 09 Domestic UnknownYORK COUNTY:YO 7 Bryan Manor Plantation SB I 06 Plantation/ FaircemeteryYO 9 Julius G. Hopson House AS I? 14 Unknown Cult./p.dest.(Halfway House)YO 12 Cornwallis Cave Shipwreck AS I 10 Shipwreck ThreatenedYO 13 Yorktown Windmill AS I 10 Windmill Undisturbed?YO 14 Edward Thomas Site AS I 06 Quaker UnknowndomesticYO 15 Burkes Corner AS III 06 Quaker ExcavateddomesticYO 16 Skimino Meetinghouse AS II 06 Quaker Unknowneccles.60

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionYO 17 Yorke Village AS III 11 Ecc/cemetery/ UnknowndomesticYO 21 None AS I 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 24 None AS I 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 28 None AS I 06 Unknown UnknownYO 30 None AS I 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 31 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 32 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 33 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 34 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 35 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 36 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 38 None AS I 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 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? UnknownYO 56 Custis Plantation AS I 06 Plantation UnknownYO 57 House Site AS I 06 Domestic DestroyedYO 58 “Mr. Bill” House AS I 06 Domestic UnknownYO 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 PoorYO 62 Whitaker’s House AS I 06 Domestic UnknownYO 63 Blair’s Quarter Site AS III? 06 Domestic UnknownYO 64 Bellfield Plantation AS I 07 Plantation/ UnknowncemeteryYO 65 Travis House Site AS I 07 Domestic Destroyed?YO 76 Drewry House AS I? 11 Domestic CultivatedYO 85 None AS I 10 Shipwreck ThreatenedYO 86 None AS I 10 Shipwreck PoorYO 88 None AS III 10 Shipwreck UnknownYO 89 None AS I 10 Shipwreck ThreatenedYO 91 Harwoods Mill Reservoir AS I 11 Domestic Undisturbed?Location # 1YO 94 None AS I 10 Shipwreck ThreatenedYO 95 Old House Site AS Inf 10 Domestic UnknownYO 98 Kirby Site AS I? 14 Domestic ThreatenedYO 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.batteryYO 102 William Rogers Pottery AS III 10 Industrial P.excavatedFactoryYO 103 None AS I? 06 Unknown UnknownYO 107 American Redoubt AS I 11 Earthworks Excavated61

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionYO 110 None AS I 06 Quaker ind./ UnknowndomesticYO 112 None AS I 06 Domestic/ UnknowncommercialYO 115 None AS I 10 Domestic ProtectedYO 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.destroyedcomponentYO 124 Harwoods Mill 11A AS I 11 Multi- P.destroyedcomponentYO 126 Harwoods Mill B AS I 11 Multi- Cult./p.dest.componentYO 144 None AS I 11 Unknown UnknownYO 160* None AS Inf 11 Unknown UnknownYO 162 None AS Inf 10 Unknown UnknownYO 170 Harwoods Mill Farm AS I 11 Camp/dom./ P.destroyedmilitary campYO 179 None AS I 11 Lithic scatter P.destroyedYO 182 None AS I 11 Artifact Eroded/thr.scatterYO 183 None AS I 11 Unknown ErodedYO 205 Skimino Hills AS II 06 Domestic? Destroyed?YO 206 None AS I 11 Artifact Eroded/thr.scatterYO 208 None AS I 06 Unknown UnknownYO 212* None AS I 10 Domestic ErodedYO 217 None AS MR 06 Domestic/ UnknowncommercialYO 218 British Encampments AS III 10 Military ExcavatedencampmentsYO 219 Grand French Battery AS III 10 Battery/ ExcavatedearthworksYO 220 Mid-Second Siege Parallel AS III 10 Earthworks ExcavatedYO 235 HM 1 AS I 11 Domestic? UnknownYO 238 HM 13 AS I 11 Unknown UnknownYO 239 HM 16 AS I 11 Unknown UnknownYO 241 HM 21 AS I 11 Domestic? UnknownYO 242 Skimino Mill AS Inf 06 Grist mill/ DestroyedsawmillYO 243* None AS Inf 11 Unknown UnknownYO 245 Colonial Yorktown Wharf AS I 10 Wharf Threatened?YO 246 Plantation Complex AS MR 06 Plantation UnknownYO 247 St. Simone’s Warpost AS MR 06 Military post UnknownYO 249 Courthouse Yard AS I 10 Midden DisturbedYO 252 William Franklin House AS MR 11 Domestic UnknownYO 253 Calthrop “Manner House” AS MR 11 Domestic Unknown62

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionYO 255 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 256 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 257 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 258 None AS MR 06 Domestic/ Destroyed?cemeteryYO 259 None AS MR 06 Quaker ecc.? UnknownYO 260 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 261 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 262 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 264 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 265 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 266 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 268 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 269 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 270 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 272 Bigler’s Wharf Vicinity AS MR 06 Commercial? UnknownYO 273 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 274 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 275 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 276 None AS MR 06 Quaker dom.? UnknownYO 277 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 280 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 282 None AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 284 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 285 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 286 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 287 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 288 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 289 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 290 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 291 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 292 None AS MR 06 Plantation? UnknownYO 293 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 294 Porto Bello AS MR 06 Plantation UnknownYO 295 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 296 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 297 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 298* None AS MR 06 Plantation? UnknownYO 299 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 300 None AS MR 06 Plantation UnknownYO 302 None AS MR 06 Plantation? UnknownYO 303 Brassingham Landing AS MR 06 Domestic?/ Unknownagricultural?YO 304 Brassingham Landing AS MR 06 Domestic?/ Unknownagricultural?YO 305 None AS MR 06 Domestic?/ Unknownagricultural?63

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionYO 306 Foace’s Quarter AS MR 06 Domestic?/ Unknownagricultural?YO 307 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 308 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 309 Custis (Waller’s) Mill AS MR 06 Grist mill UnknownYO 312 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownYO 313 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownYO 314 None AS MR 07 Unknown UnknownYO 315 None AS MR 07 Unknown UnknownYO 316 None AS MR 07 Slave quarter? UnknownYO 317 None AS MR 07 Plantation UnknownYO 318 None AS MR 07 Unknown UnknownYO 319 None AS MR 07 Unknown UnknownYO 320 Ringfield Plantation SB I 07 Plantation UnknownYO 321 None AS MR 07 Unknown UnknownYO 322 None AS MR 07 Slave quarter? UnknownYO 323 None AS MR 07 Unknown UnknownYO 324 None AS MR 07 Domestic?/ Unknownslave quarter?YO 325 None AS MR 07 Unknown UnknownYO 326 None AS MR 07 Domestic?/ Unknownslave quarter?YO 327 None AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 328 None AS I? 06 Shell midden UnknownYO 329 None AS I 06 ?/domestic UnknownYO 330 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 331 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 332 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 333 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 334 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 335 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 336 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 337 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 338 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 339 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 340 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 341 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 342 Nelson House AS MR 10 Domestic UnknownYO 343 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 344 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 346 None AS MR 11 Unknown UnknownYO 347 None AS MR 11 Unknown UnknownYO 348 None AS MR 11 Unknown UnknownYO 349 None AS MR 11 Unknown UnknownYO 350 Revolutionary War Battery AS MR 11 Battery UnknownYO 351 None AS MR 11 Unknown UnknownYO 352 None AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown64

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionYO 353 French Hospital AS MR 10 Military UnknownhospitalYO 354 American Hospital AS MR 10 Military UnknownhospitalYO 355 British Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks UnknownYO 356 American Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks UnknownYO 357 British Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks UnknownYO 358 American Artillery Park AS MR 10 Battery UnknownYO 359 General Rochambeau’s AS MR 10 Military UnknownHeadquarters headquartersYO 360 Adjuctant General’s AS MR 10 Military UnknownHeadquarters headquartersYO 361 French Headquarters AS MR 10 Military h.q./ Unknownand CemeterycemeteryYO 362 Washington’s Headquarters AS MR 10 Military h.q./ Unknownand CemeterycemeteryYO 363 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 364 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 365 Military Camp AS MR 10 Military UnknownencampmentYO 366 Potter Site AS MR 10 Domestic UnknownYO 367 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 368 British Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks UnknownYO 369 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 370 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 371 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 372 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 373 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 374 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 376 SSE L-1 AS II 06 Unknown ThreatenedYO 377 SSE M-1 AS II 06 Unknown ThreatenedYO 378 SSE P-1 AS II 06 Domestic? ThreatenedYO 380 Benthall Farm AS Inf 10 Domestic? Cult./p.dest.YO 384 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 385 Burwell’s Mill AS II 06 Water mill UnknownYO 386 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 387 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 388 None AS MR 06 Battery UnknownYO 389 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 390 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 391 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 392 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 393 Surrender Field Site AS I 10 ?/battlefield P.destroyedYO 394 Burwell’s Mill Brick Kiln #1 AS II 06 Brick kiln Logged/erodedYO 395 Burwell’s Mill Brick Kiln #2 AS II 06 Brick kiln Logged/eroded65

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionYO 397 Burwell’s Mill Industrial AS II 06 Industrial? UnknownFeature ComplexYO 401* None AS I 10 Domestic CultivatedJC 243 None AS MR 09 Unknown UnknownJC 299 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownJC 300 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown99- 4* Customs House SB I 10 Storehouse/ Excellentmeetinghouse99- 8* None AS I 10 Domestic? Unknown99- 9* None AS I 10 Domestic? Unknown99-10* Grace Episcopal Church SB I 10 Ecclesiastical Excellent99-12 Kiskiack SB I 10 Domestic Good99-13* Somerwell House SB I 10 Domestic Excellent99-14 Marl Bank SB I 11 Domestic Good99-15* Post Office SB I 10 Medical shop Excellent99-16 Moore House SB I 11 Domestic Excellent99-19* Session House SB I 10 Domestic Excellent99-22* Dudley Digges House SB I 10 Domestic Excellent99-23* Wharf Buildings SB I 10 Commercial Unknown99-24 Virginia Farm Group SB I 11 Domestic Unknown99-27* Thomas Pate House SB I 10 Domestic Excellent99-28* York County Courthouse SB I 10 Public Unknown99-34* DeNeufville Cottage SB I 10 Domestic? ExcellentU- 35 Ballentine House AS I ? Domestic UnknownU- 92* Presson House DB I ? Domestic DestroyedCITY OF POQUOSON:YO 10 None AS Inf 11 Unknown CultivatedYO 69 Bennett’s Farm AS I 11 Domestic? DestroyedYO 70 Bennett’s Farm AS I 11 Domestic? Cult./thr.YO 77 None AS Inf 11 Unknown UnknownYO 80 None AS I? 12 Unknown UnknownYO 81 None AS I? 15 Unknown UnknownYO 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? UnknownU- 74* Tinkersheires Neck AS Inf ? Landing UnknownU- 75* Great Marsh AS Inf ? Landing UnknownU- 88* Everard Robinson House SB I ? Domestic UnknownU- 89* None DB I ? Domestic DestroyedCITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:WB 3 College Landing AS II 06 Landing/ StablewarehousesWB 5 Capitol Landing AS I 06 Landing/ P.destroyed(Queen Mary’s Port)warehousesWB 8 President’s House Yard AS I 06 Domestic? UnknownWB 9 None AS I 06 Unknown Unknown66

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionWB 12 Peacock Hill #1 SB I? 06 Domestic UnknownWB 13 Adair Site AS I? 06 Unknown UnknownWB 14 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 15 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 16 Ludwell’s Mill AS MR 06 Mill assoc.? UnknownWB 17 Ludwell’s Mill AS MR 06 Grist mill UnknownWB 18 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownWB 19 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 20* None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 21* None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 22 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 23 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 24 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 25 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 26 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 27 SSE A-1 AS II 06 Artifact ThreatenedscatterWB 28 SSE B-1 AS II 06 Domestic? ThreatenedWB 30 Colonial Williamsburg AS III 06 Town ProtectedHistoric AreaCW-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.excavatedCW-2C* Moody Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavatedCW-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.excavatedCW-2G* Lot East of Graves Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavatedCW-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.excavatedCW-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.excavatedCW-2P* Hubard Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavatedCW-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.excavatedCW-3C* Corner of Francis & England AS III 06 Unknown P.excavatedStreetsCW-4A* Nicholas-Tyler House AS III 06 Domestic P.excavatedCW-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.industrial67

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionCW-7B* David Morton House DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.CW-7B* Isham Goddin House & Shop DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon.industrialCW-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.excavatedCW-8E* Blue Bell Tavern DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon.CW-8F* Savage Lot AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavatedCW-8G* Christian Lot AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavatedCW-8H* L.W. Lane Property AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavatedCW-9A* Macon Lot AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavatedCW-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 & 23CW-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 industrialCW-10B* Brick House Tavern DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon.CW-10C* Mary Stith Shop DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon.commercialCW-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.excavatedCW-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. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionCW-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.excavatedCW-13I* Corner of Duke of AS III 06 Unknown P.excavatedGloucester & King StreetsCW-13J* Peter Scott House AS III 06 Domestic/ P.excavatedcommercial?CW-14A* Douglas Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavatedCW-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.excavatedCW-14E* John Lockley House AS III 06 Domestic P.excavatedCW-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.excavatedCW-17H* Pierce Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavatedCW-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.excavatedCW-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*industrialCW-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. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionCW-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.excavatedCW-22B* Archibald Blair House SB III 06 Domestic? P.exc./rest.CW-22C* Minor Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavatedCW-23A* Goodwin Building Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavatedCW-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.excavatedCW-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.excavatedEngland StreetsCW-28D* Anthony Hay House & Shop DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon.industrialCW-28D* Tayloe House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.CW-28E* Peyton Randolph Property AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavatedCW-28F* Ravenscroft Lot AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavatedCW-28I* Corner of Scotland & AS III 06 Unknown P.excavatedEngland StreetsCW-29A* Levingston House AS III 06 Domestic P.excavatedCW-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.excavatedCW-29G* First Theatre Site AS III 06 Playhouse P.excavatedCW-29H* Archibald Blair Stable AS III 06 Stable P.excavatedCW-30A* Robert Carter House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.CW-30B* Elkanah Deane House & Forge DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon.industrialCW-30C* Carter/Deane Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavatedCW-34A* Corner of Scotland & AS III 06 Unknown P.excavatedEngland StreetsCW-42* Abby Aldrich Rockefeller AS III 06 Unknown P.excavatedFolk Art Center LotCW-42A* Tazewell Hall DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./movedCW-44A* Jane Cary House DB III 06 Domestic P.excavatedCW-44B* Tazewell Hall DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./movedCW-44D* Galt Cottage DB III 06 Domestic P.excavatedCW-45* Powell-Hallam House DB III 06 Domestic P.excavatedCW-45* Galt Cottage DB III 06 Domestic P.excavatedCW-46A* First National Bank Lot AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavatedWB 31 SSE E-2 AS II 06 Artifact ThreatenedscatterWB 35 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown70

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionWB 36 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 37 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 38 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 39 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 40 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 41 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 42 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 43 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownJC 301 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownJC 302 None AS MR 06 Battery UnknownJC 303 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown137- 5* Rev. Bracken House SB I 06 Domestic Restored137-10* Providence Hall SS I 06 Domestic/ Excellentcommercial137-36* William Timson House SB I 06 Domestic Unknown137-38* Geddy-Baker, Inman Office SB I 06 Domestic Excellent137-42 * Bell Mead SB I 06 Domestic Excellent137-46 Wheatland DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed137-53* Rabon House DB I 06 Domestic UnknownU- 38* Parks’ Paper Mill DS I 06 Industrial DestroyedU-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 UnknownFemalesU-127* “Negro School” DB DR 06 School Unknownmostly-unexcavated property in Williamsburg, the Nicolson House (CW-7A),has the potential of containing fairly intact slave quarters; most of the rest haveprobably been disturbed.(8) Public buildings. The public buildings of Williamsburg and Yorktown havebeen fairly well investigated, particularly the Capitol. Few of these sites, however,have been dug with modern techniques, and thus their archaeologicalrecord is often spotty.(9) Churches and cemeteries. Several churches have been investigated, notablyBruton Parish Church in Williamsburg and Hickory Neck Church in JamesCity County. Cemeteries and family plots are less well known, particularlythose designed for the poorer classes. Revolutionary War military cemeteriesand church graveyards have been located in several areas.(10) Schools. Other than the College of William and Mary, intensively studied foryears, many schools for this period have not yet been located. Clearly theyexisted, and by 1699 Williamsburg is said to have contained, in addition to theCollege, a “grammar school” (Anonymous 1930).71

(11) Taverns and ordinaries. Urban taverns and ordinaries have been excavatedin Williamsburg and Yorktown, but the taverns located at various crossroadsare little known.(12) Commercial properties. These properties are known mostly from the urbancenters, and outlying commercial areas on the outskirts of these centers or inthe countryside are not very well understood.(13) Industrial or craft-related properties. Industrial properties have been studiedboth in the urban centers and in the rural areas. Mills have been identifiedon several streams, but none have been intensively studied. Clearly mills werefound on almost every stream, and often in great numbers. Potteries, forges,and workshops were found near the dwellings of both urban and rural craftspecialists. 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 Jamesand York Rivers, and on their navigable tributary creeks. Particularly importantlandings were in the Poquoson area, on the York River, and Capitol andCollege Landings, on the outskirts of Williamsburg.(15) Shipwrecks. At least eight Revolutionary War shipwrecks in the York Riverhave been surveyed, and one (YO88) is the object of a continuing intensiveunderwater excavation. These ships, all merchant-class vessels, are clearly associatedwith Cornwallis’ defense at Yorktown, and thus associated with a significantevent in the Revolutionary War.(16) Earthworks, batteries, and other military sites. Sites associated with RevolutionaryWar battles are found mostly near Yorktown, and many are protectedas part of Colonial National Historical Park. Several earthworks were investigatedby Southside Historical Sites, Inc. in the late 1970s.Character of Existing DataCertain property types in this study unit, particularly urban domestic structures, areextremely well studied. Others, particularly rural domestic properties and farms of thepoor to middle class, are less well represented. Architectural surveys have concentratedon the urban properties in Williamsburg and Yorktown and the well-built, preservedplantation houses; little has been done with lower-class vernacular architecture, industrialsites, or slave settlements. Archaeological site records and architectural surveyforms furnish little information beyond location and general site type for many properties,and many investigations are poorly reported. Almost no site located simply from acartographic source has been field checked, although the few that have suggest that themaps are quite accurate. The most important identification priorities, therefore, are fieldchecks of those known late 18th-century sites located from maps, and detailed recordingof any earlier 18th-century sites and structures accidentally or purposefully discovered.72

Criteria for EvaluationNational Register standards are based on both type of significance and integrity. In thisperiod, a property can be eligible for the Register under any one of the four criteria forsignificance: 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 distinctivecharacteristics 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 thatthe resource must be sufficiently intact to answer the relevant research questions, whetherstanding or not. Structural integrity is important for some categories of resources, butcertain aspects of some properties (or even the entire property in some cases) may onlybe present as archaeological remains, and yet be significant nonetheless.Evaluation of the importance of a property, from a research standpoint, is not solelytied to its potential eligibility for the Register. The most underrepresented property typesor most unique resources are most important from a research standpoint, since theyhave the most potential to contribute to historical knowledge. For these resources, integrityrequirements may not need to be so exacting as long as the resource is capable ofyielding valuable and analyzable information about the property type. This is not necessarilyincongruent with National Register standards, as most such resources probablywould 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 structuralintegrity. These values, though not explicitly part of National Register criteria, areundoubtedly important in determining the importance of a specific property.The situation is somewhat different for the well-studied, well- represented propertiesof this period. Integrity must be extremely good to make an example of awell-represented property type important, and proportionately less so forunderrepresented types. In this period aesthetic qualities and/or public values may makea well-represented property type more significant than it would otherwise be (e.g., awell-built plantation house or church), though this criterion has probably been overusedat the expense of small to middling farms, tenant farms, and industrial sites. While atleast one representative example of each property type should be preserved, at thispoint preservation efforts should be aimed at protecting the best possible examples ofthe most underrepresented properties.Present Condition of Property TypesDevelopment pressure is undoubtedly the most serious threat to sites and structures ofthis study period. In contrast to 17th-century sites, cartographic and documentary datamake it more likely that these properties can be identified before development takesplace, 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 conditionof any archaeological or architectural remains is unknown. This is particularly trueof resources on military installations in the area.73

About half of the identified properties have been surveyed, and as a result of thisonly a small portion have been preserved. This does not include the properties in theColonial Williamsburg Historic Area, most of which have been partially excavated,rehabilitated, and preserved, or those in Colonial National Historical Park, many ofwhich have been restored or reconstructed. National Register properties dating to thisperiod include: Carter’s Grove Plantation, the Chickahominy Shipyard, Hickory NeckChurch, Kingsmill Plantation, Pinewoods, Powhatan, Stone House, Tutter’s Neck, BrutonParish Poorhouse, Bryan Plantation, Grace Church, Kiskiack, Porto Bello, the YorktownHistoric District, the Yorktown Shipwrecks, Bruton Parish Church, Capitol Landing,College Landing, the Peyton Randolph House, the James Semple House, theWilliamsburg Historic District, the Wren Building, and the George Wythe House. Oneof these, Powhatan, has recently been seriously compromised despite its presence onthe 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 PrioritiesBecause this time period is relatively well studied, identification priorities are fairlyspecific, and large-scale, comprehensive surveys are not needed. Evaluative tasks, aswell as identification surveys for certain property types, can be performed in the nextone or two years. After some of these evaluation tasks are completed, it should bepossible to isolate a number of National Register-eligible properties, which should benominated. Treatment goals may be site-specific, as those for College Landing, or generaland ongoing, for the currently-protected properties controlled by the ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, Colonial National Historical Park, and the College of Williamand 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 datablecharacteristics should be included. This survey should be performed by atrained architectural historian with knowledge of 18th-century industrial technology,and should include recommendations for preservation of relevant examplesof each represented property type.• Preparation of a series of maps showing landholding patterns in those areas whererecords are available, identifying the socio-economic status of the occupant andthe condition or presence of the associated archaeological site. This would alloweasier evaluation of the research potential of individual properties. While a start onthis is the work of the York County Project, and specifically the 1704 cadastralmap prepared by Bergstrom and Ferguson (l985), such maps do not explicitly linkthe landholdings to identified or suspected archaeological sites, reducing their effectivenessfor site-specific resource preservation.• An evaluation of the probable present condition of known sites and structures inJames City County, York County, and the City of Poquoson, particularly those74

identified only from the 1781 Berthier Map. This would include an archival evaluationof present and past land-use, as well as selected field checks. Particular attentionshould be paid to areas slated to come up for development by 1990, and, givenaccess, the condition of resources on military installations in York County. Thisproject can be carried out cooperatively by the College of William and Mary, theColonial Williamsburg Foundation, and avocational groups such as the ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia. Records of conditions, including field checks, shouldbe 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 Williamsburgexcavations (1957-1982) which could be used to address research questions forthis study period. This may be done by staff at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundationas part of the proposed Colonial Williamsburg Management Plan, and the listof 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 ofWilliamsburg settlement patterns, with additional analysis relating these patternsto archaeological remains. Important work done at Alexandria (Cressey andStephens 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 researchersat the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, when analysis of material remains isintegrated with the results of the York County Project.• A re-evaluation of buildings adjacent to the Historic Area of Colonial Williamsburgfor possible individual nomination to the National Register. Possible candidatesfor nomination according to architectural and associational criteria would includeBassett Hall, the Timson House, and the Griffin House. This re-evaluation shouldbe performed by architectural historians affiliated with the Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation as part of their proposed management plan.Registration Goals• Nomination of identified properties of the small to middling planter, tenant, or freeblack to the National Register under Criterion A or Criterion D. No such propertieshave yet been identified, but site-specific documentary research for proposeddevelopments or research projects such as those described above may uncoverlikely candidates.Treatment Goals• A Phase I survey, followed by Phase III salvage of archaeological remains associatedwith College Landing (WB3), and preservation of all remains not to be im-75

pacted by the proposed Port Coves development. Where necessary, salvage excavationshould be performed to the highest professional standards, and can be undertakencooperatively by the Colonial Williamsburg Department of Archaeologyand 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 slatedfor development. Preservation or Phase III excavation is recommended for themost significant sites described above; Phase I or II recording of morewell-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, thePeyton Randolph House, the James Semple House, the Wren Building, and theGeorge Wythe House. Any rehabilitation to any structure or building should bedone in accordance with the Secretary’s standards (U.S. Department of the Interior1983).• Preservation of all intact shipwrecks in the York River as a future underwater archaeologicalresource.• Continued preservation and interpretation of sites in the Williamsburg and YorktownHistoric Districts by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and Colonial NationalHistorical Park.76

STUDY UNIT XII.THE WORLD THE SLAVES AND SLAVEHOLDERSMADE (A.D. 1783–A.D. 1865)Major Theme: Expansion and decline of bond-labor based economy andsociety.Sub-Themes: A. Population decline and stabilization.B. Expansion of slave-based mixed-crop economy andimproved 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: RegionalAfter the Revolution the political influence of the Lower Tidewater waned as the locusof wealth, power, and population shifted toward the Piedmont. However, despite itsdiminished political status, the society and economy of the Lower Tidewater remainedviable, in large measure due to the successful new uses made of slave labor. Even thosewho 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 enormouschanges between the Revolution and the Civil War, suffering a decline in populationand economic well-being in the first three decades of the 19th century. With improvedagricultural methods, however, Tidewater agriculture and economy was revitalized andby mid-century a new order had evolved. By virtue of its diversified agriculture anddecreased average farm size, the Tidewater was more similar to the Middle Atlantic orNorthern states, with the profoundly important difference of slavery.Additionally, by the end of the 18th century the national importance of this areahad ceased. Matters of national or state exigency were decided elsewhere and only onenational leader emerged in this era, President John Tyler. Land that had once producedthe finest and most expensive orinoco and sweet-scented tobacco was now indistinguishablefrom 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 ofWilliamsburg for several reasons. First, this peninsula’s long history can be studied as a375-year continuum of permanent settlement, impossible in most areas of thecountry. Second, this area is a microcosm of the entire Tidewater region and the problemscaused by an expanding western frontier, the decline of agricultural productionand the failure to capitalize on a changing and increasingly urbanized and mechanizedworld were all encountered there. Finally, this era provides a link from the recreated18th century past to modern-day reality, particularly as the period in which many modernroads and agricultural techniques were developed. Many of the buildings and structuresfrom this era are in current use and reflect the utilization of the past in moderndaily life.77

Map 4.7.According to Dell Upton, two stages of growth can be seen in the number and typeof dwellings built in southeastern Virginia during the post-Revolutionary period. A “GreatRebuilding” 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 centuryit seems that many area residents occupying post-in-the-ground structures were able tobuild their first “substantial” houses. Beginning around 1825, economic upswing in theagricultural sector enabled many to build larger houses. During the second quarter ofthe 19th century the classic “I-house” developed: a central-passage, single-pile, two-storystructure (Upton 1979: 369). The beginnings of the “I-house” can be traced to the 1790sand its construction continued until the early 20th century. Plate 4.6 illustrates a late19th-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, EgyptianRevival, early Victorian and Italianate styles can be found in Virginia, particularlyin the expanding cities and towns of the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley (Maddox1985: 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 remainin the study area. Their influence can be seen, though, in various domestic and churchbuildings. For instance, Ewell Plantation (JC189), built in 1845 by the president of theCollege of William and Mary, has strong elements of Greek Revival architecture. Localtradition 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 ofAnderson’s Corner at Route 60 and Route 168. This two-story frame farmhouse has aninterior 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 periodarchitecture 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 slowedin the early 19th century, some large homes were built. These included Shellfield Plantationand Riverview (JC185), the only plantation home left on the York River in JamesCity County. Waterview (99-6), at the end of Route 631 on the York River, althoughbuilt in 1836, belongs to the 18th-century grand era of the Tidewater. A two-and-a-halfstory frame structure, it measures 60' × 24' with a central staircase and flanking chimneys.Many modestly prosperous farmsteads and town dwellings were also built. Forinstance, Jockey’s Neck Farm (47-74) is said to be “typical of those built by smallfarmers in Tidewater in the first half of the 19th century” (VDHL site records). Thedwelling is described as a simple three-bay one and a half story frame house with Americanbond chimney and built on a brick pier foundation. Other 19th-century farm housesincluded 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 tohave been built by a farmer of middling economic means (Plate 4.10). It is aone-and-a-half story wood frame structure with a brick English basement. The westchimney is dated “W W 1790” and laid in English bond; the east chimney is laid inFlemish bond. It is reported, however, to have characters and features of a house type ofthe mid-19th century (VDHL site form). In its current use it is attached to a mobilehome, the two serving as expanded dwelling space.Archaeological investigations of such early 19th-century domestic structures havebeen limited, both in urban and rural settings. In general, even the 19th-century componentsof earlier farmsteads, plantations, and townhouses have been ignored. For instance,the 19th-century tenant structure at Kingsmill (JC37) built on the site of the18th-century mansion after it burned in 1844 merely receives passing mention as part ofthe archaeological investigation of Kingsmill (Kelso 1984: 87).Those that have been located archaeologically are generally known solely at thesurvey level, and only the presence of temporally diagnostic artifacts among surfacescatters indicate their early 19th century occupation. Peacock Hill #1 (WB12) is anexample, 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 inventoryform 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 thestructure remains above ground, even though it was thought to have been burned, andsome structural timbers are intact. Nor are there any plans, drawings, or photographsincluded, beyond a locational sketch. A recommendation that architectural recordingtake place was made, but it is not known whether this has taken place since 1984. Thereis virtually no other information at the survey level regarding Federal-period domesticdwellings in York County.Because of the decidedly Colonial focus of preservation efforts in this area, few19th-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 historicallydocumented building types (Stone 1976).Nevertheless, it is highly probable that systematic surveys of the area will locateadditional structures and buildings associated with middling and poor planters of thelate 18th and early 19th centuries. A “field check” of the Gilmer map will prove especiallyuseful as the status of many of the buildings and structures located on that map isunknown.SUB-THEME A: POPULATION DECLINE AND STABILIZATIONOne of the most important factors of the development of York and James City Countiesin the late 18th and early 19th century was the decline and stabilization of local populationand the changing ratio of black and white residents. Population trends had effectson, among other things, family size and structure, attitudes towards land as labor fell ineven shorter supply, the ability of the landless to obtain land and hence status, and thetendency among farmers to neglect soil improvement. Changes in population ratiosalso prompted an increasing fear among the white population of the growing number ofblacks, both free and enslaved.The immediate post-Revolutionary era in the Tidewater was in general one of populationdecline. Further opening of western territories, the lack of available land for second-or third-generation Tidewater residents, the decreasing productivity of Tidewater83

soils, and price fluctuations in agricultural products were all contributing factors in theout-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 childrenof the elder States...who have sagacity to perceive the advantages and courage to encounterthe difficulties of so long a journey go where the land is cheap and labor repaidwith 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 Kentuckyto Williamsburg’s inhabitants:Otway Byrd has been with us for some days and threatens to march a colony from Williamsburgto Kentucky. The fellow is hair-brain’d on the subject and I believe will cheat me of mysenses, 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 whenhe 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 immediatelyfollowing the Revolution. York County’s total population was in definite declinein the early 19th-century, bottoming out in 1830 and slowly recovering. At mid-centurymore than 25% fewer people lived in York county than in the final decade of the 18thcentury (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 approximately70 years following the Revolution. Its population also declined from that of 1790, dippingsome 42% in just 30 years, then levelling out, and increasing nearly 50% between1850 and 1860 (see Figure 4.2).Tidewater Virginia’s drastic depopulation becomes even more apparent when localrates are contrasted with those for the country as a whole. Population growth nationwidewas estimated to be 145.6% from 1790 to 1800 alone (Craven 1965: 120). TidewaterVirginia was also bypassed by the turn of the 19th century as a settling point fornew immigrants. Increasingly too, the westward emigrants from the region were youngadults, whose departure robbed the Tidewater of natural population increase. At thesame time, large landowners were increasing their holdings, further exacerbating theeconomic inequalities and social distinctions already present.Table 4.5 draws upon Tidewater Virginia land tax records from 1704, 1788, and1815, with the early 19th-century data from York County. The table demonstrates thedecline of the middle classes, slight increase in the number of small landowners, and asolidification and stabilization of the larger landowners through time.Although land was relatively inexpensive during the hard times of the early 19thcentury, a sizable percentage of the population did not own land. Over 40% of the taxpayersin 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 overall84

Figure 4.1.Figure 4.2.85

TABLE 4.5AVERAGE TIDEWATER FARM SIZE1704 - 18151-99 100-199 200-299 300-399 400-499 500-599 1000+ACRES ACRES ACRES ACRES ACRES ACRES ACRES1704 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 3.01815 b 42.0 26.2 10.1 7.3 3.8 7.3 3.1abData from 1704-1788 was gathered from the Virginia Coastal Counties of Middlesex, Gloucester, ElizabethCity, 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 wholepopulation, at just about two per taxpayer.It is difficult to ascertain the role of these landless residents in the society andeconomy of the area. They may have been sons of property-holding age awaiting inheritanceor 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 familyland, and 15% were tenants (Main 1954: 248).Of additional interest in the study of the population changes of York and JamesCity 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. Forinstance, as the number of whites decreased a heightened vulnerability was often felt bythe white residents. The black majority over whites in Virginia increased from 3004 in1800 to 81,077 in 1830 (Jackson 1964: 37). In addition, when the number of slavesdecreased in the first quarter of the 19th century the number of free blacks became evenmore menacing. Underlying the pleas to the legislature to “do something” about the freeblacks was a real fear. The results of the census of 1830, chronicling the high numbersof free blacks in the area sparked numerous petitions from neighboring Hampton andNorfolk for removal or colonization of free blacks (Jackson 1969: 15). After Nat Turner’sRebellion in nearby Southampton County, fear of the overwhelming black populationbecame the motivating factor for a number of restrictive laws affecting both enslavedand free blacks.The balance of black to white can also be seen in economic terms. The large dropin the number of slaves in 1830 in both James City and York Counties is reflective ofboth the higher prices of slaves and difficult circumstances requiring many planters tosell their slaves. It is also indicative of changing agricultural practices and the move toless labor intensive crops.The rise of the percentage and number of free blacks in the population is perhapsone of the most significant changes in the time period studied. Despite the political andlegal restrictions on free blacks, a surprising number remained in Virginia throughoutthe early 19th century. In 1830 there were 47,348 free blacks in Virginia, a number86

which increased to 58,042 by 1860. Most of these free blacks were descendants of thosefreed during the Revolutionary era. Indeed, free blacks made up 12% of the black populationof Virginia and 3.6% of the total state population. There were almost as many freeblacks in Virginia in 1830 and 1860 as in all of New York and New England, andone-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 in1790, was as high as 18% in 1860. The importance of free blacks in the county caneasily be seen when compared with the number of white males. From 1830 to 1850 thefree 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 (Figure4.3).The percentage of free blacks in York County more than doubled in the seventyyears 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 whitemales 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 theTidewater 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 seriousfailures in providing for their white population, many of whom left the region. Whetherthe free blacks stayed (and increased) because of their economic inability to move on ortheir success at finding profitable niches within the community, despite increasinglyacrimonious cries for their removal or legislative control, will be discussed in Sub-ThemeD.The character of early 19th-century Tidewater population was reflected on thelandscape. The fluctuation of housing demands, for both black and white, and the decreasein farm size are but two ways it can be seen. The proliferation of “untenantedhouses” described in 1832 in Virginia must have occurred in James City and York Countyas 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 therevitalization of the area around mid century. The number of white households increased42% from 1850 to 1860 alone in James City County, from 396 to 606. York County’sgrowth was less spectacular, rising from 442 to 570 white households in the same tenyears. Reports of the progress of erection of “numerous private residences” inWilliamsburg in 1855 (cited in Carson 1961: 107) reflects a nearly 30% growth of populationin James City County from 1850 to 1860. Specific building types will be discussedin the appropriate sub-themes.Despite the near dearth of archaeological investigation in the area in this timeperiod, the availability of documentary sources makes it possible to characterize sitedistribution in general terms. Land tax records provide information about the number ofstructures taxed, and in York County in 1820 this included 108 landed buildings, mostof them dwellings, with an average value of $255. An additional 28 buildings were builton 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, unfinishedmap of the countryside of 1781 and J.F. Gilmer’s map of 1863 both provide detaileddepictions of building locations and types in various parts of the counties. However,Berthier’s map of the countryside did not extensively cover southeast of modernRoute 60. Gilmer mainly chronicled development towards Richmond and the southwestcoast.The map sources in this time period are a major data base and provide importantinformation about overall development. Additionally, they aid in the identification ofproperty residents. For example, Gilmer’s map lists specific household residents byname, 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 millswith 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 errorswithstanding, this map gives an excellent portrayal of a society’s landscape, captured at1863, but reflecting decades of previous development and change.The majority of these map sources were drawn in preparation for military campaignsand in times of peace there was little need for cartographers. To attempt to understandthis area in the years between the two major conflicts, land tax records from 1815were used to generalize trends of population distribution.For each landholding taxed in York and James City counties, a distance and bearingfrom the courthouse was noted. This was generally limited to two directions,i.e., southwest or northeast, but occasionally three directions were utilized, such assouth-south-west. The distances seem to be quite approximate and may be related toroad 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 statisticalevaluation of their biases and a standard measure of error.Figures 4.5 and 4.6 illustrate settlement trends in James City County and YorkCounty as they are reflected in these tax records. The greatest density of population inJames City County seems to have been along a northwest directional corridor fromWilliamsburg, the highest concentration falling within 10 to 15 miles from Williamsburg,with an especially large grouping 12 miles from town. This is the approximate locationof modern Toano (called the Burnt Ordinary in the 19th century). This also is in thegeneral area of Diascund Creek, location of the Revolutionary War shipyards.In York County a surprising number of landholdings clustered southeast ofYorktown, and were probably located on the rivers, many creeks, and marshes of LowerYork County and Poquoson, and allowing access to marine resources. In 1860, 105fisheries were enumerated in the census for York County. Yet little is known of thisactivity through other contemporary documents, and additional information could perhapsbe 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 callthemselves lawyers and justices of the peace...have at some distance from the town89

Plate 4.11. J. F. Gilmer’s Map, 1863.small farms to which they every morning pay a visit” (Rochefoucauld 1797: 21). Hedoes not stipulate a specific distance, yet 21 land holdings were found within two milesof Yorktown. This reflects a continuation of the more 18th-century tradition of combiningprofessions, i.e., merchant/planter, merchant/lawyer and a pattern of overseer supervisionof farming without direct owner residence.Williamsburg settlement does not exhibit a similar pattern of close rural/urbanspatial relationships and dual town/farm roles. Most of the area surrounding Williamsburgwas 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 thequality of the soil for agricultural uses, for in the “immediate environs of the town, theland in general is indifferent” (Rochefoucauld 1797: 27).SUB-THEME B: EXPANSION OF SLAVE-BASED MIXED-CROPECONOMY AND IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL METHODSTo begin to understand James City and York Counties in this period the study of itsagriculture is imperative. Even the local town centers and increasing manufactures were91

Figure 4.6.intrinsically tied to the soil and the ability of Virginia farmers to profit from that economicbase.For over a century this area had been primarily tobacco country, but even beforethe Revolution dependence on tobacco as the sole cash crop was lessening. Changeswere slow, particularly due to lowered productivity of the soils, but by the Civil War atransformation had occurred from tobacco cultivation and corn to a true mixed cropagricultural base. A number of farmers began to specialize in the raising of beef anddairy cattle as well.While tobacco continued to be raised after the Revolution, particularly the moreexpensive “sweet-scented” type along the river basins, it was no longer the predominantcash crop of the area (Joseph 1976: 39) (Plate 4.12). Instead, cultivation of wheatand corn, and later of potatoes, accelerated. Samuel Vaughn found little tobacco grownon his travels down the New Kent Road to Williamsburg. Instead the land was worn outand 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 NapoleonicWars opened up vast new markets for American agriculture and wheat production grew92

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. Theexport of grain and flour from Norfolk grew exponentially even as that of tobaccodwindled.Duke de la Rochefoucauld described in some detail York and James City County’sagricultural system of wheat and corn rotation during his travels in 1795, 1796, and1797:The soil in the vicinity of Williamsburg is tolerably well- cultivated: but here, as in otherparts of Virginia, each proprieter possesses so great an extent of land, that he cultivates buta small portion of it. The ordinary rotation of culture here is—Indian corn—next wheat orother grain—then three of four years in fallow, during which the crop of grass furnish thecattle with good sustenance. After this rest of three of four years, the ground is again cultivatedin the same manner. The lands thus managed yield from eight to twelve bushels ofwheat 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 resumptionof peace with and in Europe. Prices plummeted, the Hessian fly ravaged, and onceagain “distress spread almost universely throughout Virginia in 1819 and 1820” (Craven1965: 81). Tidewater’s wheat was of poor quality, partially due to the unsuitabilityof much of Tidewater soils but farmers of the area stubbornly persisted with its plantinginto the 1820s (Bruce 1932: 192).93

Though there were periods of prosperity, the general economic spiral was downwardand travellers in the Tidewater observed “exhaustive cultivation, wasted lands,abandoned fields, neglected stock and shifting crops” (Craven 1965: 82). In 1816 JamesK. Paulding found the lands in the greater part of lower Virginia “greatlyimpoverished...by being planted without its strength being sustained by manure” (Craven1965: 84).The redemption of Tidewater agriculture in the decades preceding the Civil Warwas a slow process unassisted by foreign wars and fluctuating prices. Its inauspiciousbeginning can be traced to the publication of John Taylor’s The Arator in 1813. Taylor’sgreat contributions were twofold—more generally the incitement to the study of agriculture,and specifically, the urging of improvement of soils by the addition of vegetablemanure. Yet it was not until Edmund Ruffin’s discovery of the efficiency of marlfor the neutralizing of acidic soils and the publication of his Essays of Calcareous Manuresin 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 Cityand York County farmers were quick to seize upon Ruffin’s discovery. The 1840 Censusshows James City County farmers to be second in the state in their usage of marl. Itis estimated that the average increase of corn and oats was eight bushels an acre, ofwheat four bushels, and the increased intrinsic value of the land a full 200% (Bruce1932).By the third decade of the 19th century the beginnings of this new awakening wereevident. In March of 1834 the Farmer’s Register reported a movement towards betterplowing, a more widespread use of manure, and fewer incidents of eroded and gulliedhillsides. Improvement in transportation facilitated the more efficient and less costlymarketing of crops, and newly developing markets and the growing local populationprovided additional outlets for Tidewater agricultural produce. For instance, Richmondgrew 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 areaaround Williamsburg as showing spectacular improvements from the hard times of the1820s. Twenty years before, he claimed, “the general condition of agriculture in thecounties of York and James City were among the lowest in Virginia.” With the exceptionof the rich river lands, he claimed, much of the soil in this area was poor andexhausted, and the profits from crop production were low. Even land with plenty ofmarl and within only a few miles of ship navigation could be bought for one dollar anacre 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 Williamsburghave now marled the greater part, of all, of their cultivated lands.” As a result of theseimprovements the rates of crop production doubled or quadrupled, and the prices ofland equally rose. Yet he noted that despite the fact that the “neighborhood ofWilliamsburg, and extending to more than 12 miles above, is one of the most generallymarled and thereby best improved districts of Virginia...but a few miles outside of thisgradually widening circle, marling is completely neglected.” The new agricultural pros-94

perity was naturally reflected in the local commercial sector and Ruffin felt marling wasthe catalyst for many changes (Farmer’s Register, Vol. VIII: 415-418).With the recovery from the nationwide depression in the early forties, Tidewateragriculture reached a new level of success, as observed by Ruffin in the counties ofJames City and York. There were certainly fluctuations, but by 1860 farmers were workingless land with better results. It had become clear that impoverished lands could beimproved, and that land once abandoned could be profitable (Craven 1965: 147).The new agriculture also produced two specialized types of agrarians: the diversifiedfarmer with various crops and the specialized farmer producing specific crops forcertain markets. Specializations included the market gardener and the dairy farmer.The farmers of the Tidewater coastal and Eastern Shore counties turned activelytowards 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 CityNews 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 toNorfolk “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 extentof 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 increasein the production of Irish and sweet potatoes, growing from 200 bushels in YorkCounty in 1850 to 26,754 ten years later, an amazing 160-fold increase, and from 8519to 12,143 bushels in James City County.Tobacco had also in a sense become a specialized crop and high prices in the 1850sprompted a small return to its cultivation. While the 1850 Census shows no tobaccogrown in James City or York Counties, the 1860 return shows 2030 pounds grown inJames City County, and 71,800 pounds in York County. This was not, however, the oldform of tobacco cultivation, for the use of fertilizers and rotations made it possible toproduce the crop without debilitating the soil (Craven 1965: 155-156).The agricultural censuses of 1840, 1850, and 1860 for James City County showother changes in crop production as well (see Table 4.6). The production of hay significantlyincreased 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 decreased46% 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 changesin crop production and livestock ownership can be made for 1850 and 1860 (see Table4.7). Just as in James City County, the production of hay showed an immense growthfrom 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 ownershipremained 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 ofYork and James City Counties (Table 4.7). In that year, 129 farms were reported inJames 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 andunimproved, James City County holdings were an average of 507 acres, while those ofYork County were 129 acres. Forty-five percent of the county acreage was improved inYork 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 regionby the eve of the Civil War. Production of most crops increased, whether through thereclaiming 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 aspecialized agriculture aimed at a specific market, and a diverse economic base of severalcrops. Diversification ameliorated the dangers of total failure due to individualcrop disasters or low prices. James City County showed the most variety, producingsmall quantities of peas and beans, butter and cheese, wool, and beeswax and honey, aswell as those crops listed above. However, York County seemed to show higher cropyields from its improved land.96

TABLE 4.6 aAGRICULTURE, JAMES CITY COUNTY: 1840-18601840 1850 1860Horses & Mules 508 534 358Neat cattle 2,713 2,365 1,314 bSheep 914 1,217 668Swine 4,712 4,009 4,794Poultry of all kinds, estimated value $2,000 NL NLWheat, bushels 17,241 25,476 57,220Oats, bushels 34,765 22,040 c 18,573Indian corn, bushels 86,500 102,430 119,460Potatoes, bushels 2,904 8,519 12,143Peas & beans, bushels NL 300 NLHay, tons 60 24 1,165Wool, pounds 2,812 2,197 NLTobacco, pounds gathered 8,000 0 2,030Cotton, pounds gathered 6,307 — NLWood, cords sold 14,110 — NLValue of the productsof the dairy $610 NL NLButter & Cheese, pounds NL 17,785 NLBeeswax & honey, pounds NL 24 NLValue of animals, slaughtered NL $14,339 NLValue of produce of market gardens 0 $365 NLValue of homemade, or family goods $1,290 NL NLabcU.S. Bureau of the Census, AgricultureDairy Cows and other cattleRye & oats, bushelsBy 1857, conditions had improved in Virginia and Maryland to the point that theAmerican Farmer could boast, “Never have the farming communities found their laborsbetter compensated than through a series of years past. The consequence is a degreeof comfort, freedom from pecuniary embarrassment and of agricultural improvementin the enriching of lands, the building of comfortable country houses, etc.” (Craven1965: 160). Another result was the change towards a model of society quite differentfrom that of the lower South and perhaps more similar to that of the north, with thedistinct difference of slave labor. The governor of Virginia in the l850s characterizedVirginia agriculture to a French inquirer as no longer “the large plantation system” butnow one of “smaller horticultural and arboricultural farming” (Craven 1965: 160).The importance of the agricultural economy in the area is certainly manifested inthe landscape. The majority of late 18th and early 19th-century structures outside ofWilliamsburg were related to farming activities in some way. These not only includefarm 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 facilitiesnecessary for their processing and storage, and if specialized structures such as tobacco97

TABLE 4.7 aAGRICULTURE IN 1850James City County York CountyFarms 129 161Acres improved 21,251 20,817Acres unimproved 44,132 25,683Value with improvements & implements $561,931 $717,882Horses, asses & mules 534 590Neat Cattle 2,365 3,641Sheep 1,217 1,148Swine 4,009 5,437Wheat, bushels 25,476 27,650Rye & oats, bushels 22,040 25,951Indian corn, bushels 102,430 148,335Irish & sweet potatoes, bushels 8,519 250Peas & beans, bushels 300 10Butter & cheese, pounds 17,785 14,113Hay, tons 24 0Wool, pounds 2,197 4,658Beeswax & honey, pounds 24 0Value of animals, slaughtered $14,339 $2,000Value of produce of market gardens 365 0Tobacco 0 0aU.S. Bureau of the Census, Agriculturebarns for sun or heat curing, with open panels for one and flues for the other were notabandoned, their function at least changed.Agricultural outbuildings are built in a somewhat impermanent fashion and notsubject to a great deal of maintenance. Thus, their propensity is to decay, especially inchanging agricultural systems. In addition, it has been said that they are a relatively“pure” form of architecture; they are generally simply utilitarian buildings without surfacealterations 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 19thcentury may be reflected in the construction and maintenance of these agricultural buildingsas well.The change in agriculture and land holdings may also be seen in archaeologicalremains. Late 18th-century travellers consistently complained that the “cattle here areconstantly in the woods” (Rochefoucauld 1797: 23), and John Taylor specifically urgedthe fencing of livestock. Additionally, beef and dairy cattle became more important as ameans of livelihood and enclosure must have increased, leaving evidence in the form offence lines, additional stabling, etc. Declines in the agricultural economy of the areacan 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 (MarthaMcCartney, pers. comm. 1985).98

The move to varying crops and rotation affected field size, a process documentedby Kelso at Kingsmill in the 18th century where ditches divided the fields. Again thispattern was observed by Rouchefoucauld who found that in the Williamsburg environs“the pieces of new cleared land are in almost every instance surrounded with ditcheswell made and well sodded” (Rouchefoucauld 1797: 23). The change to market gardeningfurther altered the landscape, a process which may also be studied archaeologically.Kelso was able to reconstruct specific orchard size at Monticello from individual treestains, and gardens were indicated by planting beds, fence lines, paths, etc. Recent excavationsat the Peyton Randolph House (CW-28B,G&H) in Williamsburg similarlyrevealed planting beds.Changes in methods of farming included increased use of subsoil plowing, utilizedin Virginia by 1845. Eroded and gullied hillsides decreased as better contour plowingwas used to prevent washing. A large number of the truly important agricultural implementshad their origins and development in this era, from reapers to fertilizerspreaders (Craven 1965: 182). Not only might the results but also the equipment befound archaeologically (Plate 4.14).SUB-THEME C: SOLIDIFICATION OF THE IDEALS ANDECONOMY OF SLAVE SOCIETYThe new order of society in York and James City Counties at mid-century differed fromthe earlier periods in the way it viewed itself and its labor. Economic revival and changesin agricultural production were factors in the changing attitudes towards slavery. AsVirginians eagerly escaped from the depressed conditions of the early 19th centurythrough 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 throughthe Deep South increased slave prices and demand just as Tidewater Virginia farmerswere needing them a little less in their own endeavors. Many planters had been forcedto sell slaves in hard times to maintain their land holdings. The rhetoric of the newagriculture was increasingly to streamline operations by selling slaves and to makemore efficient use of the fewer remaining. The number of slaves in James City Countydropped 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, requiringless labor and spreading that need throughout the year. Increasingly too they were hiredout to manufactories or internal improvement projects, particularly in urban areas suchas Richmond or Norfolk, or to other farmers.Slave-owning had never fully permeated the ranks of white society and with economicfluctuations 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 anadditional 11% owned only one. Less than one percent owned 20 or more with themaximum 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 ofslaves per white male dropped to 1.6 in York County, half of that 50 years earlier. Mostlandowners 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 marketingto 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 tothe formation of closer ties between Virginia and the Northern states. Ironically, thenew success of agriculture, especially on larger plantations, strengthened the ties of thewealthy to slavery while the majority of farmers in Virginia were becoming less dependanton 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 itproduced.The solidification of the ideals and system of the slave economy insured the continuingpresence of slave structures on the landscape. York County census records in1860 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 investigatedfor this period. This is surprising when it is considered that blacks consistentlyoutnumbered whites in both counties for the 82 years studied. Clearly, furtherarchaeological investigation of slave life in the last decades before emancipation iswarranted. (See Study Unit XVIII for further discussion of site types.)SUB-THEME D: ESTABLISHMENT OF FREE BLACKCOMMUNITIESOne consequence of the presence of blacks in the labor force of the Lower Peninsulasince the 17th century was the development of a small but ever- increasing populationof 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, and100

economic barriers, the emergence and maintenance of a small coterie of free blacksseems paradoxical. Yet, the presence of the free black is a direct by-product of slaveryitself and the economic system it produced.During the Revolutionary period, Virginians were sympathetic to the doctrines ofthe natural rights of man, and manumission was not uncommon. With legal freedom forslaves came many economic opportunities. Beginning around 1790, however, mild reactionset 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 withinthe state was a law virtually banishing all newly freed slaves within a year of theirmanumission. For example, on December 3, 1812, Joseph Sport, a York County emancipatedslave of William Cary petitioned the General Assembly that he be freed withoutbeing forced to leave the state. His request was denied (cited in Hopkins 1942: 13). Thislaw remained in force until 1865 and only economic opportunities and the urgent needfor labor in the state emasculated its power.Although Virginians’ views towards slavery were relatively neutral through thefirst quarter of the 19th century, Nat Turner’s slave rebellion and other factors discussedabove quickly solidified the pro-slavery forces in Virginia. The more Virginians thatbecame “pro-slavery”, the more opposition to free negroes seemed to emerge. The crystallizingof public opinion against the free black seems to characterize the period of1830 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 Hopkins1942: 13).These restrictive laws made the ability of those free blacks living in the Tidewaterto 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 ofthese men owned land with a mean holding of 71.5 acres, and their holdings rangedfrom 12 to 158 acres. Twenty-three slaves were owned by 81 free blacks, as well as 66horses. Two hundred ninety-one cattle were owned by free black taxpayers with anaverage 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 thehome 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 135acres ten miles west of the courthouse in Yorktown, and a house valued at $200. Jarvispaid $12.61 in taxes, both on his land and personal property. The 1815 personal propertytax lists also enumerated certain household goods that were taxable, and WilliamsJarvis was charged with one silver pocket watch and one chest of drawers (of woodother than mahogany). These goods, in combination, suggest a man of comfortablemeans, even in comparison to his white contemporaries.As Tidewater planters were reducing the size of their slave holdings, an increasingnumber were forced to hire short-term skilled labor, and to take on additional fieldhands during planting and harvest. Many free blacks found employment in this mannerand were able to support themselves by combining occasional day-labor with subsistencefarming, fishing, and the practice of a number of skilled professions (Genovese1974: 401). Free blacks that owned land undoubtedly farmed it and some may haveeven owned slaves to assist in that task.101

Luther Porter Jackson asserts that free blacks were often listed in the documents inthree distinct ways: “at” somebody’s place, “on” somebody’s place, or “on his ownland” or place. The free black “at” someone’s property lived with a white family andusually apart from his own relatives, the free negro “on” someone’s property generallywas a tenant or mechanic renting the land and residing with his family, and the freeblack “on his own land” or place undoubtedly owned it and resided there with as muchfreedom as law and custom allowed.In addition to rural agricultural labor, many free blacks also practiced trades andcrafts. The high number of free blacks found in Petersburg, Norfolk, and Richmondsuggests there was abundant opportunity for skilled and unskilled black labor in urbanareas. 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 theywould inhabit. As shown above, free blacks lived in varying economic circumstancesand with varying status within the community. When a free black was hired out withoutany family members, he often lived communally and was fed, clothed and boarded, justas any slave might be. A free black laborer may also have been boarded with whitelaborers. If the freed black rented or owned land, a household unit of some kind musthave been established. A comprehensive study of available tax, census, and map datawill better pinpoint the location of free black communities and individual landholdings.Gilmer’s map of 1863 depicts free black communities such as the one nearCenterville, as well as scattered black settlements. Alain Outlaw used this map in conjunctionwith census sources to assess the potential for archaeological study of the freeblack community there (Outlaw 1977). With this background, archaeological investigationthere could easily be carried out. (For further discussion of free black sites, seeStudy Unit XVIII.) However, it can certainly be said here that domestic sites or commercialproperties relating to the lives of free blacks are of great importance to thecultural heritage of the study area.SUB-THEME E: FLEDGLING MANUFACTURES ANDNON-AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIESThe characterization of this area in the late 18th and early 19th centuries as agriculturalis a valid one. Yet as early as 1810 a significant amount of produce was manufactured inYork 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 yardsof cotton were either fulled or made in James City County, and 25,000 yards of flaxengoods 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 warevalued 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 YorkCounty’s output of hides was valued at over $1900. York also produced “sadlery” valuedat $1500. More than 2500 pairs of shoes, boots, and slippers were produced in bothcounties even though those of James City County were nearly twice as expensive.102

TABLE 4.8 aYORK AND JAMES CITY COUNTY MANUFACTURES: 1810York County James City CountyCotton goods in families, etc.Yards fulled 0 34,236Mixed goods & cotton, in families, etc.Yards made 0 8,559Flaxen goods in familiesYards made 25,020 0Total value of all clothes & stuffs $12,519 $12,398Stockings-pairs 0 3,915Looms 131 150HatsWool & mixed hats 0 250Value in dollars 0 $1,000NaileriesLbs. of nails 185,995 0Value in dollars $40,696 0Copper, brass & tinPounds 2,240 0Value in dollars $1,680 0CandlesPounds 0 3,044SoapPounds 42,900 11,425TanneriesNumber — 79Hides 660 903Value in dollars $1,920 $1,806Shoes, boots & slippersNumber 2,650 2,807Value in dollars $5,450 $2,807SaddleryValue in dollars $1,472 0DistilleriesNumber 4 26Gallons 631 5,665Value in dollars $315 $2,832.50Cabinet wareValue in dollars 0 $2,000Snuff and tobaccoPounds 450,240 45WheatMills 0 3Barrels of flour made 0 2,000aUnited States Treasury Department, 1814103

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 agriculturalmanufactures—three mills there produced flour valued at $20,000.By 1840 the nature of area manufactures had changed. No manufacturing censuswas returned for York County in that year, but James City County’s products weresomewhat different (Table 4.9). Home manufactures of cloth or clothing is no longerspecifically enumerated. Lumber yards, tanneries, and mills made up the major componentsof 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. Inaddition 26 were counted as “employed in trades”, five in commerce and 13 in thenavigation 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, includingsawmills and flour mills, as well as in 11 undetermined occupations.York County’s manufacturing in 1860 seemed to be on a much broader scale. Some118 establishments employed 386 laborers. By far the greatest non-agricultural employerwas the fishing industry. Other industries included shipbuilding, sawmills, gristmills, and four unnamed enterprises.Plate 4.15. Stemming Tobacco by Machine.104

TABLE 4.9 aJAMES CITY COUNTY MANUFACTURES: 1840Commerce:Retail, dry goods, grocery & other stores 5Capital invested $21,500Products of the forest:Value of lumber produced $3,500Lumber yards 8Capital invested $8,800Leather, tanneries, saddlery, etc.:Tanneries 1Sides of sole leather tanned 50Sides of upper leather tanned 300Number of men employed 2Capital invested $41,500All other manufactories of leather, saddleries, etc. 1Value of manufactured articles $1,200Capital invested $300Carriages & wagons:Value of manufactured articles $1,200Number of men employed 10Capital invested$550Mills:Number of grist mills 2Number of men employed 3Capital invested $4,000Furniture:Value of manufactured articles $300Number of men employed 2Capital invested $150Houses:Number of brick & stone houses built 0Number of wooden houses built 1Number of men employed 8Value of constructing of buildings $600TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTED IN MANUFACTURES: $6,500aU. S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing, 1840.105

Manufacturing in James City and York County never played a major role in theearly 19th-century economy, at least not to the extent that it changed the economic baseof other areas in this era of beginning industrialization. Yet, small enterprises, oftenrelated to the processing of agricultural produce, arose to satisfy the needs of the localpopulation. As better transportation developed, some manufacturing was directed to anexternal market as well. These aspects of early industrialization are reflectedarchaeologically 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 periodwere mills. These were water powered and in the 18th century were often found on thelarger plantations. Here they ground the grains of their own production and that of theirneighbors. As the switch to wheat and corn became more pronounced, custom millswere 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 localdemand for milling, also prompted former plantation mills to switch to a broader commercialoperation. Burwell’s Mill (YO242) at Carter’s Grove passed through three ownersin less then 20 years in the early 19th century, maintaining some form of commercialoperation until it was renamed Whitaker’s Mill in 1853.As a mill’s operation grew larger and more commercial often an industrial complexdeveloped with it. The structures on Burwell’s Mill lot in the early 19th centuryincluded a 40' × 20' mill, a 24' × 16' miller’s house, a distillery, a barn, and possiblyfacilities for storing corn and hogs (Hunter 1984: 6).Large scale commercial flour mills also developed in this era. In 1795, OliverEvans published The Young Millwright and Miller’s Guide and two early subscriberswere Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. This book was the first to make a millconstruction plan readily available to the millwright (see Figure 4.7). Evans’ book wasintended mainly to explain the automated flour mill he had developed, making use of aninterior wheel and systems of conveyor belts to carry the grain and flour through themill (Del Sordo 1983: 65-67).It is unknown whether any of the four “merchant mills” Morse listed in theWilliamsburg area in 1835 were of this construction, or were continuations of the morelocal traditions developed throughout the 18th century. It can be assumed that thesemills reflected some elements of the new technologies available in the first half on the19th century. For instance, in 1855 Robert Anderson of York County petitioned to forma joint stock company for the operation of a steam-powered mill (cited in Hopkins1942: 16).Although only four merchant mills in the vicinity of Williamsburg were reportedin 1835 and the 1850 Census listed only three in James City County, by 1860 the censusreports 14 mills in the area. Eleven of those were in James City County and three werein 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 MulberryIsland to Jamestown Island). These were: Bush’s Mill (JC197), on modern-day CranstonPond on Route 632; Whitaker’s Mill (formerly Burwell’s Mill) (YO385) on King’sCreek; 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 Creek106

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 andSkimino Creek at Barlow’s Pond. The U.S. Coastal Survey Map recorded Wynne’s Milland 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) Millis still standing, although without wheel and locks (Plate 4.16). Burwell’s Mill (Whitaker’sMill) 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 ofthe site could be located.Saw mills were also an important source of income and Civil War-era maps depictfour (one noted as “old”). Sawmills were located at least by 1863 one half mile west ofthe intersection of Route 614 and Route 5; south of Route 614, near Lightfoot; near theYarmouth Creek drainage; and near Yorktown, off Route 634. None have been examinedarchaeologically, but they can be located from these map references. Their conditionsare 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, waterwaysremained an important means of transportation of goods and people. With the advent ofthe steamship, travelling time decreased and local residents came and went from theGrove Wharf on James River steamboats by 1843. Indeed, the wharf was frequentlycrowded with passengers and goods, and one observer commented that these travellerswere “frequently insane passengers and their attendants on the way to Eastern StateHospital” (Powers 1984: 2). These landings and wharves date in many cases to the 18thcentury and included Shipyard Landing, Hog Neck Landing, Moody’s Wharf, KingsmillWharf, and Ferry Point.Also important in this era of transportation changes and incipient industrializationwas College Landing. In 1818 the Virginia Canal Company drew up plans for a one-milecanal from College Landing to Williamsburg. This would undoubtedly have greatlyincreased activity at College Landing and had important repercussions for the city’seconomy. However, this was never carried out and little is known about the activities atCollege 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 LOCALTOWN CENTERSPopular wisdom holds that with the removal of the state capital to Richmond,“Williamsburg began its gentle slumber, a nap that went relatively undisturbed by waror peace or progress until 1926” (Morgan 1985: 151). What is less well known is thatWilliamsburg’s “nap” as an urban center had begun some twenty years before, or thatthe ensuing years were less than soporific.According to James O’Mara, in the 1730s Williamsburg was undoubtedly the leadingurban center followed by Fredericksburg, Yorktown, and Norfolk. During the 1750s,however, even as Williamsburg continued as the most important urban place, otherswere growing more quickly in importance. In this time period, Yorktown had the highestgrowth rate in the colony. By 1770 however, both Williamsburg and Yorktown were108

Plate 4.16. Piggot’s Mill (YO61).being eclipsed by growing urban centers in the James River and Rappahannock Riverbasins, 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 areain the early 18th century, to the James River, and to a lesser extent, the RappahanockRiver areas. When Yorktown residents asserted to Rochefoucauld in 1797 that 40 yearsearlier 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 relatedto population expansion westward and the increase of other urban places and marketcenters.This process was described by Rochefoucauld in 1797 in his commentary onYorktown:York-Town carries on no trade: but the inhabitants say that forty years back is was the emporiumof all Virginia. It supplied with European commodities all the shops and stores of themost distant towns and it was the port where the planters, who at that time sold their tobaccodirectly to the English merchants, were accustomed to ship it. Before the commencement ofthe 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 dwindledto nothing. Norfolk and Baltimore export all the produce of York-River and furnish the townwith European goods. The inhabitants, are, of course, destitute of employment (Rochefoucauld1797: 22).109

Although Van Beck Hall estimated that 11 Virginia cites were more urban thanWilliamsburg or Yorktown in the post-Revolutionary years, they both remained localurban centers and county seats serving the needs of James City and York County (Hall1969: n.p.). James Paulding described the function of county seats that he observed in1816 and echoed the processes of change affecting towns as population and transportationpatterns changed.County seats...depend in a great degree on the expenditures of those who are brought thereby law business, and the employment given to the trademen of different kinds, by a circle ofthe surrounding country, of which each town forms a sort of center. As new towns are foundedin various places, this circle of course diminishes; and as new roads are made, or obstructionsto 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 marketingactivity and growth in other areas. However, this is not to say that the capital’smove to Richmond did not deal a harsh blow to the area, and Johann Schoepf reportedthat “the inhabitants of this town and all lower Virginia desire greatly that the seat ofgovernment be brought back thither” (Schoepf 1911: 80-81). Rochefoucauld remarkedthat “the removal had reduced Williamsburg to a village. Every person who was connectedwith government has followed the legislature to Richmond, and the number ofinhabitants is annually decreasing at Williamsburg as it is at Yorktown” (Rochefoucauld1797: 23-24).Not only did those connected with government move on but so did those concernedwith trade. Schoepf visited Williamsburg in 1783 and noted that “the merchantsof the county round about were accustomed formerly to assemble there every year, toadvice [sic] about commercial affairs and matters in the furtherance of trade. This alsohas come to an end” (Schoepf 1911: 81).It is somewhat difficult to measure this exodus and depopulation. Until the officialcount of 1782 population figures seem to be estimates. Tyler places the Williamsburgpopulation at 2000 in 1779 but the enumeration of heads of households for 1782 placesit 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 depopulationthan York or James City County in the early decades of the 19th century. Thetotal population in 1820 was nearly the same as in 1790, with a 20% decrease in whitemales and a corresponding 19% increase in slaves. However, James City County suffereda 35% depopulation of white males between 1790 and 1820 and another 32% lossof slaves.Travellers and others in the post-Revolutionary era frequently remarked thatWilliamsburg was decaying and that “everything in Williamsburg appears dull, forsakenand 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 therank of a city, as a village it performed many services and provided employment “and acomfortable livelihood...for a few mechanicks, such as blacksmiths, chair makers, wheelwrights,sadlers and harness makers, boot and shoemakers, and tailors” (cited in Carsonl961: 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 ComprehensiveGazetteer of Virginia of 1835, reported that Williamsburg was made up of about 200110

houses, “some of which are fast going to decay,” but also noted signs of growth such asthe new Markethouse, and the additions to the Lunatic Hospital. He also documents 16stores, 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 Morsenotes 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 anactual 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 ancientmetropolis an air of youth which emphatically predicts its future prominence among thecities of the Old Dominion. Two Baptist Churches (one for the use of the white and the otherfor 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 impressedwith the changes in the area. Travelling down through James City County toWilliamsburg in his buggy, he “found all along the road proofs of prosperous and improvedagriculture.” The burned inn of Williamsburg was replaced with “a hamlet ofneat white houses,” and on all sides he saw “evidences of neatness and thrift” (cited inTyler 1907b: 90).One way to study the economic decline and rebirth of Williamsburg in thepost-Revolutionary era as it is reflected in material culture is through the examinationof the records of the Mutual Assurance Society. More precise study of these records inconjunction with other documents will reveal how many of them were actually built inthis time period, while documenting the reuse or continuous occupancy of others.Beginning in 1796, these documents record the types, dimensions, locations, buildingmaterials and insured values of certain Williamsburg structures and their ownership.Table 4.10 lists the range of “types” of structures that were insured between 1796and 1818. These do not, of course, represent every structure in Williamsburg and theirbiases are obviously towards those who desired and could afford insurance. Those withhigher valued homes would be more likely to be able to afford insurance while thoseowning wooden structures, of higher risk to fire, were more likely to have desired insurance.The biases within the recording of these buildings notwithstanding, the evidencefrom the Mutual Assurance Society plats and documents can be quite useful. Domesticdwellings, outbuildings, and commercial structures were the three basic units of analysis,and some cautious general statements can be made about the nature and distributionof these property types.During the first quarter of the 19th century insured dwellings in Williamsburgwere more than two-and-a-half times the size of outbuildings, with average dimensionsof 50’ length and 27’ width, for nearly 1,400 square feet of living space. They wereoverwhelmingly constructed of wood, and only 16% were brick. This echoes contemporaryremarks 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 aMUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETYSTRUCTURE TYPESCOMMERCIAL ORDOMESTIC STRUCTURES OUTBUILDINGS RETAIL STRUCTURESDwelling Storehouse TavernDwelling/Storehouse Dwelling/Storehouse Taylor’s shopDwelling with addition Kitchen ShopDwelling with elbow Smokehouse StoreElbow on Dwelling Dairy Blacksmith ShopWing on Dwelling Coach house Barber’s shopDwelling with Wing Granary house OfficeAn Old House (uninsured) Stable Tavern L-shapedSmall wooden house Lumber house Elbow on tavernShed attached to house Lumber house/office Elbow on tavernPorch on rear of dwelling Laundry CountinghousePortico on house front Smokehouse connected Dwelling with shopDwelling with shop inside to Slavehouse insideEntry linking to house Meathouse Addition connectingPortico on house front Cornhouse shop to storehouseDwelling with shop Slavehouse AdditionEntry linking to house Meat house AdditionAdditionCornhouseNecessaryLaundry & StorehouseRazed(?) stablePoultryhouseBarnStable/GranaryShed attached to kitchenShed attached to stableOutbuildingStorehouse attached tohouse by covered wayShed attached to houseShed attached to laundryShed attached todwelling/storehouseChickenhouseKitchen attached to dwellingEntry linking kitchen to houseAddition connecting shopto storehouseAdditionaCompiled from plats of the Mutual Assurance Society for Williamsburg, Virginia. Research Library, ColonialWilliamsburg 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 woodenand 500 square feet was the norm for this category of structures. Their average lengthwas 26’ by 18’.Fourteen commercial structures were insured in Williamsburg between 1796 and1818. They were mainly shops, but also included a tavern, an office and a countinghouse. With such a small number of structures, any statistical results are potentiallybiased, but generally indicate that these commercial or retail enterprises were largerthan outbuildings, but 44% smaller than contemporary dwellings. Nine-tenths werewooden, with a median value of $200, and dimensions were averaged at 20' by 40'.Further analysis could provide more refined results, especially concentrating onvariability in structures rather than descriptive averages. Comparing these data withmore complete Mutual Assurance Society documents from other urban centers such asFredericksburg would help validate any results as well as place Williamsburg in thecontext of the development of other areas. These records are also important because theplats 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 theuniverse of buildings standing in Williamsburg or other parts of the state at any onetime is established then any threatened properties can quickly be assessed for significancebased on specific measurable characteristics. Secondly, plats of these insuredproperties give important clues to the spatial dynamics of house lots and the identificationof buildings as loci of specific activities. This provides the possibility for the developmentof predictive models for the distribution of specific structure types (see Figure4.8). Finally, it is a ready reference for specific sites that may be threatened, givingdetails of structure sizes, attributes, and locations.As previously mentioned, few late 18th- and early 19th-century sites have beenexamined in this area. One such house built in this period and remaining in the ColonialWilliamsburg Historic Area is the St. George Tucker House (CW-29A&B). One of thelargest domestic structures in the historic area, this dwelling began with a nucleus of the1730s Levingston House, and the first phase of the house at its current location wascompleted in 1788. Later additions augmented its size and structure. The house hascontinued to be occupied by only the Tucker family descendants until the present day. Itis an excellent example of modification and continuous use of structures in Williamsburgfor 250 years. Archaeological investigation has been carried out on the grounds.Other sites investigated archaeologically include Peacock Hill #1 (WB12) andTazewell Hall (CW-42A and CW-44B). Tazewell Hall was also an 18th- century structuremoved from its original location, and recent excavation revealed artifacts mainlydating 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 craftactivity 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 processwhich all too often occurs only after specific plans for destruction or disturbance hasbeen made.113

Figure 4.8. Mutual Assurance Society Plat, James Semple, 1801.One of the most prominent structures built during this time period is theBowden-Armistead House (137-39), viewed by thousands of visitors strolling ColonialWilliamsburg’s restored area. Built by Lemuel J. Bowden, later chosen as United StatesSenator by the “Restored Government of Virginia” organized at Wheeling, it stands onthe corner of Nassau and Duke of Gloucester Street. Constructed between 1830 and1840, it is an excellent example of Greek Revival architecture.As past scholarship has virtually ignored the history of Williamsburg and its surroundingareas from 1782 to 1926, it is difficult to formulate an exacting picture of theregion, its buildings, structures, sites and objects. Further research is necessary to tietogether various strands of evidence concerning early 19th-century buildings, such asthe archival records of Colonial Williamsburg’s early 20th-century removal of buildings,Mutual Assurance Society insurance plats, local correspondence, merchants’ andcarpenters’ records, and estate inventories.SUMMARYThe years between the Revolution and Civil War were ones of decline and later revivalas population, wealth, and political power moved westward, and the Lower Tidewaterstruggled to stabilize and diversify its economic base. Agriculture still remained the114

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

TABLE 4.11STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJAMES CITY COUNTY:JC 10 Longhill Road Site AS I 05 Dom./cemetery UnknownJC 20 Martin’s Place AS I 02 Domestic DestroyedJC 37 Kingsmill Plantation SB III 09 Plantation ExcavatedJC 44 Hampton Key AS III 09 Slave quarter ExcavatedJC 46 Coleman’s (Powell’s) Mill AS I 09 Mill UnknownJC 51 None AS I 01 Interior Cult./p.dest.exploit. campJC 61 Shellfield House SB I? 03 Domestic? UnknownJC 69 None AS I 09 Domestic UnknownJC 76 Aperson Site AS I 06 Domestic CultivatedJC 78 Owens-Illinois Property AS I 02 Domestic Thr./cult.JC 79 Lane House AS I 06 Domestic UnknownJC 81 Wilder Site AS I 02 Domestic UnknownJC 83 GL-11 AS III 08 Brick clamp CultivatedJC 84 GL-14 AS III 08 Unknown CultivatedJC 90 Sherwood-Wilkenson Site AS III 08 Domestic? Cultivated(GL-24)JC 91 GL-26 AS III 08 Unknown CultivatedJC 103 Hobson Site (GL-41) AS III 08 Domestic? UnknownJC 121 York River State Park Site AS I 03 Domestic Eroded/prot.JC 122 York River State Park Site AS I 03 Trash pit ErodedJC 127 Longhill Road Site AS I 06 Pottery P.destroyedscatter/dom.JC 128 None AS I 05 Domestic ClearedJC 129* Governor’s Land #1 (GL-1) AS I 08 Domestic UnknownJC 135 None AS I 05 Camp/dom./ Cult./p.dest.militaryJC 136 None AS I 05 Camp/dom./ Cult./p.dest.militaryJC 138 None AS I 10 Domestic UnknownJC 141 “Barn” AS I? 05 ?/agricultural UnknownJC 157 None AS I? 08 Unknown UnknownJC 162 C.L. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 163 Rodgers Site #2 AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 164 Rodgers Site #1 AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 165 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 166 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 167 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 168 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 169 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 170 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 171 Moody’s Wharf AS MR 03 Domestic/ Unknowncommercial?* 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. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJC 172 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 173 Mount Folly SB I 03 Domestic DestroyedJC 174 Mrs. P. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 175 Chapman Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 176 Minor Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 177 None AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 178 Mrs. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 179 S. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 180 Garrett Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 181 Rompfield Negro Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 182 Lawson Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 183 A. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 184 Archer Piggott Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 185 Riverview SB MR 03 Domestic GoodJC 186 Shellfield Plantation AS MR 06 Plantation UnknownJC 187 None AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownJC 188 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownJC 189 Ewell Plantation AS MR 06 Plantation UnknownJC 190 Forlan Site AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 192 Moss Site AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 193 Six Mile (Allen’s) Ordinary AS MR 05 Tavern Destroyed?JC 194 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 195 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 196 Garrett Site AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 197 Bush’s Mill AS MR 05 Mill UnknownJC 198 Joseph Mickitt Site AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 200 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 201 Shop Site AS MR 05 Industrial? UnknownJC 202 Moore House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 203 Mary Copeland House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 204 Johnson House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 205 Taylor House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 206 Mrs. Warner’s House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 207 Dr. Binn’s House AS MR 05 Domestic/ Unknownoffice?JC 208 Vaiden House AS I 05 Domestic UnknownJC 209 Bush House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 210 Gordon House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 211 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 212 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 213 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 214 U.M. Spencer House SB I 05 Domestic PoorJC 215 Hicks House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 216 W. Spencer House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 217 J. Crenshaw House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 218 John Coke House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 219 None AS MR 05 Domestic? Unknown117

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJC 220 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 221 W.L. Spencer House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 222 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 223 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 224 J. Nettles House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 225 George Minor House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 226 N. Browning House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 227 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 228 James River (Browning) Mills AS MR 05 Mills UnknownJC 229 Austin House SB I 05 Domestic UnknownJC 230 K. Richardson House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 231 B. Waddill House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 232 Pinewoods (R. Warburton SB I 05 Domestic GoodHouse)JC 233 Richardson House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 234 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 235 None AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 236 Simpson House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 237 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 238 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownJC 239 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownJC 240 Richardson House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 241 Taylor Saw Mill AS MR 05 Sawmill UnknownJC 248 Sallie Hockaday House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 249 Oliver Hockaday House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 250 None AS MR 02 Unknown UnknownJC 251 None AS I 02 Domestic UnknownJC 252 Mitchell Mill AS MR 02 Mill UnknownJC 253 John Richardson House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 254 Whitaker House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 255 Garrett House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 256 William Meanley House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 257 William Meanley Site AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 258 A. Hankins House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 259 E. Sorrel House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 260 None AS I 02 Domestic PoorJC 261 Taylor House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 262 Martha James House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 263 I. Branch House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 265 Marston House SB I 02 Domestic UnknownJC 266 None AS MR 02 Unknown UnknownJC 267 John Timberlake House AS I 02 Domestic Poor(MacDowell’s Place)JC 268 Boswell House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 271 Timberlake House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 272 Ashland Farm SB I 02 Domestic FairJC 273 O. Hudson House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown118

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJC 274 Dr. Ashlock Site AS MR 02 Domestic/ Unknownoffice?JC 275 Jack Ashlock House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 276 P. Ashlock House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 277 Taylor House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 278 Taylor House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 279 None AS MR 02 Domestic? UnknownJC 280 Dr. Jenning’s House AS MR 02 Domestic/ Unknownoffice?JC 281 White Hall Tavern SB I 02 Tavern UnknownJC 282 LaGrange SB I 02 Domestic UnknownJC 283 Walter Enos House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 284 Mrs. Yates House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 285 None AS MR 02 Domestic? UnknownJC 286 George Hankins House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 287 Waverly Farm SB I 02 Domestic GoodJC 288 William Bagly House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 289 Martin House SB I 02 Domestic GoodJC 290 Lombardy Farm SB I 02 Domestic FairJC 292 Cowles House DB I 02 Domestic DestroyedJC 293 Edwards Mill AS MR 02 Mill UnknownJC 294 Wenger House (Clover Dale) SB I 02 Domestic/ FairagriculturalJC 296 C. Slater House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 297 Boswell House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 308 GL-4 AS I 08 Lithic red. Cult./p.dest.base camp/?JC 318 GL-16 AS I 08 Sawmill/ Erodedferry/wharfJC 321 GL-19 AS I 08 Domestic UnknownJC 326 None AS I 05 Domestic UnknownJC 354 GL-27 AS I 08 Domestic CultivatedJC 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 GoodJC 361 Rt. 199 Ext. A-5 AS I 06 Domestic DisturbedJC 368 Rt. 199 Ext. A-15 AS I 05 Domestic ThreatenedJC 393* James City County (Upper AS I 02 Earthen dam UndisturbedCounty) Park 347- 7 Harris House SB I 05 Domestic? Poor47-17 Skiff’s Creek House DB I 10 Domestic Ruins47-22 Col. William Allen’s House SB I 05 Domestic Fair47-37 None SB I 02 Domestic Poor47-44 None SB I 02 Domestic Poor47-55 None SB I 02 Domestic Unknown47-57 Binn’s Place DB I 05 Domestic Destroyed47-69 Lane Farm SB I 06 Domestic Poor119

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition47-73 Vaiden House SB I 05 Domestic Excellent47-74 Jockey’s Neck Farm SB I 09 Domestic Unknown47-76 James River Church SB I 05 Ecclesiastical Excellent47-79 Bick House SB I 05 Domestic ExcellentU- 2 Breezeland SB I 05 Domestic GoodU- 5 Foster House SB I 05 Domestic GoodU- 7 Green Shingle Site AS I 02 Domestic DestroyedU- 8 Henley-Hubbard House Site AS I 05 Domestic UnknownU- 9 Hill Pleasant Site AS I 05 Domestic./ DestroyedcemeteryU- 10 Holly Springs SB I 02 Domestic UnknownU- 11 Merry Oaks Site AS I 02 Domestic UnknownU- 12 Methodist Chapel Site AS I 05 Ecc./cemetery DestroyedU- 13* Sunnyside Site DB I 02 Domestic DestroyedU- 17* Warren House SB I 02 Domestic UnknownU- 22 Coles (Barrett’s) Ferry AS I 05 Ferry UnknownU- 26 Saw Mill Site AS I 05 Military Destroyed?U- 29 Tappahost AS I 02 Settlement UnknownU- 31* Redwood Ordinary AS I ? Tavern UnknownYORK COUNTY:YO 14 Edward Thomas Site AS I 06 Quaker dom. UnknownYO 15 Burkes Corner AS III 06 Quaker dom. ExcavatedYO 16 Skimino Meetinghouse AS II 06 Quaker ecc. UnknownYO 17 Yorke Village AS III 11 Ecc./cemetery/UnknowndomesticYO 19 None AS I 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 20 None AS I 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 21 None AS I 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 23 None AS I 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 31 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 32 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 33 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 34 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 35 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 36 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 37 None AS I 06 Redoubt UnknownYO 39 None AS I 06 Unknown UnknownYO 40 None AS I 06 Gun UnknownemplacementYO 42 None AS I 06 Earthwork UnknownYO 46 None AS I 06 Unknown UnknownYO 47 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 6YO 48* Austin Site AS Inf 06 Domestic? DestroyedYO 49 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 7120

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionYO 50 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 8YO 51 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 9YO 52 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 10YO 53 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 11YO 54 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 14YO 55 Braxton House AS I 06 Domestic GoodYO 60 Bruton Parish Poor House AS I 06 Poor house Undisturbed?YO 61 Piggott’s (Fenton) Mill SS I 06 Mill PoorYO 64 Bellfield Plantation AS I 07 Plantation/ UnknowncemeteryYO 72 Back Creek Location # 2 AS I 11 Unknown ThreatenedYO 73 Back Creek Location # 3 AS I 11 Unknown ThreatenedYO 74 Back Creek Location # 4 AS I 11 Domestic ThreatenedYO 75 Back Creek Location # 5 AS I 11 Domestic ThreatenedYO 91 Harwoods Mill Reservoir AS I 11 Domestic Undisturbed?Location # 1YO 95 Old House Site AS Inf 10 Domestic UnknownYO 103 None AS I? 06 Unknown UnknownYO 110 None AS I 06 Quaker ind./ UnknowndomesticYO 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- Cultivatedomponent/?YO 121 None AS I 07 Unknown ProtectedYO 134 Harwoods Mill O AS I 11 Unknown UnknownYO 135 Harwoods Mill D AS I 11 Unknown ProtectedYO 136 Harwoods Mill C AS I 11 Unknown ProtectedYO 138 Harwoods Mill F AS I 11 Unknown UnknownYO 139 Harwoods Mill B AS I 11 Unknown CultivatedYO 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 UnknownYO 170 Harwoods Mill Farm AS I 11 Camp/dom./ P.destroyedmilitary campYO 185 None AS I 06 Unknown ThreatenedYO 191 None AS I 06 Artifact ThreatenedscatterYO 192 None AS I 06 Multi- Eroded/thr.component/?121

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionYO 193 None AS I 06 Multi Eroded/thr.component/?YO 194 None AS I 06 Multi- Erodedcomponent/?YO 195 None AS I 06 Unknown Eroded/p.dest.YO 209 None AS I 11 Artifact Eroded/thr.scatterYO 212* None AS I 10 Domestic ErodedYO 217 None AS MR 06 Domestic/ UnknowncommercialYO 221 15Y AS III 11 Domestic/ ExcavatedearthworksYO 234 None AS I 11 Artifact UnknownscatterYO 235 HM 1 AS I 11 Domestic? UnknownYO 236 HM 7 AS I 11 Quarry? UnknownYO 238 HM 13 AS I 11 Unknown UnknownYO 239 HM 16 AS I 11 Unknown UnknownYO 242 Skimino Mill AS Inf 06 Grist mill/ DestroyedsawmillYO 246 Plantation Complex AS MR 06 Plantation UnknownYO 252 William Franklin House AS MR 11 Domestic UnknownYO 253 Calthrop “Manner House” AS MR 11 Domestic UnknownYO 255 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 256 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 257 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 258 None AS MR 06 Dom./cem. Destroyed?YO 259 None AS MR 06 Quaker ecc.? UnknownYO 260 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 261 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 262 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 263 Evans “Cherry Hall” SB I 06 Domestic GoodYO 264 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 265 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 266 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 267 Roberson Negro Site AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 268 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 269 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 270 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 271 Dr. Waller’s House AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 272 Bigler’s Wharf Vicinity AS MR 06 Commercial? UnknownYO 273 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 274 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 275 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 276 None AS MR 06 Quaker dom.? UnknownYO 277 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 278 W. Bowden Site AS MR 06 Domestic? Unknown122

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionYO 279 W. Bowden Site AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 280 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 281 Pickett House AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 282 None AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 283 Capitol Site AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 284 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 285 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 286 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 287 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 288 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 289 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 290 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 291 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 292 None AS MR 06 Plantation? UnknownYO 293 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 294 Porto Bello AS MR 06 Plantation UnknownYO 295 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 296 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 297 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 298* None AS MR 06 Plantation? UnknownYO 299 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 300 None AS MR 06 Plantation UnknownYO 301* H. Powers Site AS MR 06 Plantation UnknownYO 302 None AS MR 06 Plantation? UnknownYO 303 Brassingham Landing AS MR 06 Domestic?/ Unknownagricultural?YO 304 Brassingham Landing AS MR 06 Domestic?/ Unknownagricultural?YO 305 None AS MR 06 Domestic?/ Unknownagricultural?YO 306 Foace’s Quarter AS MR 06 Domestic?/ Unknownagricultural?YO 307 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 308 None AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 309 Custis (Waller’s) Mill AS MR 06 Grist mill UnknownYO 310 James Armfield AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 312 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownYO 313 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownYO 314 None AS MR 07 Unknown UnknownYO 315 None AS MR 07 Unknown UnknownYO 316 None AS MR 07 Slave quarter? UnknownYO 317 None AS MR 07 Plantation UnknownYO 318 None AS MR 07 Unknown UnknownYO 319 None AS MR 07 Unknown UnknownYO 320 Ringfield Plantation SB I 07 Plantation UnknownYO 321 None AS MR 07 Unknown UnknownYO 322 None AS MR 07 Slave quarter? Unknown123

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionYO 323 None AS MR 07 Unknown UnknownYO 324 None AS MR 07 Domestic?/ Unknownslave quarter?YO 325 None AS MR 07 Unknown UnknownYO 326 None AS MR 07 Domestic?/ Unknownslave quarter?YO 327 None AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 330 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 331 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 332 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 333 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 334 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 335 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 336 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 337 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 338 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 339 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 340 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 341 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 342 Nelson House AS MR 10 Domestic UnknownYO 343 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 344 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 346 None AS MR 11 Unknown UnknownYO 347 None AS MR 11 Unknown UnknownYO 348 None AS MR 11 Unknown UnknownYO 349 None AS MR 11 Unknown UnknownYO 351 None AS MR 11 Unknown UnknownYO 352 None AS MR 11 Unknown UnknownYO 363 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 364 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 366 Potter Site AS MR 10 Domestic UnknownYO 369 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 370 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 371 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 372 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 373 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 374 None AS MR 10 Unknown UnknownYO 376 SSE L-1 AS II 06 Unknown ThreatenedYO 377 SSE M-1 AS II 06 Unknown ThreatenedYO 385 Burwell’s Mill AS II 06 Water mill UnknownYO 386 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 387 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 389 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 390 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 391 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownYO 392 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown124

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionYO 396 Burwell’s Mill Civil War AS II 06 Earthworks Eroded?EarthworkYO 398 None AS I? 06 Domestic/ Undisturbed?commercial?YO 404* Yorktown Shipwreck AS I 10 Shipwreck PreservedJC 59 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 4JC 60 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 5JC 299 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownJC 300 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown99- 6* Waterview SB I 11 Domestic Excellent99-11 Grafton Christian Church SB I 11 Ecclesiastical Unknown99-21* Swan Tavern SB I 10 Tavern ExcellentU- 32 Bigler House SB I ? Domestic UnknownU- 33 Rosedale SB I ? Domestic UnknownU- 34 Thorpland SB I ? Domestic UnknownU- 91* York Poor House AS MR ? Public UnknownU- 95* Thomas Wesley Morton House DB I ? Domestic DestroyedU- 96* Benjamin Hudgins House DB I ? Domestic DestroyedU- 98* Calhier’s House DB I ? Domestic DestroyedCITY OF POQUOSON:YO 10 None AS Inf 11 Unknown CultivatedYO 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? UnknownU- 85* John Gibbs Wornom House and SB I ? Domestic GoodOutbuildingsCITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:WB 3 College Landing AS II 06 Landing/ StablewarehousesWB 7 None AS I 06 Unknown UnknownWB 9 None AS I 06 Unknown UnknownWB 10 Brafferton Cistern AS I 06 Cistern UnknownWB 12 Peacock Hill # 1 SB I? 06 Domestic UnknownWB 27 SSE A-1 AS II 06 Artifact ThreatenedscatterWB 28 SSE B-1 AS II 06 Domestic? ThreatenedCW-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.excavatedCW-42A* Tazewell Hall DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./movedCW-44B* Tazewell Hall DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./moved125

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionWB 31 SSE E-2 AS II 06 Artifact ThreatenedscatterWB 35 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 36 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 37 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 38 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 39 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 40 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 41 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 42 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownWB 43 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownJC 56 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 1JC 57 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 2JC 58 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 3JC 82 Skipwith House AS I 06 Domestic UnknownJC 301 None AS MR 06 Unknown UnknownJC 303 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown137-34* Spencer’s Hotel (Chowning’s DB I 06 Commercial DestroyedTavern Site)137-39* Bowden-Armistead House SB I 06 Domestic Excellent137-42 * Bell Mead SB I 06 Domestic Excellent137-46* Wheatland DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed137-53* Rabon House DB I 06 Domestic Unknown137-55* None DB I 06 Cemetery Destroyed?U- 60 * The Quarter SB I 06 Domestic ExcellentU-128* Williamsburg Female School DB DR 06 School UnknownU-134* Cedar Grove Cemetery AS DR 06 Cemetery Unknownmost important facet of life and agriculturally-related structures are the most commonin this time period. Of special significance is the study of small farmers, both tenant andlandowner, free blacks and slaves, and their associated material remains. Non- agriculturalsites 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 PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitRegional. After the Revolution the political and economic influence of the Tidewaterwaned as the locus of wealth, population and power shifted to the Piedmont. With the126

loss of population, the removal of the function of colonial government, and economicdecline, few matters of national importance were resolved here. In addition, land whichonce had produced the finest and most expensive orinoco and sweet-scented tobaccowas now indistinguishable from much of the country in the general production of wheatand corn. The history of the area is mainly one of recovery from these declines andreadjustment to the new agricultural system.Summary of Property TypesBased on a study of land tax data and historic maps (see Figures 4.5 and 4.6), distributionof sites would reflect the burgeoning and improving roads system, and concentrationswould occur along major roads, especially the “stage road” from Williamsburg toRichmond, and the predecessor of Route 17 leading from Yorktown to points south. Inaddition, distribution maps based on the 1815 land tax records indicate that a greaterdensity of population developed along the northwest corridor from the city ofWilliamsburg and on a southeast course from Yorktown. Lower York County was moredensely populated than upper York County.According to the same tax sources in 1820, 108 buildings were taxed in YorkCounty with an additional 28 buildings on lots. In James City County 233 structureswere taxed.However, economic upswing in the second quarter of the 19th century prompted apopulation 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 inJames 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. Outof this original universe of documented structures, some 410 sites are reported for thisstudy 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%) byPhase II archaeological survey, and 15 (3.6%) by Phase III archaeological survey. Another24 (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 farmstead1. Dwellings2. Domestic outbuildingsa. Detached kitchensb. Smokehousesc. Dairiesd. Springhousese. Icehousesf. Well housingsg. External root cellarsh. Priviesi. Other food preparation and/or storage buildings127

3. Agricultural outbuildingsa. Barnsb. Granariesc. Corncribs, cornhousesd. Stablese. Chicken or poultry housesf. Carriage and/or wagon housesg. Other crop preparation and/or storage buildingsh. Slave structuresB. Urban domestic sites1. Dwellings2. Domestic outbuildings3. Agricultural outbuildingsC. Industrial sites1. Millsa. Gristb. Saw2. Fisheries3. Tanneries4. Tobacco manufactories5. Lumber yards6. Naileries7. Boatyards8. OtherD. Craft-related sites1. Blacksmith shops2. Saddleries and harnessmakers3. Tin and brass smiths4. OtherE. Transportation-related sites1. Landings2. Wharves3. Roads4. Commercial stables5. Commercial coach houses6. OtherF. Commercial and retail sites1. Retail stores2. Professional officesa. Doctor’s officesb. Lawyer’s offices3. Storage of goodsa. Warehousesb. Lumberhouses4. Taverns and ordinaries128

G. Public buildings and institutionsH. Religious structuresI. SchoolsCertain factors, such as the economic and cultural background of their occupants,produce variations within these property types. The sex, race, age, ethnicity and legalstatus 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 beother material correlates of these differences as well.These differentiating factors are important in the evaluation of significance. Certainsegments of the population are seriously under- represented in the documentaryrecord, and for them, the archaeological record is of increased importance. It is alsooften the larger, more permanent and aesthetically pleasing buildings that are preserved.Preservation or study of smaller agricultural complexes and those of free blacks andtenants 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 blacksand little available information on their role in area development make theirdomestic and occupational buildings, structures, sites and objects highly significant.Certain areas of free black occupation are clearly noted on 19th-centurymaps, and Centreville has been initially surveyed as a free black settlement.(2) Slave occupational and residential sites. Even though slaves represented nearlyhalf of the population of York and James City Counties, few resources associatedwith them have been identified or preserved. Known and examined sitesin other areas, however, provide clues to the identification and location ofslave-related properties and features within agricultural complexes, and theability to study area slave sites in a comparative context.(3) Small or middling size farms. One of the most underrepresented propertytypes, they were increasingly the most common as large plantations failed andas land holdings were broken down by inheritance.(4) Tenant farms. It is difficult to predict the number of tenants in the area becauseof the lack of documentary evidence. However as fresh lands to the westopened up, absentee ownership increased, and tenancy became more common.No known tenant farms of this time period have been examined.Character of Existing DataSurvey of the above property types is spotty. Specific areas throughout this region suchas Kingsmill, Carter’s Grove, and Governor’s Land have been intensely studied, butmainly to understand much earlier occupations.Over half of the 410 known resources for this study unit are predicted based ontheir inclusion on several historical maps, generally made as part of either the Revolutionaryor Civil War military activity in the area. Map-predicted sites may be tied tocontextual information such as the name, sex, or race of the occupant and further informationcan be culled from the documentary records on their social and economic status.129

However, development may have significantly impacted a large number of these sitesand their current status must be checked.It is also important to note that not all parts of the study area were recorded onthese maps and that these sites are merely a cartographer’s interpretation of a landscapeat 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 meaningfulway beyond general patterns of historical population distribution. A methodologyfor such a map verification strategy is outlined under Identification Goals.Another remedial measure in improving the current data base would be the upgradingof the site files curated by the Division of Historic Landmarks. From the standpointof resource evaluation these records do little more than document vague locationsof artifact scatters in many cases. For instance, forms are often incomplete, giving minimaldetail and generalized descriptions, such as “nineteenth century” or “whitewarescatter.” Peacock Hill #1 is an example, given a 19th-century provenience merely froma ground scatter of ceramic types.Few sites in the state inventory could be nominated to the National Register, muchless assigned to a specific property type and evaluated, based on the minimal informationprovided in this record. It is imperative that a process be formulated whereby futuresite records entered in the state inventory provide sufficient information to makethem usable. The state form itself is not the problem, quality control in their review doesseem to be. Perhaps monitoring the site records should become a major priority in theduties of the Division of Historic Landmarks and funding be provided for at least ahalf-time position to supervise, upgrade, and curate the state archaeological and architecturalsite files. In addition, as it is expected that these records will be integrated intoa computerized data base management system in the next few years, it should be apriority 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 surveysfor earlier structures, such as Kingsmill and Governor’s Land. For instance, the19th-century tenant structure at Kingsmill, built on the site of the 18th-century mansionafter it burned in 1844, merely receives passing mention as part of the archaeologicalinvestigation of Kingsmill (Kelso 1984: 87) and a nominally recorded site form.The quality of the existing data base also varied between the four localjurisdictions. James City County has been more extensively investigated from an architecturalviewpoint than the other municipalities. As many of the James City Countyhistoric records were burned more field work seems to have been attempted to gain siteinformation. In 1977 James City County prepared an “Inventory and Description ofHistoric Sites in James City County,” listing some previously uncatalogued 19th-centuryhouses and frequently describes their condition (James City County Planning Department1977). The contents of this study have yet to be systematically incorporated intothe state inventory which is surprising in view of its value for augmenting the county’sdata base.York County is blessed with a far better documentary base as most historical recordshave survived. However, other than the unpublished 1980 prehistoric survey (Derryn.d.) little systematic or intensive archaeological or architectural study has been carriedout. In addition, much of York County has been developed by military130

installations. Almost half of the county’s land is federally-controlled and little informationhas been assembled about resources located on this land.Documentary background for York County enables far more precise evaluation ofan archaeological or architectural site. In addition, the York County Project, being undertakenby Colonial Williamsburg Foundation’s Research Department, with fundingfrom the National Endowment for the Humanities, is culling and compiling the county’sdocuments up to 1830. This project will provide a major source of information for evaluatingsites. By virtue of its documentation, York County is in a unique position to providesignificant information about not only specific sites but the nature of life in thepost-Revolutionary and ante-bellum period.Eighteenth-century Williamsburg structures may be one of the most intensivelystudied group of buildings in America. Yet little is known of the structures built thereafter 1783. Ironically, many have been destroyed to further the “pristine” 18th-centuryatmosphere. Even though they have been recovered from Williamsburg sites, 19th-centurymaterials have usually been slighted in favor of earlier findings.The City of Poquoson may be the least understood of all municipalities of this timeperiod. Little is known of the specific structures or fabric of life in this time period eventhough the economic importance of the marine environment is seen through some contemporarydocuments. This special niche needs further examination to understand thecultural 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, includingpopulation, agricultural and manufacturing enumerations. Cartographers recorded thearea in both the Revolutionary and Civil War eras, providing specific site location.Other useful documents are land records, including tax lists, deeds, and insuranceplats; 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 thecompilation 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 toestablish the social and economic status, occupation, sex and race of occupants of manysites. For example, the house of “Miss Betsey Greene,” as located on Gilmer’s map wasdiscovered during a Phase I survey. Because of historical documentation and context,additional research can be carried out to bring together all the archaeological and historicalinformation on “Miss Betsey Greene”, and through her an understanding of femaleheads of household in general. This approach is extremely important as it allowsthe conscious selection for sites that best represent segments of the population aboutwhich little is known.131

Criteria for EvaluationNational 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, eventhough Criterion A, illustrating significanct events in the broad patterns of history, andCriterion D, representing potential historical information should prove most relevant.Criteria B and C may be applicable in certain cases, including dwellings of personsimportant to local, state, or national history, or structures embodying a specific style orperiod of construction.Integrity is also an important dimension of most properties. The National Registeroutlines seven ways in which integrity should be determined: location, setting, feeling,association, workmanship, design and materials. For instance, a 19th-century farmhousethat has undergone extensive modernization or lost its domestic and/or agricultural outbuildingshas less integrity than one which has been unaltered. In addition, a relativelyundisturbed agricultural complex may have less integrity if it is ringed by motels orgasoline stations. Archaeological integrity is even more measurable—a site or feature isof less significance if it has been disturbed.There are several aspects to evaluating the significance of a property type. Currentresources about which little is known, or that are unique, such as free black settlementsor tenant farms, are highly significant in providing information while other resourcesare significant because of their representativeness.For instance, agricultural farmsteads are undoubtedly the most representative propertytype in this study unit and as a group can illustrate broad patterns of historicalevolution in several ways. These farmsteads not only include farm residences, but outbuildingssuch as tobacco barns, granary houses, smokehouses, cornhouses, dairies,chicken houses, stables, and other specialized loci of farm activity. The transition fromtobacco to other crops, such as wheat, altered the kinds of facilities necessary for theirprocessing and storage, and if specialized structures such as tobacco barns for sun orheat curing were not abandoned their function at least was different.Archaeology can provide answers to many questions concerning agricultural changethrough their manifestations in the landscape. For instance, late 18th-century travellerscomplained 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 dairyfarming became more important enclosure must have increased as well as facilities fortheir stabling and processing.The move to varying crops and rotation changed field size, a process documentedby Kelso at Kingsmill in the 18th century where ditches dividing the fields werearchaeologically located. Again this was documented by Rochefoucauld who foundthat in the Williamsburg environs “the pieces of new cleared land are in almost everyinstance surrounded with ditches well made and well sodded” (Rochefoucauld 1797:23).The economy of this time period is certainly reflected in the agricultural landscapeas 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, anddecay of structures. For example, the Penuel Penny archaeological site (YO15) demonstratesthe “economic decline of a series of site occupants” in the late 18th- and early132

19th-century through its artifactual assemblages (Martha McCartney, pers. comm. 1985).Other historical changes which are reflected in the agricultural landscape of the early19th century include economic decline and revitalization based on improved agriculturalmethods, 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 evaluatedin terms of their ability to provide information that illustrates these broad patternsor adds to the information about these historical developments. Similar statements canbe made about all the property types represented, including the importance of free blackand slave dwellings and occupational sites, grist and lumber mills, fisheries, commercialstructures, etc. and these will be more briefly discussed below.Present Conditions of Property TypesProperty types are increasingly threatened by development, population pressure, andnegligence. Population pressures on the various localities has been intense in the pastdecade with Poquoson population increasing 60% from 1970 to 1980, James City andYork 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 CityCounty have witnessed significant commercial growth, particularly in the environs ofWilliamsburg and the Route 60 corridor west to Toano. These last are of particularimportance in relation to the increasing settlement on road systems in the late 18th andearly 19th century, especially on the “stage road.”Few sites have been given National Register Status from this study unit. Of thesesix properties with specific late 18th and early 19th century components, all containmuch earlier occupations. They are Carter’s Grove, Governor’s Land ArchaeologicalDistrict, Kingsmill, Capitol Landing, College Landing, and the Williamsburg HistoricDistrict.It is difficult to assess public interest in this time period beyond that i sites associatedwith military activity. Yorktown is visited by thousands annually as the site of theend 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 onlywhen a property is threatened by development that public outcry is heard, and such willprobably be the case with early 19th century structures. Fortunately, academic interestin this later period has grown, as witnessed by a commitment to such structures by theAPVA and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesPrevious scholarship has mainly centered on 18th-century life and culture and onlyrecently has interest focused on the period after the removal of the capital. The researchgoals below include the gathering, synthesis, and analysis of data, producing generalhistorical contexts, and are appropriate topics for graduate theses or dissertations.133

(1) Assess the spatial, economic, and cultural boundaries of the agricultural farmsteadin changing economic contexts and the evolution of varied agriculturalsystems.(2) Establish the role of the sizable black population in area society and economyand 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 towncenters and their relationship to their hinterlands.(5) Assess the role of marine resources in the economic base and variability of thewatermens’ way of life. This would be an especially appropriate topic for researchin Poquoson and parts of York County.Because this time period has been generally ignored, many efforts at identificationare necessary. As discussed earlier, over 50% of the resources for this study unit aremap-predicted. Verification of map predicted sites is the first step in the evaluation ofarea resources. These preliminary steps are necessary to be able to fully evaluate thesignificance 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 onthese maps.(1) The original maps should be studied for blatant topographical errors or omissionsfor evidence of reliability. However, studies by personnel of the VirginiaDivision of Historic Landmarks indicates a high degree of cartographic precisionfor these maps in general.(2) A program must be carried out to determine those sites which have not beenimpacted by development. Several predictions can be made concerning thepreservation of map-predicted sources. First, by the second quarter of the 19thcentury, roads were becoming relatively more important than waterways in thetransportation of travellers and goods. New roads were created and older onesimproved. Patterns of development became quite road ordered. Many modernroads evolved from these historic roads. However, domestic structures wereoften set quite a distance back from contemporary roads and widening andminor straightening of their modern counterparts may not have impacted them.Development at the very immediate edge with no back-set parking lots etc. maysimilarly have had little detrimental effects. Where development has been moreextensive, such as that on Route 60 west out of Williamsburg to Toano andRoute 17 in lower York County, site disturbance is more likely.(3) A detailed current land use plan should be consulted to gain information onareas of development. An overlay of map-predicted sites will indicate thosewith little chance of surviving, and these should be discounted from the “pool”of possible information sources (again beyond their innate value as historical134

documents and the information they provide on other levels). A simple surveymade by inspection with a vehicle may aid in further narrowing down the listof 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, notingcondition and number of standing structures, or a Phase I archaeological surfacewalkover and subsurface testing as required. The latter should note artifacts,boundaries, condition and disturbances, and probable property typesrepresented. Once this much smaller verified list is obtained strategies for evaluationmay then be formulated.• Survey of existing farmsteads and their components, including dwellings, outbuildings,and landscape. Those with potential for best information retrieval, i.e. siteintegrity and representativeness, should be identified. Detailed plans should bedrawn 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 andsocial status, as well as the location of their domestic and occupational sites, combiningmap, 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 locatearchaeological or architectural remains.• Survey of standing or archaeologically remaining mills based on map data andlocational models in relation to creeks and mill ponds. Detailed recording of plans,methods of construction, and datable characteristics of these complexes should beincluded as well as the descriptions of technological innovations. This project shouldbe carried out by a trained industrial historian or industrial archaeologist.• Survey of the marine environment of Poquoson and York County to assess remainsof the fisheries and the nature of maritime communities. A thorough documentarystudy and oral history of these communities to establish historical context is recommended.• Detailed study of the Mutual Assurance Society records to determine the biases ofthe material, the number and range of structures insured, and patterns revealed inthe types of structures insured. Study of these insurance plats can produce a modelof early 19th-century Williamsburg structures based on the detailed informationrecorded on each insured dwelling.• Study of historic road locations to enable more precise modeling of population andresource distribution. This should be patterned after the study carried out by theVirginia Highway and Transportation Research Council and the School of Architectureat the University of Virginia. In this research, primary sources such as courtorders were studied by historians, geographers, and architectural historians, followedby survey and documentation of formal and vernacular architecture associatedwith the pre-20th century road system (Pawlett and Lay 1980: iii).135

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

Treatment GoalsThe primary goal, as discussed above, is the identification, evaluation, and selection ofan appropriate sample of the highest-ranking property types for preservation, documentation,and/or study. Preservation of significant resources in situ, moving of the resourceand preservation, recording and study, “banking” of archaeological sites for futurestudy, and mitigative strategies such as redesigned development around a specificresource, and salvage archaeology are all specific treatments.If documentation or salvage is the only possible course of action for a resourcethen several basic steps must be carried out. These include assignment to a propertytype and study unit, and extensive documentation prior to loss, including photographs,drawings, measurements, and artifactual descriptions. Any treatment of a historic buildingor structure should be carried out in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’sStandards and Guidelines. This information should immediately be integrated into thesite files and in no instance should any salvage or information gathering be allowedwithout 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 theinformation available at this stage. However, this limitation should in no way be construedto mean that resources should not be preserved until the data base is improved,only that to effectively manage the resources and correctly evaluate their significancemany of the previous goals should be met. Below are some suggestions for appropriatemethods of treatment.• Agricultural farmsteads: After survey, evaluation of integrity, and documentationby an architectural historian or other trained professional it is recommendedthat a sample of sites be preserved within the context of their physical setting. Forthose 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 thedevelopment in such a way as to avoid the site. If not, it must be appropriatelystudied prior to its destruction or loss of integrity.137

138

STUDY UNIT XIII.YEARS OF ISOLATION: JAMES CITY COUNTY ANDYORK 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 CivilWar.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 earlypreservation movement.Significance: Regional and NationalThis study unit treats the years following the Civil War, a period of retrenchment forJames 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 (seeTables 4.12-4.14). Progress at the end of the 19th century was a result of access to largermarkets provided by the railroad and changes in farming practices. These changes attractedand were partially a result of an influx of immigrant groups at the turn of thecentury. Another factor in the modernization of this study area was the effect of theearly preservation movement, which not only preserved historical resources, but alsoattracted a tourist population which necessitated improvements in transport facilities.The end date for this study unit is 1907, the opening of the Jamestown Exposition, aturning point for York and James City Counties.Few architectural surveys have focused on this time period. Only 30 standing structureshave been surveyed, twelve during the course of this project. The majority ofproperty types associated with this time period are poorly understood, as most of thesurveyed properties have been domestic buildings. Poquoson is probably the only areain this region which still contains large numbers of late 19th-century structures, and ithas yet to be adequately surveyed. There are also a few clusters of structures dating tothis period in Norge and Toano, and lower York County.Table 4.15 summarizes the known sites and surveyed standing structures dating tothis period. As this table indicates, specific, detailed information about the distributionand current condition of property types for the late 19th and early 20th centuries withinthe study area is almost non-existent. Most of the 121 archaeological sites have beenmap-predicted by the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology from the 1863-1864Gilmer Maps and an 1870 Chickahominy Map. This gives an incomplete estimate ofthe number of possible sites or structures, since it does not account for any sites datingto the late 19th century, and also may include buildings in continuous use built prior tothe Civil War. Along with these biases is the local research interest in 17th- and18th-century resources, which has precluded study of this time period. Therefore, theprobable number of archaeological sites specific to the late 19th century, cannot beadequately established without a preliminary field survey and field testing of139

map-predicted sites. Only 43 sites dating to the late 19th century have actually beensurveyed, and only six have been excavated.Available primary sources for the period are numerous and include the 1860 to1910 Censuses, land and tax records dating after 1865, maps, the Freedmen’s Bureaurecords, Virginia state documents (such as the annual reports of the Department of Agricultureand Immigration), city directories, and manuscripts (including 14 collectionsat Swem Library of the College of William and Mary).SUB-THEME A: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN RURALAGRICULTUREAfter the Civil War, while other sections of the country became increasingly industrialized,James City and York Counties retained a strong agricultural tradition. Even withthe introduction of the railroad and influx of immigrant groups, this area was predominantlyrural. Not until the turn of the century did industries begin to appear, due mainlyto substantial population growth and an increasing military presence in the area. Thus,the two counties remained relatively isolated from the effects of the Industrial Revolutionoccurring elsewhere.Farming itself changed quite dramatically after the Civil War. The obvious differencewas the loss of slave labor, which had previously been used by 40% to 60% of thecounties’ 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 paidfarm laborers. Production dropped by approximately one-half and farm size by one-thirdto one-fifth (Table 4.12). The number of farms increased by 300%, almost in inverserelation to the drop in farm size. However, after this initial alteration in the farminglandscape, the agricultural statistics show little change over the next forty years exceptfor a steady increase in per acre production.Changes which did occur in farming practices in the area were mostly due to externalfactors. The railroad, an efficient transportation system introduced to this area in1881, made cash-crop farming a viable source of income once again. Irish potatoeswere the primary cash-crop in the study area until the 1920s. The Branch family inToano effectively exploited this new transport system by constructing its own spur oftrack. An additional Branch family innovation was the establishment of a barrel factoryto 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, usingpractices brought from the Midwest. With the establishment of military bases beforeand during World War I, a ready market for milk was available. Dairying continued tobe important to this region until the 1940s (Overton 1984: 10).Mechanization of agriculture did not become widespread until well into the 20thcentury. 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 andone in York County (Gee 1927: 188). The limited industrialization evident in the studyarea for this time period was closely allied to processing grains, and included flour andgrist mills (see Plate 4.16).140

TABLE 4.12AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 11860 1870 1880JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YCNumbersHorses 358 539 298 433 451 676Dairy Cows 636 924 497 951 755 1,090Other Cattle 1,678 2,671 912 1,440 1,594 2,161Sheep 668 1,271 419 708 723 340Swine 4,794 5,670 2,485 4,626 3,416 4,237Poultry NL 3 NL NL NL 6,802 22,452BushelsCorn 119,460 157,421 64,128 107,103 66,774 104,326Oats 18,573 15,245 8,238 12,060 7,311 6,836Wheat 57,220 38,334 10,350 3,289 9,315 15,697Hay (Tons) 1,165 888 108 2 285 30Potatoes 4,750 4,657 6,804 12,416 1,159 20,405Sweet Potatoes 7,393 22,097 5,071 12,954 4,725 10,509Peanuts NL NL — — NL NLFarmsNumber 149 323 346 912 434 906Own NL NL NL NL 262 541Tenant NL NL NL NL 172 365Manager NL NL NL NL NL NLAverage Farm Acreage 512 210 121 61.5 125 55Farm Size (Acres)Under 10 4 7 49 333 60 26310 - 19 3 21 99 204 67 22320 - 49 7 89 86 141 98 21850 - 99 6 68 63 98 63 82100- 499 77 100 48 35 127 100500- 999 30 26 1 1 15 141000+ 22 11 — 1 4 61Compiled from agricultural schedules of the census and Virginia Department of Agriculture and Immigrationrecords.2JCC= James City County; YC= York County.3NL = No Listing.Ideal domestic property types for this sub-theme are those which demonstrate thesehistorical trends in action. A large plantation which was broken up after the Civil Warinto many small farms, or a farm which flourished because of its accessibility to therailroad, or an immigrant farmstead which exhibited characteristics different from traditionalfarms, all can contribute to an understanding of life in the area after the CivilWar.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 11890 1900 1910JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YCNumbersHorses 580 735 735 1,255 754 1,326Dairy Cows 936 968 614 1,168 700 1,424Other Cattle 1,339 1,509 804 1,387 643 1,438Sheep 797 652 740 1,049 740 681Swine 11,626 3,005 2,550 5,546 1,491 4,148Poultry 12,810 37,692 14,008 26,065 17,436 36,393BushelsCorn 76,368 95,266 89,870 126,110 120,109 160,785Oats 21,394 9,151 2,760 2,000 3,930 2,251Wheat 1,682 2,154 1,480 250 20 791Hay (Tons) 975 1,064 2,024 1,160 2,136 2,080Potatoes 2,759 24,072 28,929 32,188 217,138 111,395Sweet Potatoes 6,180 8,562 13,567 14,122 9,110 22,748Peanuts 11,083 4,202 10,396 14,575 2,567 5,595Farms 370 625 573 1,139 496 1,123Own 286 384 420 943 403 960Tenant 84 241 148 193 86 110Manager NL 3 NL 5 3 7 53Average Farm Acreage 162 64 122.5 46.5 113.1 45Farm Size (Acres)Under 10 27 145 71 387 64 31010 - 19 45 156 124 279 93 34520 - 49 77 170 139 283 121 24150 - 99 66 64 98 78 82 113100- 499 129 72 115 123 113 105500- 999 19 13 14 13 16 71000+ 7 5 12 4 7 21Compiled from agricultural schedules of the census and Virginia Department of Agriculture and Immigrationrecords.2JCC= James City County; YC= York County.3NL = No Listing.terns in farming, as a result of the multiplicity of farmsteads after the Civil War, theintroduction of the railroad, and the influx of immigrant groups. Market and retail centerswere very important for redistribution of locally-consumed produce. General storeswere also important as gathering places for farmers and fishermen. One example, Amory’sGeneral Merchandizing Store in Poquoson, has a long and fascinating history, but isunfortunately soon to be torn down (Plate 4.17).Many of the map-predicted sites listed in Table 4.16 are probably associated withthis 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, whichare important, but which have not yet been identified as significant.142

Plate 4.17. Amory’s General Merchandising Store, Poquoson.SUB-THEME B: TRANSPORTATIONWhile there was considerably more attention paid to roadways—and more use of overlandtravel—during the colonial era than has often been supposed, the origins of thepresent transportation system of Tidewater Virginia lie in the “Transportation Revolution”of the 19th century. The “Revolution” included the construction of port facilitieson both the York and James Rivers and on the Chesapeake Bay, the perfection ofsteam-powered water transit, the belated arrival of railroads on the Peninsula, and awell-established overland network of roads.Reminders of all phases of the development of the present Tidewater transportationsystem 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 intoa state not only worse than that of 1860, but probably worse than that existing before theturnpike era began in the late 18th century” (Pawlett 1977: 30). Inland roadways werenot adequately maintained as other transport methods proved more viable. Unlike otherregions of Virginia, there were no turnpikes in this area. Not until 1906, in anticipationof the Jamestown Exposition, was a road surface paved between Williamsburg andJamestown (Rouse 1973: 74). By 1920, the Williamsburg- Richmond State Road waspaved. As late as 1940, more than 25% of local farms were not on paved roads, andother means of transportation were important until well into the 20th century (Garnettand Seymour 1933: 82).Colonial Virginia had from the early days of settlement relied on its “natural” transportationsystem of rivers and creeks. This waterborne system continued to be the quickestand most comfortable form of travel until the advent of the railroad. Waterways were143

used to transport farm products to Richmond and other markets until after the SecondWorld War. Wharfs, such as Glass House Point, Swans Point, Crays Creek, ScotlandWharf, College Creek, and Burwell’s Landing, dotted the James River. Ferguson’s Wharfwas the longest example of its type on the James River in 1890 (True 1984; 56). In thePoquoson district, where the fishing industry was and is still important, people werealso engaged in building canoes which had a worldwide reputation (Department of Agricultureand Immigration of the State of Virginia 1893: 340).Steamers travelling between Baltimore and Richmond advertised the trip along theJames 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 (BaltimoreSteam Packet Company 1896). Steamship travel also continued in popularity until themid-1920s.The railroad altered both the landscape and commercial activities in James Cityand York Counties. Financed by Collis Huntington, the railway reached Williamsburgin 1881, just in time for Yorktown’s Centennial. One of its purposes was to providetransport for day excursioners to the celebration. The temporary tracks laid down Dukeof Gloucester Street in Williamsburg were moved in 1882, and permanent tracks werelaid east of town.The train connected Peninsula farmers with the Newport News and Hampton shippinglines, providing them with an ever-widening market for their goods. Stations becamecenters 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 Immigrationof the State of Virginia 1893: 207) (Plate 4.18).Each station attracted commercial, industrial and residential speculators. Toano, inparticular, was a center for shipping farm crops. The Branch Barrel Factory was built atToano to expedite shipping in 1890, employing seventy to eighty people to packpotatoes (Jeffrey 1984: 3). The railroad changed the quality of farming from a small- toa large-scale operation. Carl Bergh, an agent for the railroad, recruited Scandinavianimmigrants from the Midwest to farm lands around the Norge station, a communitywhich has outlived the depot which shaped its forming.The coming of the railroad to the Peninsula coincided with the opening of theNewport News Shipyard, also financed by Huntington. The yard, which opened in 1889,attracted thousands of employees to the Peninsula and to this study area, particularlyduring the two World Wars. The railroad continued to dominate the transportation sceneuntil World War I.Aside from farming, industries which expanded as a result of changing technologyand improved transportation included the seafood industry, which had previously playedan important, if geographically limited, role in Tidewater economy. As a result of newlypatented canning techniques, and improved shipping capabilities, eastern Virginia inthe 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, thesewatermen 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 attractedmany former watermen and their children, small communities of commercial fishermenstill remain in Poquoson and Dare.Transportation-related resources have been largely ignored in the study area. Nosystematic 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 wastorn down in 1971, and the railway spur which served the Branch Barrel Factory isgone. A few historic wharfs in Poquoson are being acquired and protected by the citygovernment. 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 underlinesthe need for historical research on this topic. The documentation is available,especially on inland roadways, but has not been synthesized into a usable form. Muchof 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 IMMIGRANTCOMMUNITIESThere has been a continuous stream of immigrants into this region since early colonization.Until the late 19th century, foreign-born immigrants were predominantly from theBritish Isles (Table 4.13). After that time immigrants of other nationalities migrated tothe area, attracted by the accessibility of farmland and employment opportunities on the145

TABLE 4.13POPULATION SCHEDULES 11860 1870 1880 1890JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YC JCC YCTotal Population 5,798 4,949 4,425 7,198 5,422 7,349 5,643 7,596Number of Households 606 3 570 3 919 1,524 1,092 1,359 4 1,088 1,484Number of Homes 1,064 5 967 5 800 1,500 993 1,380 4 1,006 1,452Number to a Home 5.45 5.12 5.53 4.80 5.46 5.33 5.61 5.23Number to a Household 9.57 8.68 4.82 4.72 4.97 5.41 5.19 5.12Foreign-Born Population 33 44 65 49 67 32 46 27Austria NL NL NL 7 NL NL NL NL NLCanada NL NL 1 1 NL NL — 1Denmark NL NL NL NL NL NL — —England NL NL 10 3 17 5 11 —France NL NL — 4 2 — — 1Germany NL NL 3 9 11 10 12 —Greece NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NLHungary NL NL NL NL NL NL - —Ireland NL NL 3 26 24 2 11 3Italy NL NL — 1 1 1 2 1Norway NL NL NL NL — — — —Poland NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NLRussia NL NL NL NL NL NL — —Scotland NL NL 47 1 4 8 3 4Sweden NL NL NL NL — — — —Other NL NL 1 1 8 6 6 3Born in Virginia NL NL 4,235 6,862 5,181 7,154 NL NL1Compiled from censuses.2JCC= James City County; YC= York County.3Only white and free black households listed.4Numbers are approximate; no detailed listing for Bruton District.5Slave dwellings included in totals.6NL= No Listing.Peninsula. These new immigrant groups established a number of communities in thearea 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 andexcursion 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. Thesetwo immigrant groups brought different farming practices to the area, and their mostsignificant 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 WarI. Their commercial activities have become closely tied to the tourist industry aroundthe Historic Areas of Williamsburg and Yorktown.A category of immigrants often overlooked are those Americans born outside thestate of Virginia. The 1870 and 1880 Censuses (Table 4.13) show that a majority of146

TABLE 4.13 (cont’d)POPULATION SCHEDULES 11900 1910 1920 1930JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YC JCC YCTotal Population 5,732 7,482 6,338 7,757 6,138 8,046 7,657 7,615Number of Households 1,028 1,532 1,241 1,543 1,207 1,822 1,474 1,845Number of Homes 1,024 1,532 1,143 1,445 1,155 1,801 1,333 1,791Number to a Home 5.60 4.90 5.55 5.37 5.31 4.47 5.74 4.25Number to a Household 5.58 4.90 5.11 5.03 5.09 4.42 5.19 4.13Foreign-Born Population 150 42 180 123 136 82 194 65Austria — 1 — 18 6 3 8 2Canada 4 7 10 2 12 5 18 1Denmark NL 3 NL 19 16 20 6 13 6England 17 3 17 11 10 10 28 10France 1 — 1 — 2 — 1 1Germany 15 13 16 13 5 4 14 3Greece NL NL — — 3 1 16 —Hungary — — 1 1 3 2 5 —Ireland 9 9 9 1 8 2 4 2Italy 1 1 2 1 8 1 17 1Norway NL NL 73 26 29 17 14 13Poland — — — — 1 19 7 14Russia 4 2 23 5 10 1 26 1Scotland 13 2 10 5 7 3 6 2Sweden NL NL 8 5 3 3 4 2Other 86 — 7 2 9 5 13 51940 1950 1960 1985JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YC JCC YCTotal Population 8,849 8,857 13,052 11,750 18,371 21,583 38,870 38,810Number of Households NL NL NL NL 5,256 5,724 NL NLNumber of Homes 1,865 2,259 NL NL NL NL 14,620 12,083Number to a Home 4.75 4.20 NL NL NL NL 2.52 3.21Number to a Household NL NL NL NL 3.50 3.77 2.80 3.151Compiled from censuses.2JCC= James City County; YC= York County.3NL = No Listing.4Williamsburg 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 inthe 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 fromPennsylvania. In 1880, there were 90 New Jersey natives, nine less than all foreign-bornresidents at this time. Of the 337 people that were not born in Virginia, less than one-thirdof these were foreign-born while the majority were from Northeastern states and constitutedapproximately five percent of the population of the two counties. Their impact onthe Peninsula is largely unstudied, and it is not known how they were related to theoften-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 doneon 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 theWilliamsburg Mennonite Church and the Viking Hall in Norge (Plate 4.19) attest to thecontinuation of their native customs. The labelling of modern communities and streetswith Scandinavian-sounding names, such as Norvalia, reflects a desire to retain thisheritage. For British- or American-born immigrants into this area, however, it is difficultto distinguish any particular new contributions to the region. Thus, any attempt toidentify architectural and archaeological sites for this group would require in-depthresearch into regional styles and variations.The locations of immigrant communities are fairly well known. The majority ofScandinavian immigrants, according to the 1900 Census, settled on the Williamsburgand 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. TheMennonite group originally settled in Denbigh (outside the study area), but their influenceand traditions have spread into James City and York Counties.New communities such as Norvalia and Kristiansand have been built on farmlandsonce owned by these immigrants. The impact of this small group of foreign-born immigrantson the farming practices (i.e., dairy farming) of this region warrants a close examinationof their lifestyles and cultural traditions, before more of their original settlementis destroyed.Plate 4.19. Viking Hall, Norge.148

SUB-THEME D: LOCAL HISTORICAL INTEREST AND THEIMPACT OF THE EARLY PRESERVATION MOVEMENTThe first celebration of an historical even in the study area that received national attentionwas the 250th anniversary of Jamestown in 1857. The event, including a militaryencampment, was attended by 8000 people who arrived via steamboat. Then, as animportant adjunct to the Centennial celebration in Philadelphia in l876, a celebration ofthe 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 VictoryMonument in the presence of 20,000 people. Since this was a national affair, the C & ORailway rushed to lay tracks down the Peninsula to transport federal and state officialsto the celebration. The tracks, which ran down the main street of Williamsburg and fromLee Hall to Yorktown, were relocated after the celebration. In May of 1882, this railwayline became the first regular passenger line between Newport News and Richmond,bringing the prosperous post-war Northerners through this area on their way to thebooming winter resorts further down the Peninsula.The Centennial awakened local historical interest. Mrs. Cynthia Coleman ofWilliamsburg created the Catherine Coleman Memorial Society on February 9, 1884, acharitable organization which sold handicrafts and flowers to aid in the repair of aWilliamsburg Church and to restore monuments in the churchyard. Later Mrs. Colemanjoined forces with Miss Mary Galt of Norfolk, who was concerned over the Jamestownruins, to form the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities (APVA). Thefirst meeting of this group took place in Williamsburg on January 4, 1889. Before theend of the century, the APVA had purchased and “restored” the Colonial Powder Magazinein 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 majorinterest of the APVA during this time was the preservation of JamestownIsland. Anannual Jamestown Day celebration was revived, and the Army Corps of Engineers underthe supervision of Colonel Samuel Yonge constructed a seawall to halt the erosionof the island. Some of the earliest historical archaeology in this country was done at thistime. John Tyler Jr. excavated the foundations of the 17th-century church at Jamestown.Colonel Yonge himself conducted excavations of the 17th-century foundations he discoveredwhile constructing the seawall. Amidst all of this planning, President TheodoreRoosevelt 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 outsidethis study area) rather than at Jamestown itself, since Roosevelt had invited the world tojoin in an “international naval, marine, and military celebration.” The APVA saw to itthat a hard-surface road was constructed from Williamsburg to Jamestown so touristscould visit the site. Although the celebration was not at Jamestown, the military displayat Hampton Roads was paired with an exhibit illustrative of the colonial period. Manyof the major exhibition buildings were constructed in the Colonial Revival style, whichwas quite popular by 1907. However, these were nostalgic recreations and little attemptwas made to discover the true nature of architecture in early Jamestown. Many of thesebuildings 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 tomaintain Jamestown, along with several other properties in the project area, but theirmain focus turned to Richmond. The APVA was one of the first large private preservationgroups 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 tore-open the College of William and Mary in 1888. Although the state’s goal in appropriatingmonies for William and Mary was to create a teacher’s college, one of Tyler’sobjectives was to revive an interest in the Colonial history of Virginia. He was instrumentalin 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 wasReverend W.A.R. Goodwin, who was chosen rector of Bruton Parish in 1903. He beganthe restoration of the Colonial church, which included a small excavation beneath thechurch floor to locate graves of early parishioners and ministers. The work was completedin time to celebrate, in 1907, the 300th anniversary of the establishment of theEpiscopal Church in America.Resources important to this sub-theme are early examples of preserved buildingsand archaeological sites, such as Bruton Parish Church, the Powder Magazine, JamestownIsland, Yorktown, and the Wren Building, as well as early examples of Colonial Revivalbuildings, and exhibition buildings such as those surviving structures of the JamestownTercentenary. Most of these sites are being preserved in their colonial state, and theirsignificance as early examples of preservationist efforts is often overlooked.150

TABLE 4.14MANUFACTURE 11860 1870 1880 1890JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC JCC YCNo. of Industries 28 118 20 7 14 12 6 11Fisheries — 105 NL 3 NL NL NL NL NLShip Building — 1 NL NL NL NL NL NLLumber Sawed 7 5 3 2 7 3 6 5Flour & Meal 11 3 2 5 6 6 NL NLOther Wood Related 1 1 3 — NL NL NL NLConcrete Products — — NL NL NL NL NL NLBuilding Industry NL NL 7 — 1 — NL NLOther 9 5 5 — — 3 — 6Employees 108 386 46 36 73 69 20 261900 1910 1920 1960JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC JCC YCNo. of Industries 15 16 NL NL ? ? 13 19Fisheries NL NL NL NL — 105 — 2Ship Building NL NL NL NL NL NL — 1Lumber Sawed NL NL NL NL NL NL 6 5Flour & Meal NL NL NL NL NL NL 2 6Other Wood Related NL NL NL NL NL NL 1 1Concrete Products NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NLBuilding Industry NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NLOther NL NL NL NL NL NL 4 3Employees 62 17 NL NL 185 20 NL NL1Compiled from manufacturing schedules of the censuses.2JCC= James City County; YC= York County.3NL = No Listing.SUMMARYThis study unit has examined the regional isolation of the Peninsula and its retrenchmentperiod after the Civil War. Changes occurring at the end of the 19th century, suchas the “Transportation Revolution” and an influx of immigrants with new agriculturaland commercial interests, helped restore the economic viability of this area. The nationallysignificant 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 sitesand structures associated with this study unit has been neglected as well. The potentialfor research while there are people still living who remember this time and while buildingsof the period still stand, is immeasurable. Intense efforts in survey, oral historyrecording, and historical research are needed. Specific recommendations are listed inthe following operating plan.151

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

TABLE 4.15STUDY UNIT XIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJAMES CITY COUNTY:JC 46 Coleman’s (Powell’s) Mill AS I 09 Mill UnknownJC 61 Shellfield House SB I? 03 Domestic? UnknownJC 78 Owens-Illinois Property AS I 02 Domestic Threatened/cultivatedJC 91 GL-26 AS III 08 Unknown CultivatedJC 103 Hobson Site (GL-41) AS III 08 Domestic? UnknownJC 121 York River State Park Site AS I 03 Domestic Eroded/protectedJC 122 York River State Park Site AS I 03 Trash pit ErodedJC 134 Hyman Site AS I 08 Unknown UnknownJC 138 None AS I 10 Domestic UnknownJC 157 None AS I? 08 Unknown UnknownJC 162 C.L. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 163 Rodgers Site #2 AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 164 Rodgers Site #1 AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 171 Moody’s Wharf AS MR 03 Domestic/ Unknowncommercial?JC 174 Mrs. P. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 175 Chapman Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 176 Minor Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 178 Mrs. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 179 S. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 180 Garrett Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 181 Rompfield Negro Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 182 Lawson Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 183 A. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 184 Archer Piggott Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 186 Shellfield Plantation AS MR 06 Plantation UnknownJC 189 Ewell Plantation AS MR 06 Plantation UnknownJC 190 Forlan Site AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 192 Moss Site AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 193 Six Mile (Allen’s) Ordinary AS MR 05 Tavern Destroyed?JC 194 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 195 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 196 Garrett Site AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 197 Bush’s Mill AS MR 05 Mill UnknownJC 198 Joseph Mickitt Site AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 200 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 201 Shop Site AS MR 05 Industrial? UnknownJC 202 Moore House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 203 Mary Copeland House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 204 Johnson House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 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. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJC 206 Mrs. Warner’s House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 207 Dr. Binn’s House AS MR 05 Domestic/ Unknownoffice?JC 208 Vaiden House AS I 05 Domestic UnknownJC 209 Bush House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 210 Gordon House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 211 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 212 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 213 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 214 U.M. Spencer House SB I 05 Domestic PoorJC 215 Hicks House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 216 W. Spencer House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 217 J. Crenshaw House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 218 John Coke House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 219 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 220 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 221 W.L. Spencer House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 222 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 223 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 224 J. Nettles House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 225 George Minor House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 226 N. Browning House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 227 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 228 James River (Browning) Mills AS MR 05 Mills UnknownJC 230 K. Richardson House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 231 B. Waddill House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 232 Pinewoods (R. Warburton SB I 05 Domestic GoodHouse)JC 233 Richardson House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 234 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 235 None AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 236 Simpson House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 237 None AS MR 05 Domestic? UnknownJC 240 Richardson House AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 241 Taylor Saw Mill AS MR 05 Sawmill UnknownJC 248 Sallie Hockaday House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 249 Oliver Hockaday House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 250 None AS MR 02 Unknown UnknownJC 252 Mitchell Mill AS MR 02 Mill UnknownJC 253 John Richardson House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 254 Whitaker House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 255 Garrett House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 256 William Meanley House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 257 William Meanley Site AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 258 A. Hankins House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 259 E. Sorrel House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 261 Taylor House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown154

TABLE 4.15 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJC 262 Martha James House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 263 I. Branch House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 265 Marston House SB I 02 Domestic UnknownJC 266 None AS MR 02 Unknown UnknownJC 268 Boswell House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 269 Slater House (Hockaday Place) SB I 02 Domestic PoorJC 270 Stuart Place SB I 02 Domestic FairJC 271 Timberlake House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 273 O. Hudson House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 274 Dr. Ashlock Site AS MR 02 Domestic/ Unknownoffice?JC 275 Jack Ashlock House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 276 P. Ashlock House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 277 Taylor House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 278 Taylor House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 279 None AS MR 02 Domestic? UnknownJC 280 Dr. Jenning’s House AS MR 02 Domestic/ Unknownoffice?JC 283 Walter Enos House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 284 Mrs. Yates House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 285 None AS MR 02 Domestic? UnknownJC 286 George Hankins House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 288 William Bagly House AS MR 02 Domestic UnknownJC 289 Martin House SB I 02 Domestic GoodJC 293 Edwards Mill AS MR 02 Mill UnknownJC 294 Wenger House (Clover Dale) SB I 02 Domestic/ Fairagricultural?JC 295 Lutheran Parish House SB I 02 Ecclesiastical GoodJC 305 None AS MR 04 Unknown UnknownJC 306 None AS MR 04 Unknown UnknownJC 318 GL-16 AS I 08 Sawmill/ferry/ ErodedwharfJC 322 GL-20 AS I 08 Domestic ConstructionJC 323 GL-23 AS I 08 Domestic ConstructionJC 324 GL-24 AS I 08 Domestic/ Constructionagricultural?JC 325 GL-25 AS I 08 Industrial ConstructionJC 326 None AS I 05 Domestic UnknownJC 327 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 328 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 329 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 330 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 331 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 332 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 333 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 334 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 335 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown155

TABLE 4.15 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJC 336 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 337 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 338 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 339 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 340 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 341 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 342 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 343 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 344 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 345 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 346 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 347 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 348 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 349 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 350 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 351 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 352 None AS MR 05 Unknown UnknownJC 354 GL-27 AS I 08 Domestic CultivatedJC 361 Rt. 199 Ext. A-5 AS I 06 Domestic DisturbedJC 371 Betsy Green House AS I 05 Domestic Logged(Rt. 199 Ext. D-2)JC 388 None AS I 03 Steam UndisturbedsawmillJC 393* James City County (Upper AS I 02 Earthen dam UndisturbedCounty) Park 3JC 394* None AS I 05 Forestry Disturbedrelated47-53 Our Savior’s Lutheran Church SB I 05 Ecclesiastical Excellent47-60 Store SB I 02 Commercial Fair47-62 Store SB I 02 Commercial Fair47-64 Diascund Railroad Station DB I 02 Railroad Destroyedstation47-68 Ewell Railroad Station SB I 06 Railraod GoodstationU- 4* Felix Hotel Site AS I 02 Commercial UnknownU- 6* Gatewood Kitchen and House AS I 02 Domestic P.destroyedU- 8 Henley-Hubbard House Site AS I 05 Domestic UnknownU- 13* Sunnyside Site DB I 02 Domestic DestroyedU- 16* Toano Truck Package AS I 02 Commercial DestroyedCompany SiteU- 26 Saw Mill Site AS I 05 Military Destroyed?U- 29 Tappahost AS I 02 Settlement UnknownU- 30 Cowlesville AS I ? Domestic UnknownYORK COUNTY:YO 16 Skimino Meetinghouse AS II 06 Quaker ecc. UnknownYO 19 None AS I 06 Domestic? Unknown156

TABLE 4.15 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionYO 20 None AS I 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 21 None AS I 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 23 None AS I 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 37 None AS I 06 Redoubt UnknownYO 39 None AS I 06 Unknown UnknownYO 40 None AS I 06 Gun UnknownemplacementYO 42 None AS I 06 Earthwork UnknownYO 46 None AS I 06 Unknown UnknownYO 61 Piggott’s (Fenton) Mill SS I 06 Mill PoorYO 73 Back Creek Location # 3 AS I 11 Unknown ThreatenedYO 75 Back Creek Location # 5 AS I 11 Domestic ThreatenedYO 122 Cheatham Annex F AS I 06 Unknown UnknownYO 170 Harwoods Mill Farm AS I 11 Camp/dom./ P.destroyedmilitary campYO 184 None AS I 11 Unknown ThreatenedYO 223 17Y AS I? 11 Domestic/? Excavated?YO 234 None AS I 11 Artifact UnknownscatterYO 240 HM 20 AS I 11 Bridge/ UnknownroadwayYO 263 Evans “Cherry Hall” SB I 06 Domestic GoodYO 267 Roberson Negro Site AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 271 Dr. Waller’s House AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 272 Bigler’s Wharf Vicinity AS MR 06 Commercial? UnknownYO 278 W. Bowden Site AS MR 06 Domestic? UnknownYO 279 W. Bowden Site AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 281 Pickett House AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 283 Capitol Site AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 301* H. Powers Site AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown99-46* Tue Marshes Light DS I 11 Lighthouse Replaced99-47* York Spit Light DS I 11 Lighthouse ReplacedU- 72* Bethel Baptist Church SB I ? Ecclesiastical GoodU- 94* Thomas Mills House DB I ? Domestic DestroyedU- 98* Calhier’s House DB I ? Domestic DestroyedU-105* Mill Pond School DB DR ? School UnknownU-106* Springfield School DB DR ? School UnknownU-107* Corner Pine School DB DR ? School UnknownU-108* Grafton School DB DR ? School UnknownU-109* Poor House Farm School DB DR ? School UnknownU-110* Seaford School DB DR ? School UnknownU-111* Smithville School DB DR ? School UnknownU-112* Yorktown School DB DR ? School UnknownCITY OF POQUOSON:U- 61 Messick’s Point SS I 14 Landing? UnknownU- 62 Messick Theater SB I 14 Theater GoodU- 63 Lodge Hall SB I 14 Public Good157

TABLE 4.15 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionU- 64 Amory’s Store DB I 11 Commercial ThreatenedU- 65 Amory’s Wharf SS I 14 Wharf UnknownU- 66 Emmaus Baptist Church SB I 11 Ecclesiastical GoodU- 67 Trinity Methodist Church SB I 14 Ecclesiastical GoodU- 68 Sheffield’s Store SB I 14 Commercial GoodU- 69* Barrel Factory SB I ? Industrial GoodU- 70* Robert’s Landing AS I ? Landing UnknownU- 71* Hunt’s Neck Landing AS I 11 Landing UnknownU- 73* Tabernacle Methodist Church SB I ? Ecclesiastical GoodU- 76* Lawson House SB I ? Domestic GoodU- 77* Wornom House DB I ? Domestic DestroyedU- 78* Hopkins House SB I ? Domestic PoorU- 79* Major Stephen Moore House DB I ? Domestic DestroyedU- 80* Frank Edwards Horse Stable DB I ? Stable DestroyedU- 81* Solomon Evans House SB I ? Domestic GoodU- 82* James Smith Hopkins, Jr. SB I ? Domestic GoodHouseU- 83* John Lemuel Moore House DB I ? Domestic DestroyedU- 84* John Huggett House DB I ? Domestic DestroyedU- 85* John Gibbs Wornom House and SB I ? Domestic GoodOutbuildingsCITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:WB 7 None AS I 06 Unknown UnknownWB 12 Peacock Hill # 1 SB I? 06 Domestic UnknownWB 29 SSE E-1 AS II 06 Domestic ThreatenedWB 33 SSE F-1 AS II 06 Commercial/ ThreatenedindustrialWB 34 SSE H-1 AS II 06 Agricultural Threatened137-41 * Bell Farm SB I 06 Domestic Excellent137-44* Roberts House SB I 06 Domestic ExcellentU- 37* Dunmore’s Ice House DB I 06 Industrial DestroyedU- 38* Parks’ Paper Mill DS I 06 Industrial DestroyedU- 39* Mattey School DB I 06 School DestroyedU- 40* Methodist Church DB I 06 Ecclesiastical DestroyedU- 41* Railroad DS I 06 Railroad DestroyedU- 42* Williamsburg Baptist Church DB I 06 Ecclesiastical DestroyedU- 43* Pender’s Store DB I 06 Commercial DestroyedU- 44* The Peachy Block DB I 06 Unknown DestroyedU- 45* Knitting Mill DB I 06 Industrial DestroyedU- 46* Mahone’s Store DB I 06 Commercial DestroyedU- 48* Colonial Inn DB I 06 Inn DestroyedU- 49* Neel’s House DB I 06 Domestic DestroyedU- 50* Miss Gibbie’s School DB I 06 School DestroyedU- 51* Stuart House DB I 06 Domestic DestroyedU- 52* Phebe’s House DB I 06 Domestic DestroyedU- 53* Mrs. Will’s House DB I 06 Domestic DestroyedU-129* Nicholson School DB DR 06 School Unknown158

STUDY UNIT XIII: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitNational and Regional. Some aspects of this study unit have national significance whileothers 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 preservationgroups to be formed, and served as a model for many others nationwide. Theimprovement in the transportation system in this study area affected regional development,connecting the Lower Peninsula to Richmond by rail and thus paving the way forthe industrialization of the region. Finally, the continuity of rural settlement in this areais of local significance.Agricultural buildings tend to reflect regional stylistic trends. Their significancelies not so much in the quality of specific examples but rather in the patterns detectablein a number of structures and buildings.There has been only a minimal effort to research or preserve transportation- relatedstructures and features or to evaluate the effects of the “transportation revolution”on economic trends during this time period. Transportation-related resources are significantnot only because they reflect the economic renaissance of the region, but alsobecause of their potential as sources of information about community development andchange.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 beenof 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 thesites 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 commercialzones which developed in the wake of historic preservation efforts can be identified.Summary of Property Types(1) Agricultural—farmsteads (especially those examples which display regionalcharacteristics of the two-story I-house or the added two-story ell to an existingone and a half story dwelling), domestic and agricultural outbuildings, etc.(2) Domestic—urban and rural non-agricultural buildings (at this time, some QueenAnne/Victorian style characteristics would appear, including asymmetricalmassing and gingerbread trim).(3) Commercial—retail stores, banks, offices, etc. Mostly found in urban centers,such as Williamsburg, Poquoson, Toano, etc. or along major transportationroutes, such as the Williamsburg-Richmond Stage Road (Route 60).159

(4) Transportation-related—wharfs, railroad stations, bridges, taverns, etc. Thiswould also include any commercial development which was directly related totransportation facilities.(5) Social/cultural-related—meeting halls, buildings indicative of traditions retainedby immigrant groups such as the Lutheran Parish House or the VikingHall, historic landmarks such as the Yorktown Victory Monument, HistoricAreas 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 furtherrecorded and researched, including the Branch family farm and related barrel factoryand the Amory General Merchandising Store in Poquoson.Character of the Existing DataTable 4.15 summarizes the known sites and surveyed standing structures dating to thisperiod. The 1940 Census assessed existing structures by decade built, and the probablenumber of domestic structures built during this period can be estimated at just over1000. However, one must assume that between 1940 and 1985 probably 50% to 75% ofthose structures have been lost, making a more realistic though unverified number ofremaining structures approximately 300. This figure does not take into account propertytypes other than domestic. Less than 0.05% of the domestic structures have beensurveyed. The 0.05% surveyed sample are known mainly from photographic sourcesand have not been field surveyed.The State Historic Building Files at the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarksneed considerable upgrading before they are adequate for evaluating, registering, ortreating resources (see Section 1).Criteria for EvaluationWithout a systematic, preliminary survey of both architectural and archaeological siteswhich would determine the number and quality of existing resouces, an accurate evaluationof significance for property types cannot be made. However, criteria for evaluatingsites should be based on several factors as outlined in the National Register Guidelinesand the Secretary’s Standards including: the quality of information available, theintegrity 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 nationallevel, and architectural style.Other criteria for measuring significance should include research potential as discussedin the historical narrative, educational and interpretational possibilities, an estimateof information loss if an active preservation policy is not carried out, and publicinterest. Each of these is a valuable tool for determining significance, but until the numberand quality of any given property type is established, criteria standards for specific160

esources can not be formed. For example, there were six railroad stations in this studyregion, four of which no longer exist (Diascund, Toano, Williamsburg, and Grove), onewhich 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 notseem to be as crucial to preserve the Norge Station. However, the Norge Station also hasa significance beyond its association with the developing transportation system of theregion. Norge Station was also central to the development of an immigrant communityin the region. Thus, although it is not a unique example of a property type, it has anassociational significance with historical themes of the region. Without an awareness ofthe historical context of Norge Station, its potential for preservation would be limited.Present Condition of Property TypesLand development in the last twenty years has been substantial and will continue in thenext 20 years. Thus, many cultural resources are endangered. Measurements of destructionover time usually assume a 50% loss of cultural resources every 20 years. Oftenthose resources which remain represent a limited segment of the overall population ofan area, usually the elite, whose buildings were better built. Surviving resources sometimesreflect a preservation bias, as in this area where many 18th-century buildingshave 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 early20th-century structures and buildings should be done in the next few years, so thatplanners 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 beenidentified by survey in the study area, 21 are in good or excellent condition, 8 are in fairor poor condition, 53 are destroyed, and 158 are in unknown condition.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesThe following is a series of steps to be taken for every cultural resource. Priorities forpreservation of any given resource will change over time as more data concerning theproperty 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 preservationwill proceed to the next step—registration. Once it is recognized as a state ornational landmark, it should ideally be preserved in situ. These four steps represent aprocess of critical thinking which should be applied to every resource, regardless oforiginal judgments about its significance.Identification GoalsA high priority for this time period and region is to identify and record resources. Alimited amount of map-predictive work has been done for this time period (see Table4.15). However, this stresses continuous use of structures built prior to the Civil Warand does not account for buildings dating after about 1870. This time period has alsobeen neglected by earlier field surveys, therefore, a preliminary survey of this region is161

ecommended to determine the quantity and quality of existing sites. Future surveys forthis time period need to concentrate on Poquoson, Five Forks, Peacock Hill, and alongRoute 60 and Route 30. Thematic surveys following the sub-themes, such as a survey ofrailroad terminals and related community development, would be an excellent methodfor covering the large number of sites from this time period in discrete units. A samplingapproach to surveys, while possibly less expensive, would prove to be either biased orincomplete at some future date. By choosing not to survey a resource, a determinationhas been made as to its significance. Thus, a sampling approach is only useful after agroup of resources are evaluated and significance has been determined.Several levels of survey are also recommended. First, there should be a systematiccollection of photographs dating to this period, such as those being compiled by theDepartment of Architectural Research at Colonial Williamsburg, and more recently, bythe 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 surveysshould 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 isstrongly urged.Further historical and primary research is needed, including an examination ofsources such as censuses, tax and land records, the Freedmen’s Bureau records, stateagency records, maps, private papers, and photographic collections. Primary sourceswhich are available for research include the 1860 to 1910 Censuses, land and tax recordsdating after 1865, maps (Civil War maps, the Sanborn Map Company maps ofWilliamsburg, etc.), the Freedmen’s Bureau records, Virginia State Documents such asthe 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 reflectlocal historical perspectives.The following are identification objectives for each property type:• Agricultural buildings: A record of both new buildings constructed during thistime and those already existing which continued to be used.• Agricultural buildings: A survey of immigrant farms for differences in both styleand farming practices.• Domestic structures: A record of buildings constructed during this period. Especiallyneeded is a preliminary survey of Poquoson and Williamsburg (outside theHistoric District).• Commercial and industrial buildings: A survey of stores, banks, offices, factories,mills, and other industrial or commercial properties. Thus far, few standingcommercial structures of this period have been officially identified within the studyarea.• Transportation-related structures: A survey of water-related sites, especiallywharves and landings.• Transportation-related structures: A record of bridge construction.• Transportation-related structures: Identification of sites related to the canoe industryin Poquoson.162

• Social/cultural-related properties: A folklore survey, especially of Poquosonwatermen.• Industrial structures: A survey of mill sites dating to the late 19th and early 20thcenturies.• Industrial structures: A survey of early factory sites such as the Branch BarrelFactory and the Williamsburg Knitting Mill.Evaluation GoalsAll cultural resources should be evaluated once they have been identified to determinetheir significance in light of National Register criteria and the above factors. Evaluationshould assist in determining the treatment applied to a specific site.The following are research topics which should be investigated before adequateevaluation 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 changedlifestyles.The following evaluation objectives should be met to determine the significanceof 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 sufficientsite integrity or integrity of setting to merit nomination to the National Register.• Domestic structures: Evaluate known domestic structures dating to this period todetermine whether any exhibit distinctive regional characteristics and sufficientsite integrity to merit nomination to the National Register. Candidates for suchanalysis 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). Inaddition, evaluate earlier structures in the light of any late 19th century additionswhich exemplify changes in local economy and style.• Commercial/industrial properties: Evaluate known commercial buildings suchas the Toano stores (JC47), (JC60), (JC61), (JC61), the Sheffield Store (U-68), andthe Messick Theater (U-60) for their eligibility for nomination to the NationalRegister. Water-related commercial buildings and structures, such as Messick’sPoint (U-61), Amory’s Wharf (U-65) should be similarly evaluated.• Transportation-related structures: An assessment of the Norge railroad stationto determine its eligibility for nomination to the National Register.• Social/cultural-related buildings: Viking Hall in Norge should be evaluated todetermine its eligibility for nomination to the National Register.163

Registration GoalsThe following resources should be considered for National Register nomination oncethey 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 historicdistricts:• 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 GoalsThe 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 withoutbuildings in the regional style.• Preservation of a representative example of a commercial block such as the row ofshops 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 (Plate4.16).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 ofindustrialization and the changing role of agriculture.B. The effect of military expansion and its related industriesand services.C. Creation of a usable past: Colonial Revival and the riseof tourism.Significance: National and RegionalAgriculture continued to be an economic force in James City and York Counties (Table4.16). However, by the 1940s, with improved road systems, these two counties no longerhad 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 JamesCity County and about 20% of the area of York County, with soybeans and corn as themajor crops.Early industrialization usually facilitated agricultural interests, and industries suchas grist mills, barrel factories, and other agriculturally- related enterprises were themost common in the area. Around the turn of the century, several industries developednear Williamsburg, including Arthur Dunmore’s Ice Factory, the Williamsburg KnittingMill, and the Bozarth Bros. Planing Mill. By the 1920s, local workers were turning tonearby industry for employment, such as the West Point Pulp Mill and the NewportNews Shipyard. It was not until the 1970s, however, that industry become a major economicforce in James City and York Counties with such companies as the BadischeCorporation, 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 ofrelated services, such as the Penniman Munitions Plant. The movement to preservehistoric sites led by organizations such as the Association for the Preservation of VirginiaAntiquities, the National Park Service, and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundationalso had a major impact on this area. In James City and York Counties such attractionsas Busch Gardens and the Williamsburg Pottery Factory draw an increasing number oftourists 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 16architectural and archaeological properties have been identified through survey (Table4.20). Of those surveyed, none have been researched in any depth.An accurate appraisal of the number and quality of important cultural resourcesassociated with this period is impossible without further field work. It was estimated inthe 1940 Census Compendium that 2963 buildings were built between 1910 and 1940.165

TABLE 4.16AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 11890 1900 1910JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YCNumbersHorses 580 735 735 1,255 754 1,326Dairy Cows 936 968 614 1,168 700 1,424Other Cattle 1,339 1,509 804 1,387 643 1,438Sheep 797 652 740 1,049 740 681Swine 11,626 3,005 2,550 5,546 1,491 4,148Poultry 12,810 37,692 14,008 26,065 17,436 36,393BushelsCorn 76,368 95,266 89,870 126,110 120,109 160,785Oats 21,394 9,151 2,760 2,000 3,930 2,251Wheat 1,682 2,154 1,480 250 20 791Hay (Tons) 975 1,064 2,024 1,160 2,136 2,080Potatoes 2,759 24,072 28,929 32,188 217,138 111,395Sweet Potatoes 6,180 8,562 13,567 14,122 9,110 22,748Peanuts 11,083 4,202 10,396 14,575 2,567 5,595FarmsNumber 370 625 573 1,139 496 1,123Own 286 384 420 943 403 960Tenant 84 241 148 193 86 110Manager NL NL 5 3 7 53Average Farm Acreage 162 64 122.5 46.5 113.1 45.0Farm Size (Acres)Under 10 27 145 71 387 64 31010 - 19 45 156 124 279 93 34520 - 49 77 170 139 283 121 24150 - 99 66 64 98 78 82 113100- 499 129 72 115 123 113 105500- 999 19 13 14 13 16 71000+ 7 5 12 4 7 21Compiled from agricultural schedules of the Census and Virginia Department of Agriculture and Immigrationrecords.2JCC= James City County; YC= York County.This was the era of the Colonial Revival, a nationally significant style which both influencedthe development of and was much influenced by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.Between 1940 and 1985, the population has quadrupled and the number of dwellingunits 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 nothought for the historical significance of the changes made to them over time. Thesechanges, such as additions, the raising of roof lines, and modernization of interiors, canbe as informative as the original fabric. This evolving nature of a structure is a record ofthe inhabitants and their needs and tastes at different times in the past. Modifications to166

TABLE 4.16 (cont’d)AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 11920 1925 1930JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YCNumbersHorses 741 1,081 674 754 NL 3 NLDairy Cows 1,217 1,814 1,155 934 850 700Other Cattle 163 184 274 458 550 300Sheep 241 388 247 221 400 500Swine 3,416 3,439 1,358 1,205 1,400 1,000Poultry 22,884 38,736 26,287 42,073 NL NLBushelsCorn 166,368 118,071 62,918 61,820 63,000 75,000Oats 151,388 3,355 4,830 450 4,580 1,609Wheat 9,787 2,036 1,339 1,670 4,500 3,600Hay (Tons) 7,993 4,277 3,706 1,742 1,286 264Potatoes 158,847 78,387 152,783 129,469 137,000 119,900Sweet Potatoes 24,573 26,935 8,955 18,784 8,261 18,022Peanuts 1,258 388 616 126 — —FarmsNumber 386 894 531 DU 3 415 650Own 316 794 NL NL 349 613Tenant 60 193 NL NL 66 58Manager 10 4 NL NL NL NLAverage Farm Acreage 130.5 42.2 DU DU 121 52Farm Size (Acres)Under 10 49 213 101 230 55 12910 - 19 70 271 100 250 80 21620 - 49 79 245 105 210 84 18250 - 99 73 82 77 63 74 63100- 499 100 75 113 38 NL NL500- 999 2 6 9 2 NL NL1000+ 10 2 6 1 NL NL1Compiled from agricultural schedules of the Census and Virginia Department of Agriculture and Immigrationrecords.2JCC= James City County; YC= York County.3DU= Data Unavailable; NL= No Listing.an older building, including indoor plumbing or central heating, suggest changes instandards of living, convenience requirements, or privacy needs. The fact that many oldbuildings are restored whereas in previous times they would have been abandoned indicateschanging 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 photographiccollections (see Table 4.20). Of those 29 buildings, 26 (some of which are known onlythrough photographs) were identified as part of this project. Seventeen of those structureshave been destroyed, and twelve remain standing. This indicates a need to survey20th-century buildings which are not threatened by development and thus have a chance167

TABLE 4.16 (cont’d)AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 11935 1940 1980JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YCNumbersHorses NL NL NL 4 NL 122 292Dairy Cows NL NL 1,090 580 200 —Other Cattle NL NL 630 520 2,200 600Sheep NL NL 110 80 DU 4 —Swine NL NL 1,200 900 136 —Poultry NL NL NL NL 1,159 1,841BushelsCorn 100,000 94,500 91,000 75,000 355,331 14,700Oats 1,551 470 7,050 1,649 NL —Wheat 1,307 1,250 1,950 960 49,210 6,700Hay (Tons) 2,650 322 2,000 654 2,285 DUPotatoes 115,395 78,884 75,235 37,630 290 643Sweet Potatoes 16,651 14,916 40,038 8,927 DU 3,267Peanuts 35,000 NL 80,000 NL NL NLSoybeans NL NL 9,300 5,800 148,541 11,000FarmsNumber 400 649 326 421 71 75Own NL NL NL NL NL NLTenant NL NL NL NL NL NLManager NL NL NL NL NL NLAverage Farm Acreage 98.4 30.8 105 59 233 43Farm Size (Acres)Under 10 85 211 59 99 4 2810 - 19 70 180 55 114 ** **20 - 49 66 169 295 86 23 3450 - 99 68 48 51 54 ** **100- 499 NL NL NL NL 30 13500- 999 NL NL NL NL 11 —1000+ NL NL NL NL 3 —1Compiled from agricultural schedules of the Census and Virginia Department of Agriculture and Immigrationrecords.2Data from 1982 reports.3JCC= James City County; YC= York County.4DU= 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, asignificant 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 includethe 1910 to 1960 Census records, land and tax records, city directories, maps (includingthe Sanborn Map Company maps of Williamsburg, USGS quadrant maps, and postal168

TABLE 4.17MANUFACTURE 11860 1870 1880 1890JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC JCC YCNo. of Industries 28 118 20 7 14 12 6 11Fisheries — 105 NL 3 NL NL NL NL NLShip Building — 1 NL NL NL NL NL NLLumber Sawed 7 5 3 2 7 3 6 5Flour & Meal 11 3 2 5 6 6 NL NLOther Wood Related 1 1 3 — NL NL NL NLConcrete Products — — NL NL NL NL NL NLBuilding Industry — — 7 — 1 — NL NLOther 9 5 5 — — 3 — 6Employees 108 386 46 36 73 69 20 261900 1910 1920 1960JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC JCC YCNo. of Industries 15 16 NL NL ? ? 13 9Fisheries NL NL NL NL — 105 — 2Ship Building NL NL NL NL NL NL — 1Lumber Sawed NL NL NL NL NL NL 6 5Flour & Meal NL NL NL NL NL NL 2 6Other Wood Related NL NL NL NL NL NL 1 1Concrete Products NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NLBuilding Industry NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NLOther NL NL NL NL NL NL 4 3Employees 62 17 NL NL 185 20 NL NL1Compiled from manufacturing schedules of the Censuses.2JCC= James City County; YC= York County.3NL = No Listing.route maps), state and national departmental records, photographic collections, andmanuscript collections.SUB-THEME A: THE EFFECT OF POPULATION GROWTH, THEBEGINNINGS OF INDUSTRIALIZATION AND THE CHANGINGROLE OF AGRICULTUREAgriculture continued to be an important part of this region’s economy and culturalenvironment, with 50% of James City County and 20% of York County’s land area stillunder plow in the early 20th century. However, by the Second World War, farming as anoccupation dropped significantly (Tables 4.16 and 4.19). Potatoes continued to be theprimary cash crop until the 1920s, when soybeans and then later corn supplanted it.Dairy farming became increasingly important to James City County, which had theonly co-op dairy in Eastern Virginia in 1923 (Department of Agriculture and Immigra-169

TABLE 4.18POPULATION SCHEDULES 11900 1910 1920 1930JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YC JCC YCTotal Population 5,732 7,482 6,338 7,757 6,138 8,046 7,657 7,615Number of Households 1,028 1,532 1,241 1,543 1,207 1,822 1,474 1,845Number of Homes 1,024 1,532 1,143 1,445 1,155 1,801 1,333 1,791Number to a Home 5.60 4.90 5.55 5.37 5.31 4.47 5.74 4.25Number to a Household 5.58 4.90 5.11 5.03 5.09 4.42 5.19 4.13Foreign-Born Population 150 42 180 23 136 82 194 65Austria — 1 — 18 6 3 8 2Canada 4 7 10 2 12 5 18 1Denmark NL 3 NL 19 16 20 6 13 6England 17 3 17 11 10 10 28 10France 1 — 1 — 2 — 1 1Germany 15 13 16 13 5 4 14 3Greece NL NL — — 3 1 16 —Hungry — — 1 1 3 2 5 —Ireland 9 9 9 1 8 2 4 2Italy 1 1 2 1 8 1 17 1Norway NL NL 73 26 29 17 14 3Poland — — — — 1 19 7 14Russia 4 2 23 5 10 1 26 1Scotland 13 2 10 5 7 3 6 2Sweden NL NL 8 5 3 3 4 2Other 86 — 7 2 9 5 13 51940 1950 1960 1985JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YC JCC YCTotal Population 8,849 8,857 13,052 11,750 18,371 21,583 38,870 38,810Number of Households NL NL NL NL 5,256 5,724 NL NLNumber of Homes 1,865 2,259 NL NL NL NL 14,620 12,083Number to a Home 4.75 4.20 NL NL NL NL 2.52 3.21Number to a Household NL NL NL NL 3.50 3.77 2.80 3.151Compiled from census records and planning department documents.2JCC= James City County; YC= York County.3NL = No Listing.4Williamsburg 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 electricityor 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. By1969, 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 individualfarm production has risen dramatically (Table 4.16).In the vicinity of Williamsburg, smaller industries have been profitable from thecolonial era to the 20th century. Until very recently, however, their size has been strictly170

TABLE 4.19OCCUPATIONS OF SELECTED INDUSTRIES & SERVICES 11930 2 1940 2 1960JCC YC WB JCC YC WB JCC YC WBAll Industries 2556 3732 1721 1961 3233 1540 3883 6402 2410Agriculture 1099 1041 81 445 388 10 194 103 4Forestry & Fishing 110 872 7 38 417 2 60 298 5Construction 88 285 239 149 258 44 272 545 43Clothing Industry 2 3 1 3 1 1 4 92 4Food & Allied Industries — 14 24 4 35 3 14 84 —Transportation Equipment(Other than Auto) NL 4 NL NL 16 293 1 54 668 4Iron & Steel 3 184 8 4 — — 108 326 8Saw & Planing Mills 185 116 29 91 30 5 — — —Other Wood Industry 20 6 3 18 2 — 4 42 4Construction and Manufactureof Sts. 31 177 9 NL NL NL NL NL NLRailroad Services 47 40 11 43 23 6 27 23 4Other Transportation andCommunication Services 28 55 20 26 39 18 86 154 24Insurance & Real Estate 1 10 17 7 29 17 23 93 33Wholesale & Retail Trade 50 186 234 92 208 90 470 462 217Recreation and Amusement 3 12 20 10 7 8 17 3 38Hotels and Restaurants 5 44 46 158 63 40 246 55 195 163Domestic & Personal Services 222 304 346 188 189 234 709 588 563Public Services 42 266 17 70 271 52 487 1218 206Semi-professional,Professional, and Service 84 102 403 306 125 644 716 688 7521Compiled from census data on occupation.2Persons 10 & older in 1930; persons 14 & older in 1940.3JCC= James City County; YC= York County; WB= Williamsburg.4NL = No Listing.5Restaurants only for 1960.regulated by the poor quality of the transportation system. Improvements in that systemhave not only supported medium-sized industry, but the mechanization of agriculture aswell. Both the development of a modern water-rail-road-air transit system and the industrialgrowth 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 isgraphically displayed on the series of Sanborn Company Maps of Williamsburg, dated1904, 1910, and 1921 (Sanborn Maps 1904, 1910, 1921). Another increase in populationoccurred between 1940 and 1950, probably in response to the military buildup.However, instead of returning to pre-war levels, the population continued to increase sothat at present both counties are nearing a total population of 40,000 people (Table4.18).The improvements in transportation throughout this time period, notably the pavingof roadways, has contributed to the overall growth in this region as the area became171

Plate 4.21. Gas Station, Norge (Destroyed August 17, 1985).accessible to land speculators, industries, and visitors to the historic sites. Together withthe continued impact of military installations, tourism and heavy industry have fostereda complex of service industries along major roadways such as Route 60. All of thesedevelopments could not have taken place without rapid expansion in all aspects of thetransportation system during the last 150 years. The rapid improvement of transportationbrought the region from a state of rural isolation and total dependence upon agricultureto one of a balance between urban and rural adaptations, with a mixed agriculturaland industrial/commercial economy, in close contact with that of the nation andthe world.Important property types relating to this sub-theme include residential housingsuch as bungalows (Plate 4.22), co-op farms, retail stores (Plate 4.23), small manufacturersand automobile related services (Plate 4.24). However, as Table 4.20 shows, verylittle survey work has been done on properties of this study unit, nor has anymap-predictive work been done.SUB-THEME B: THE EFFECT OF MILITARY EXPANSION ANDITS RELATED INDUSTRIES AND SERVICESThis area’s location has always been of strategic value to the military (see also StudyUnit 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 theregion varied from war to war, but during this time period there has been a constant andexpanding military presence. From 1917 to 1982, the York River was the base of theAtlantic Fleet of the United States Navy. Today, one-third of York County is occupiedby military installations, such as the Naval Weapons Station, Cheatham Annex, CampPeary, the U.S. Coast Guard Officers’ School, and two naval fuel facilities (York County1983: 5). A military presence is not only reflected on its installation, however, but alsoby its related services and its effect on the local landscape.Industrial development directly linked to the military presence includes propertiessuch as the Penniman Gunpowder Factory (now no longer standing), owned by theDuPont Company. Starting operations in 1916, it employed 10,000 people by 1918when the United States entered World War I. Lower on the Peninsula, shipyards andother private contractors produce goods for the military, hiring civilians from both JamesCity 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 libraryand 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 bythe military installations. The growth of many new residential communities can be partiallyattributed to the increasing numbers of military personnel moving into and retiringin 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, have174

a direct relationship to the military presence. Today, many local advertisers appeal directlyto military personnel with short-term equipment rentals and veteran-approvedfinancing.Properties which would fall under this sub-theme include short-term housing, suchas 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: COLONIALREVIVAL AND THE RISE OF TOURISMIn the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the colonial past was “revived” and used in anumber of ways. Nationally, the Colonial Revival style was very popular; more houseswere built using colonial models than any other source and the same style was followedin furniture, decorative arts, painting, and literature (Plate 4.25). Throughout the UnitedStates, patriotic associations and historical societies were founded. Numerous local celebrationsheld all over the country complemented the grand Philadelphia CentennialExposition and commemorated various other historical events. Antique collections becamepopular, and old historic landmarks were preserved. Later in the 20th century,places where one could learn about, and even experience, the life of pre-industrialAmerica were set aside for motoring tourists to visit.Although this movement was national in scope, many important aspects of theColonial Revival were expressed locally in the Williamsburg Restoration. More importantly,it was in the Williamsburg area that this diverse and fragmented movement coalescedinto 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 (discussedin Study Unit XIII) prepared the way for future developments in Williamsburg.Thus, in 1923, when Reverend Goodwin returned to Williamsburg as Director of Endowmentand Professor of Religious Education at the College of William and Mary,there were precedents for taking action against the destruction of the townscape by theautomobile culture. Reverend Goodwin approached would-be benefactors about underwritingthe 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 fromalien or inharmonious surroundings, and in 1926 he financed the project. The resultingColonial Williamsburg Foundation brought together for the first time for this purpose asizable number of professionals in the fields of architecture, history, archaeology, landscapearchitecture, and engineering.Post-war suburbs copied Colonial Williamsburg. The architects for the Restorationeven published official house plans based on Williamsburg structures, but adaptedto modern needs in the 1937 issue of House and Garden. Hotels, supermarkets, and gasstations all had a Williamsburg style. One of the earliest and finest examples of ColonialRevival commercial building is Merchants Square, located just west of the WilliamsburgHistoric Area.Other tourist attractions in the area include the Williamsburg Pottery Factory, BuschGardens, and Water Country, USA. All of these, along with the historic sites, attractlarge numbers of tourists to the Peninsula. This influx of tourists into the region creates175

Plate 4.25. Colonial Revival House, Williamsburg.a demand for numerous service and entertainment facilities. Therefore, it is not surprisingthat Williamsburg is now ringed by hotels, restaurants, and retail stores, especiallyalong Route 60. These service industries in turn provide jobs, thus creating a demandfor a large pool of local workers.Resources pertinent to this sub-theme include tourist areas, such as ColonialWilliamsburg, Jamestown and Yorktown (part of Colonial National Historical Park);tourist-related commercial buildings, such as hotels, restaurants, and retail stores; andthose 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).SUMMARYJames City and York Counties experienced a strong revitalization period during the20th century, as the result of a number of factors including population growth, newindustries, military expansion, and tourism. On a local level, agriculture played an importanteconomic role even as the area became increasingly industrialized. This areacan also claim a national and even international role as the center for naval operationson the Atlantic Seaboard and as one of the premier centers for colonial research andpreservation.176

Map 4.12. Study Unit XIV: Known Resource Distribution.TABLE 4.20STUDY UNIT XIV: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJAMES CITY COUNTY:JC 46 Coleman’s (Powell’s) Mill AS I 09 Mill UnknownJC 91 GL-26 AS III 08 Unknown CultivatedJC 157 None AS I? 08 Unknown UnknownJC 294 Wenger House (Clover Dale) SB I 02 Domestic/ FairagriculturalJC 298 GL-21 AS I? 08 Cellar/surface Cult./thr.scatterJC 322 GL-20 AS I 08 Domestic ConstructionJC 323 GL-23 AS I 08 Domestic ConstructionJC 324 GL-24 AS I 08 Domestic/ ConstructionagriculturalJC 325 GL-25 AS I 08 Industrial ConstructionJC 387 None AS I 03 Steam Undisturbedsawmill* 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. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition47-70 Major Barn SB I 02 Agricultural UnknownU- 4* Felix Hotel Site AS I 02 Commercial UnknownU- 14* Taylor’s Garage Site AS I 02 Commercial DestroyedU- 15* Toano High School Site AS I 02 School DestroyedU- 16* Toano Truck Package AS I 02 Commercial DestroyedCompany SiteU- 18* Wayside Inn Site AS I 02 Inn DestroyedU- 19* Wilkinson and Geddy AS I 02 Commercial DestroyedStore SiteYORK COUNTY:YO 6 None AS I 10 Earthen Land fillmoundsYO 170 Harwoods Mill Farm AS I 11 Camp/dom./ P.destroyedmilitary campYO 234 None AS I 11 Artifact UnknownscatterU- 72* Bethel Baptist Church SB I ? Ecclesiastical GoodU-113* Cary Chapel School DB DR ? School UnknownU-114* Bethel School DB DR ? School UnknownU-115* Darbytown/Tabb School DB DR ? School UnknownU-116* Fish Neck (Dare) School DB DR ? School UnknownU-117* Oak Grove School DB DR ? School UnknownU-118* Seaford (Lewisville) School DB DR ? School UnknownU-119* Tampico (Hornsbyville) School DB DR ? School UnknownU-120* York County Training School DB DR ? School UnknownU-121* Dare-Grafton School DB DR ? School UnknownU-122* Goodwin’s Neck School DB DR ? School UnknownU-123* Magruder School DB DR ? School UnknownU-124* Seaford School DB DR ? School UnknownU-125* Yorktown School DB DR ? School UnknownCITY OF POQUOSON:U- 61 Messick’s Point SS I 14 Landing? UnknownU- 62 Messick Theater SB I 14 Theater GoodU- 63 Lodge Hall SB I 14 Public GoodU- 64 Amory’s Store DB I 11 Commercial ThreatenedU- 65 Amory’s Wharf SS I 14 Wharf UnknownU- 66 Emmaus Baptist Church SB I 11 Ecclesiastical GoodU- 67 Trinity Methodist Church SB I 14 Ecclesiastical GoodU- 68 Sheffield’s Store SB I 14 Commercial GoodU- 69* Barrel Factory SB I ? Industrial GoodU- 70* Robert’s Landing AS I ? Landing UnknownU- 71* Hunt’s Neck Landing AS I 11 Landing UnknownU- 73* Tabernacle Methodist Church SB I ? Ecclesiastical GoodCITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:WB 29 SSE E-1 AS II 06 Domestic Threatened178

TABLE 4.20 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XIV: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionWB 33 SSE F-1 AS II 06 Commercial/ ThreatenedindustrialWB 34 SSE H-1 AS II 06 Agricultural Threatened137-54* Sun Oil Service Station DB I 06 Commercial DestroyedU- 37* Dunmore’s Ice House DB I 06 Industrial DestroyedU- 38* Parks’ Paper Mill DS I 06 Industrial DestroyedU- 39* Mattey School DB I 06 School DestroyedU- 40* Methodist Church DB I 06 Ecclesiastical DestroyedU- 41* Railroad DS I 06 Railroad DestroyedU- 42* Williamsburg Baptist Church DB I 06 Ecclesiastical DestroyedU- 43* Pender’s Store DB I 06 Commercial DestroyedU- 44* The Peachy Block DB I 06 Unknown DestroyedU- 45* Knitting Mill DB I 06 Industrial DestroyedU- 46* Mahone’s Store DB I 06 Commercial DestroyedU- 47* Penniman Munitions Plant DB I 06 Military DestroyedU- 48* Colonial Inn DB I 06 Inn DestroyedU- 49* Neel’s House DB I 06 Domestic DestroyedU- 50* Miss Gibbie’s School DB I 06 School DestroyedU- 51* Stuart House DB I 06 Domestic DestroyedU- 52* Phebe’s House DB I 06 Domestic DestroyedU- 53* Mrs. Will’s House DB I 06 Domestic DestroyedU-100* Masonic Lodge SB I 06 Public GoodU-130* Williamsburg High School DB DR 06 School UnknownU-131* Matthew Whaley School SB DR 06 School UnknownU-132* Williamsburg Female Seminary DB DR 06 School UnknownU-133* William and Mary Academy DB DR 06 School UnknownU-134* Cedar Grove Cemetery AS DR 06 Cemetery UnknownSTUDY UNIT XIV: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of Study UnitNational and Regional. Cultural resources of this study unit are potentially of nationaland regional significance. Property types associated with the military presence in thearea, as well as those which reflect the history and development of the national interestin 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 andsurveys have been done. However, there are areas of resource concentration such aslower York County, Williamsburg, and Lightfoot, about which some information is alreadyavailable.179

The local military buildup is of national significance as it was crucial in severalwars 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 ofthe military on the local economy been sufficiently researched (for more informationsee Study Unit XXIII).The preservation movement was national in scope with many important aspects ofthe Colonial Revival expressed locally. Further, this revival of the colonial past hasbecome a major employer and economic force in the study area and nationwide. Relatedresources developed as a result of the tourist trade have been preserved withincertain districts such as at Yorktown, Williamsburg and Jamestown. However commercialbuildings, such as motels and gas stations, have not been surveyed or researched.Data collection and surveys need to be conducted to determine significance of suchhistoric properties.Summary of Property Types(1) Domestic—urban and rural non-farm buildings. A wide variety of housing stylesand types were/are used during this period including bungalows, Colonial Revivalstyle homes, trailers, tract housing and multi-family dwellings (apartmentsand 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 areashave expanded rapidly as a result of the increased tourist trade. The highestconcentrations are along major thoroughfares such as Route 60 and Route 17.(5) Transportation-related—gas stations, bus terminals, motels, and fast foodrestaurants. The automobile has drastically changed the landscape of this regionin 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 armysurplus stores, temporary housing (i.e., trailer parks), and industrial sites suchas the Penniman Munitions Plant.Properties which have evolved over time through continuous use are especiallyimportant to this study unit. Often buildings are restored to their “original” state with nothought for the historical significance of the changes made to them over time. Evidenceof these changes can be as informative as the original fabric.Character of Existing DataThe number of surveyed resources for this time period is minimal; only sixteen architecturalproperties and archaeological sites have been identified (Table 4.20), thoughthe number of possible sites is well over 3000. Of those surveyed, none have been thesubject 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 timeperiod need to be identified and studied.Criteria for EvaluationWithout a systematic, preliminary survey of both architecture and archaeological siteswhich would determine the number and quality of existing resources, an accurate evaluationof significance of property types can not be made. However, criteria for evaluatingsites 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 historicalsignificance of property types as discussed within the narrative, the representativenessor uniqueness of a site, the significance on both a local and national level, and architecturalstyle.Other criteria for measuring significance should include research potential as determinedin the historical narrative, educational and interpretative possibilities, an estimateof information loss to research questions if an active preservation policy is notcarried 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 standardsfor specific resources can not be formed.Present Condition of Property TypesMost of the known architectural resources are in good condition, although early20th-century properties are endangered by the tremendous growth of the last ten years.Biases in favor of earlier historical periods among scholars and preservationists hasprecluded extensive research on 20th-century properties, and they are not well understoodin consequence.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesThe following is a series of steps to be taken for every cultural resource. Priorities forpreservation of any given resource will change over time as more data concerning theproperty is available or as loss of information increases the significance of certain resources.Identification GoalsA high priority for this time period and region is to identify and record associated culturalresources. Because this time period has been neglected by earlier surveys, a preliminarysurvey of this region needs to be conducted to determine the quantity andquality of existing properties. Surveys for this time period should concentrate onPoquoson, Lightfoot, and on properties along Routes 17 and 60. Thematic surveys followingthe sub-themes, such as a survey of railroad terminals and related communitydevelopment, would be an excellent method for covering the large number of property181

types from this time period in discrete units. Several other data collection methods arerecommended, including the collection of historic and current photographs of culturalresources, 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 suchas the Penniman Munitions Plant.• Agricultural buildings: A record of farmsteads and the continued use of farmbuildings.• Agricultural buildings: A survey of co-op farms.• Commercial buildings: A survey of retail stores, especially those related to thetourist industry.• Transportation-related structures: A survey of gas stations and garages.• Transportation-related structures: A survey of road signs and store signs designedto attract those in automobiles.• Social/cultural-related buildings: A survey of buildings associated with this propertytype, such as movie theaters or roller rinks.• Military-related structures: Identification of communities and resources affectedby the military growth.• Military-related structures: A study of housing used by military personnel suchas trailer parks and the Bethel Manor housing complex.Evaluation GoalsAll cultural resources should be evaluated once they have been identified to determinetheir 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 conditionwith high site integrity.The following are research design topics which should be investigated in order tofully 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 thisregion.Specific goals include:• Evaluation of Merchant’s Square in Williamsburg in light of its importance as anearly example of Colonial Revival commercial design to determine its eligibilityfor nomination to the National Register.• Evaluation of the Art Deco-style store in Norge (Plate 4.26) to determine its eligibilityfor nomination to the National Register.182

Plate 4.26. Art Deco-style Store, Norge.Registration GoalsThese resources should be considered for National Register nomination once they havebeen 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-foodrestaurants, and drive-in theaters.Treatment GoalsTreatment 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. Propertytreatment is also dependent on the research goals to be attained and the number andquality of sites within each property type. Until further research is done to determinethe number of buildings and archaeological sites remaining, it is difficult to establish183

criteria for treatment. Assuming that there are still quite a few remaining resources, thesignificance of the resource should be evaluated in light of its context. However, thelikelihood of finding a completely intact site in its original setting is quickly disappearingbecause 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 thatshown in Plate 4.25).• Preservation of an example of continuous use (such as the home on Hunt’s NeckRoad, 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 early20th-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 adapteduse.• Preservation of a representative example a commercial property type such as theWilliamsburg Pottery Factory.Plate 4.27. Home on Hunt’s Neck Road, Poquoson.184

BIBLIOGRAPHY: STUDY UNITS IX-XIVAbbott, Carl1977 Norfolk in the New Century: The Jamestown Exposition and UrbanBoosterism. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 85: 86-96.Ames, W. William1965 The Baltimore Boats: Tidewater Virginia Villages Depended on the Steamersto Supply Their Needs. Virginia Cavalcade 15(1): 32-39.Andrews, Charles M. (editor)1915 Narratives of the Insurrections 1675-1690. Charles Scribner’s Sons, NewYork.Anonymous1930 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 Biography39: 97-107.1937 Our Colonial Houses. House and Garden (November): 68-79.Ayres, S. Edward1975 Historical Significance of the Wormley Creek Tract Now Used as the UnitedStates Coast Guard Reserve Training Center. Manuscript on file, Departmentof Anthropology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg.Bailor, Keith M.1967 John Taylor of Caroline: Continuity, Change, and Discontinuity in Virginia’sSentiments towards Slavery, 1790-1820. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 75: 290-304.Baltimore Steam Packet Company1896 Map of the James River Route for the Bay Line: Steamer Virginia. BaltimoreSteam 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, Philip1796 Letter to St. George Tucker, October 12, 1796. Typescript, Research DepartmentLibrary, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Baker, Emerson W.1985 Estimate of Standing Structures in James City County During the VirginiaCompany Study Unit. Ms. on file, Department of Archaeology, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.185

Bean, William Gleason1954 John Letcher and the Slavery Issue in Virginia’s Gubernatorial Contest of1858-1859. Journal of Southern History 20: 22-49.Beaudry, Mary1975 A Study of York County, Virginia Inventories, 1730-1750. M.A. thesis,Brown University. Copy on file, Department of Archaeology, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Bergstrom, Peter V., and J. Mark Ferguson1985 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 andBiography 78(4): 387-408.Berthier, Louis-Alexandre1781 Environs of Williamsburg and Yorktown Peninsula. Map on file, ResearchDepartment Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Betts, Leonidas1970 The Rise of Flour Milling in Richmond. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 78: 387-408.Bradford, S. Sydney1959 The Negro Ironworker in Ante Bellum Virginia. Journal of Southern History25: 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, Kathleen1926 Slave Labor in the Virginia Iron Industry, Part I. William and Mary Quarterly6(2nd series): 289-302.1927 Slave Labor in the Virginia Iron Industry, Part II. William and Mary Quarterly7(2nd series): 21-31.1932 Virginia Agricultural Decline to 1860: A Fallacy. Agricultural History 6:3-13.Bruce, Philip Alexander1896 Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century. 2 volumes.Macmillan and Company, New York.Bucktrout, Benjamin1800 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 Williamsburg1900 Facts about Williamsburg and Vicinity. Whittet and Shepperson Printers,Richmond, Virginia.Carson, Cary, Norman F. Barka, William M. Kelso, Garry Wheeler Stone, and Dell Upton1981 Impermanent Architecture in the Southern American Colonies. WinterthurPortfolio 16 (2/3): 135-196.Carson, Jane1961 We Were There: Descriptions of Williamsburg, 1699-1859. Manuscript onfile, 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 NegroHistory 57: 144-155.Caywood, Louis R.1955 Green Spring Plantation, Archaeological Report. National Park Service,Yorktown, Virginia.Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company1935 Williamsburg Telephone Directory. Copy on file at Swem Library, Collegeof William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.City of Poquoson1985 Comprehensive Plan. Copy on file, Poquoson Planning Commission,Poquoson, Virginia.City of Williamsburg1981 The Comprehensive Plan. Copy on file, Williamsburg Planning Department,Williamsburg, Virginia.Colonial Williamsburg Foundationn.d. Site reports, notes, and photographs of prior excavations, filed by block andarchaeological 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 ServiceResearch Series 4.Cotter, John L., and J. Paul Hudson1957 New Discoveries at Jamestown. National Park Service, Washington, DC.Craven, Avery Odelle1965 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. Stephens1982 The City-Site Approach in Urban Archaeology. In Archaeology of UrbanAmerica: 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. InCeramics in America, edited by Ian M.G. Quimby, pp. 15-40. The Universityof Virginia Press, Charlottesville.Department of Agriculture and Immigration of the State of Virginia1891 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 Map1782 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 theEarly Nineteenth Century South. William and Mary Quarterly 35(31):189-224.Division of State Planning and Community Affairs1977 Data Summary: York County and the City of Poquoson. Copy on file, SwemLibrary, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.Duell, Prentice, and Herbert S. Ragland1930 Archaeology Report on Excavations for Summer Season...1930. June 30 toSeptember 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 MountAiry 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, Maryland1650-1783. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.188

Earle, Carville V.1979 Environment, Disease, and Mortality in Early Virginia. In The Chesapeakein the Seventeenth Century, edited by Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman,pp. 96-125. W.W. Norton, New York.Eaton, Clement1960 Slave-Hiring in the Upper South: A Step Towards Freedom. MississippiValley Historical Review 26: 663-678.Essig, James David1980 A Very Wintry Season: Virginia Baptists and Slavery, 1785-1797. VirginiaMagazine of History and Biography 88: 170-185.Faust, Drew Gilpen1977 Evangelicalism and the Meaning of the Proslavery Argument: The ReverendThornton Stringfellow of Virginia. Virginia Magazine of History andBiogaphy 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, Robert1977 Report on the 1975 Archaeological Excavations at the James AndersonHouse. 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 1966and 1967 Archaeological Excavations. Unpublished report on file, Officeof Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg, Virginia.Frenchman’s Map1782 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 Edward1941 Virginia’s Marginal Population: A Study in Rural Poverty. Work ProjectsAdministration and Virginia Polytechnic Institute Bulletin 335.Garnett, William, and Aja Seymour1933 Virginia Counties: Conditions and Trends of Social Significance. VirginiaPolytechnic Institute Bulletin 291.189

Gee, Wilson, and John J. Corson1927 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, PantheonBooks, New York.Glassie, Henry1975 Folk Housing in Middle Virginia. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Gray, Lewis Cecil1930 Economic Efficiency and Competitive Advantages of Slavery under the PlantationSystem. 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. Harrington1966 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, Ronald1977 The Absence of Towns in Seventeenth-Century Virginia: The Emergence ofService Centers in York County. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Hall, Van Beck1969 A Quantitative Approach to the Social, Economic, and Political Structure ofVirginia, 1790-1810. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Southern HistoricalAssociation, Washington, DC.Hatch, Charles E., Jr.1957 Jamestown, Virginia: The Townsite and Its Story. National Park Science,Washington, DC.Hecht, Irene1969 The Virginia Colony, 1607-1640: A Study in Frontier Growth.Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington. University Microfilms, AnnArbor.190

Hecht, Irene1973 The Virginia Muster of 1624/5 As a Source for Demographic History. Williamand Mary Quarterly 30(3rd series): 65-92.Hening, William Waller1809- 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, Augustine1673 Virginia and Maryland As It Is Planted and Inhabited This Present Year1670.... Map on file, Research Department Library, Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Hickin, Patricia1971 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 Eva1980 Rise and Fall of the Antebellum Virginia Aristocracy. Ph.D. dissertation,University of California, Irvine.Holt, W. Stull1972 The Slave Population on the Plantation of John C. Calhoun, Jr., NansemondCounty Virginia, 1811-1863: Selected Demographic Characteristics. VirginiaMagazine of History and Biography 80: 333-340.Hopkins, Garland Evans1942 York County Source Book. York County Historical Series #4. Manuscript onfile, York County Library.Hudgins, Carter1977 Historical Archaeology and Salvage Archaeological Excavations at CollegeLanding. Unpublished report on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation,Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Hudson, J. Paul1956 The Story of Iron at Jamestown, Virginia—Where Iron Objects Were Wroughtby 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, Robert1963 Turnpike Construction in Ante-bellum Virginia. Technology and Culture 4:177-200.191

Hunter, Robert1984 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, Rhys1982 The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790. The University of North CarolinaPress, Chapel Hill.Jackson, Luther P.1939 The Virginia Free Negro Farmer and Property Owner, 1830-1860. Journalof Negro History 24: 390-439.1969 Free Negro Labor and Property Holding in Virginia, 1830-1860. Athenium,New York.James City County1815- Land and Personal Property Tax Records. Microfilm, Colonial Williamsburg1820 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, JamesCity County, Virginia.James City County Department of Planning & Development1977 Heritage and Historic Sites: An Inventory and Description of Historic Sitesin James City County. James City County Department of Planning & Development,James City County, Virginia.Jeffrey, Tina1984a The Origins of Lightfoot and Norge. Virginia Gazette, “James City County350th Anniversary Supplement” (October 24, 1984): 14.1984bWhen Toano was a Boomtown. Virginia Gazette, “James City County 350thAnniversary Supplement” (October 24, 1984): 3-4.Johnston, James Hugo1931 The Participation of White Men in Virginia Negro Insurrections. Journal ofNegro History 16: 158-167.Joseph, Albert Peter1976 The Protean Institution: The Geography, Economy, and Ideology of Slaveryin Post-Revolutionary Virginia. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History,University of Maryland.Keeler, Robert1977 The Homelot on the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake Tidewater Frontier.Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.192

Kelly, Kevin1972 Economic and Social Development in 17th Century Surry County.Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington. University Microfilms, AnnArbor.1979 In dispers’d Country Plantations: Settlement Patterns in Seventeenth-CenturySurry County, Virginia. In The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century, editedby 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, JamesCity County, Virginia (June 1970- September 1971). Unpublished report onfile, Office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg, Virginia.1982 Jefferson’s Garden Landscape Archaeology at Monticello. Archaeology Volume35(4): 148-153.1984 Kingsmill Plantations 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in ColonialVirginia. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.Kibler, J. Luther1936 Colonial Virginia Shrines: A Complete Guide Book to JamestownWilliamsburg and Yorktown. Garrett and Massie, Richmond, Virginia.Kingsbury, Susan Myra (editor)1906- The Records of the Virginia Company of London: The Court Book from the1925 Manuscript in the Library of Congress. 4 volumes. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC.Klebaner, Benjamin Joseph1955 American Manumission Laws and the Responsibility for Supporting Slaves.Virginia Magazine of History & Biography 63: 443-453.Kukla, Jon1985 Order and Chaos in Early America: Political and Social Stability inPre-Restoration Virginia. American Historical Review 90(2): 275-298.Kulikoff, Allan1975 Black Society and the Economics of Slavery. Maryland Historical Magazine670: 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, Mark1983 Interpreting Ideology in Historical Archaeology: Using the Rules of Perspectivein 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. Loomie1953 The Spanish Jesuit Mission in Virginia, 1570-1572. University of NorthCarolina Press, Chapel Hill.Lewis, Kenneth1975 The Jamestown Frontier: An Archaeological Study of Colonization.Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oklahoma. University Microfilms, AnnArbor.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 Historyand 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 Styrna1985 Urban Development in the Chesapeake: Land Acquisition and SettlementPatterns in Williamsburg, 1700-1850. Manuscript on file, Office of ArchaeologicalExcavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Low, W. A.1951 The Farmer in Post-Revolutionary Virginia, 1783-1789. Agricultural History25: 122-127.1953 Merchant and Planter Relations in Post-Revolutionary Virginia, 1783-1789.Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 61: 308-318.McCartney, Marthan.d. Early Planters and Immigrants to Virginia, 1607-1632, A Synthesis of JamesRiver Settlement. Document in preparation.McIlwaine, H.R. (editor)1914 Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia 1619-1658/59. The ColonialPress, Richmond.1915 Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia 1959/60-1693. The ColonialPress, Richmond.Maddex, Diane1985 All About Old Buildings: The Whole Preservation Catalogue. The PreservationPress, Washington, DC.194

Main, Jackson Turner1954 The Distribution of Property in Post-Revolutionary Virginia. MississippiValley 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 Magazineof History and Biography 59: 423-457.1958 Industrial and Urban Progress in Virginia from 1880 to 1900. Virginia Magazineof History and Biography 66: 307-336.Morgan, Edmund S.1975 American Slavery, American Freedom. W.W. Norton, New York.Morgan, Judith Blakely1985 Williamsburg’s Enduring Grace. Reader’s Digest July: 148-153.Morgan, Philip1984 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, ChapelHill.Mueller, Walter J.1979 Happy Birthday APVA! Discovery (Spring): 9-10.Mutual Assurance Society1796- Records of the Mutual Assurance Society. Copy on file, Research1860? Department Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Newport News Times-Herald1978 Peninsula Roots. Newport News Times-Herald, Newport News, Virginia.Noël Hume, Audrey1974 Archaeology and the Colonial Gardener. Colonial Williamsburg ArchaeologicalSeries No. 9.Noël Hume, Ivor1961 The Anthony Hay Site, Block 28, Area D, Colonial Lots 263 and 264: Reporton Archaeological Excavations of 1959-1960. Volume I. Unpublishedreport on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.195

Noël Hume, Ivor1963 Here Lies Virginia: An Archaeologist’s View of Colonial Life. AlfredA. Knopf, New York.1969 Archaeology and Wetherburn’s Tavern. Colonial Williamsburg ArchaeologicalSeries No. 3.1970 James Geddy and Sons: Colonial Craftsmen. Colonial Williamsburg ArchaeologicalSeries No. 5.1974 Digging for Carter’s Grove. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological SeriesNo. 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 Grants1931 1623-1800. 3 volumes. Virginia State Library, Richmond.O’Brien, John T.1978 Factory, Church and Community: Blacks in Antebellum Richmond. Journalof Southern History 44: 509-536.O’Mara, James1983 An Historical Geography of Urban System Development, Tidewater Virginiain 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 inthe Old Dominion. Walker, New York.Overton, Ed1984 Farming Grew from Fallow to Fruit. Virginia Gazette, “James City County350th Anniversary Supplement” (October 24, 1984): 14.Outlaw, Alain C.1974 Excavations at Burkes Corner and Survey of the Skimino MeetinghouseLot, York County, Virginia. Unpublished report on file, Virginia ResearchCenter for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.1975 The 1975 Survey of the Governor’s Land Archaeological District. Unpublishedreport on file, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown,Virginia.1977 Centreville: A Free Black Community Near Williamsburg, Virginiac. 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 forArchaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.Painter, Floyd1956 The Helmet Site. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin10(3): n.p.Paulding, James K.1835 Letters from the South by a Northern Man. Volume I, New Edition. Harperand Brothers, New York. (Originally published 1816.)Pawlett, Nathaniel Mason1977 A Brief History of the Road of Virginia, 1607-1840. Virginia Highway andTransportation Research Council, Charlottesville, Virginia.Pawlett, Nathaniel Mason, and K. Edward Lay1980 Early Road Location: Key to Discovering Historic Resources? VirginiaHighway and Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, Virginia.Perry, W.G., T.M. Shaw, and A.H. Hepburn1935 The Restoration of Williamsburg. Architectural Record (December):356-458.Peterson, Arthur G.1930 Prices Received by Producers in Virginia, 1801-1928. Journal of EconomicHistory 2: 382-391.1935 Flour and Grist Milling in Virginia: A Brief History. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 43: 97-108.Pilcher, George Washington1966 Samuel Davies and the Instruction of Negroes in Virginia. Virginia Magazineof History and Biography 74: 293-300.Powers, Lou1984 Owners of the Grove from 1839 to 1906: A Preliminary Report on Carter’sGrove 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 ColophonBooks, New York.1984 Set Fair for Roanoke: Voyages and Colonies 1584-1606. University of NorthCarolina Press, Chapel Hill.Quinn, David B., and Alison M. Quinn1982 The First Colonists: Documents on the Planting of the First English Settlementsin North America, 1584-1590. North Carolina Department of CulturalResources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.Rachal, William H. E.1959a Early Records of the Virginia Historical Society, 1831-1833. Virginia Magazineof History and Biography 67: 3-29.1959b1959c1959dEarly Records of the Virginia Historical Society, 1834. Virginia Magazineof History and Biography 67: 186-206.Early Records of the Virginia Historical Society, 1835. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 67: 332-360.Early Records of the Virginia Historical Society, 1836. Virginia Magazineof History and Biography 67: 450-467.1960 Early Records of the Virginia Historical Society, 1837-1838. Virginia Magazineof 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 Hardee1959 The Jamestown Celebration of 1857. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography66: 259-271.Robson, David W.1980 ‘An Important Question Answered’: William Graham’s Defense of Slaveryin Post-Revolutionary Virginia. William and Mary Quarterly 37(2nd series):664-652.Rochefoucauld, Duke de la1799 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, Edward1840 The Farmer’s Register. Volume VIII.198

Ruffin, Edward1857 The Southern Planter. Volume XVIII: 10.Russel, Robert R.1937 The Economic History of Negro Slavery in the United States. AgriculturalHistory 11: 308-321.Sanborn Map Company1904 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 SouthernHistory 43: 583-600.Schoepf, Johann David1911 Travels in the Confederation (1783-1784) from the German of Johann DavidSchoepf. Translated and edited by Alfred J. Morrison. J. Campbell Williams,Philadelphia.Shea, William1983 The Virginia Militia in the Seventeenth Century. Louisiana State UniversityPress, Baton Rouge.Sheldon, Marianne Buroff1979 Black-White Relations in Richmond, Virginia, 1782-1820. Journal of SouthernHistory 45: 27-44.Sheridan, Richard1984 The Domestic Economy. In Colonial British America: Essays in the NewHistory 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 Groupin 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, Craig1975 Political Compromise and the Protection of Slavery: Henry A. Wise and theVirginia Constitutional Convention of 1850-1851. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 83: 387-405.199

Smart, Ann Morgann.d. This Madness for Foreign Finery: The Consumption of Luxury Goods inEarly 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 Centerfor Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.Smolek, Michael A., and Wayne Clark1982 Observations on the Settlement Patterning of Seventeenth-Century Sites inthe Chesapeake Region. Paper presented at the Society for Historical ArchaeologyAnnual Meetings, Philadelphia.Sosin, Jack M.1965 The British Indian Department and Dunmore’s War. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 74: 34-50.Spero, Paula A. C.1984 A Survey and Photographic Inventory of Concrete and Masonry Arch Bridgesin Virginia. Virginia Highway and Transportation Council, Charlottesville,Virginia.Stanard, William G.1931 History of the Virginia Historical Society. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 39: 292-362.Stealey, John Edward III1974 Slavery and the Western Virginia Salt Industry. Journal of Negro History59: 105-131.Stilgoe, John R.1982 Common Landscape of America 1580-1845. Yale University Press, NewHaven.Stone, Garry Wheeler1976 Artifacts Are Not Enough. The Conference on Historic Sites ArchaeologyPapers 11: 43-63.Stover, John F.1955 Southern Railroad Receivership in the 1870’s. Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography 63: 40-52.Tate, Thad1965 The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg. The University of VirginiaPress, Charlottesville.Tate, Thad W., and David L. Ammerman1979 The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century. W.W. Norton, New York.200

Taylor, Robert T.1957 The Jamestown Tercentennial Exposition of 1907. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 65: 217-282.True, Ransom1984 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 EconomicHistory 2: 66-100.Tyler, Lyon Gardiner (editor)1907a Narratives of Early Virginia, 1606-1625. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.1907bWilliamsburg, 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 ProjectStatus and on Environmental Impact Assessment. Unpublished report onfile, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.United States Bureau of the Census1790- 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.1840a1840b1850a1850b1860a1860bSixth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1840. Agriculture. GovernmentPrinting 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 Census1913 Statistics for Virginia, 1910. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.1920a1920bAgriculture: Number of Farms by States and Counties for 1900, 1910, and1920. 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 Service1985 Soil Survey of James City and York Counties and the City of Williamsburg,Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, in cooperationwith Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.United States Department of Commerce1943 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 Interior1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standardsand Guidelines. Draft proposal, Federal Register 48(190).United States Treasury Department1814 A Statement of the Arts & Manufactures of the United States of America forthe Year 1810. Designed and prepared by Tench Coxe, Esq., of Philadelphia.A. Cornman, Philadelphia.Upton, Dell1979 Early Vernacular Architecture in Southeastern Virginia. Ph.D. dissertation,Brown University. Copy on file, Research Department Library, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.1982 Vernacular Domestic Architecture in Eighteenth Century Virginia. WinterthurPortfolio 17(2-3): 95-119.Virginia Gazette, Inc.1898 A Directory and Handbook of Williamsburg and James City County. VirginiaGazette, Williamsburg, Virginia.1978 Community Profiles Series. Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg, Virginia.Virginia Polytechnic Institute1931 Annual Report: Virginia Agricultural Experimental Station, Blacksburg, Virginia:July 1, 1927 to June 10, 1931.202

Virginia Polytechnic Institute1946 The Housing of Rural Folks. Rural Sociology Report, Blacksburg, Virginia.Wall, Bennett H.1950 Medical Care of Ebenezer Pettigrew’s Slaves. Mississippi Valley HistoricalReview 37: 451-470.Watkins, Vincent1981 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 SeafoodFestival. Copy on file, Poquoson Library, Poquoson, Virginia.Wax, Darold D.1972 Whither the Comparative History of Slavery? Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography 80: 85-93.Williamsburg Garden Club1932 A Williamsburg Scrap Book. Dietz Publishing Company, Richmond, Virginia.York County1815- Land and Personal Property Tax Records. Microfilm, Colonial Williamsburg1820 Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.1983 Land Use Plan. Copy on file, York County Planning Department, YorkCounty, Virginia.York County Recordsn.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 STUDYUNITS (STUDY UNITS XV-XX)Although historians have been studying American blacks for many years, it isonly over the past two decades that there has been a growing interest in thearchaeology of Afro-American sites. This interest has been stimulated in partby the relative paucity of information on black life prior to the 20th century and by thetheoretical issue of the visibility of ethnicity within archaeological assemblages. Documentationdescribing slave life is all too often biased, from the racist extremes of planter’srecords to slave autobiographies published as propaganda in the anti-slavery North.These documents fail to provide an accurate representation of slave life in the antebellumSouth. The lives of free blacks are even more obscure, with often only tax andproperty records providing a glimpse of black life during the 19th century.For years, historical archaeology has been used to flesh out the written historicalrecord, 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 bestto detail a picture of their life...and then relate that to the larger world. It is in thisprocess that archaeology can contribute in a significant way.” (Deetz 1977: 138). Thearchaeology 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 offree blacks, and the processes of acculturation.Because the archaeological record is ostensibly free of racial bias, and thereforeprovides an accurate look at black lifeways, the archaeology of Afro-American culturalremains has increased dramatically over the past few years. Beginning in 1968 withCharles 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 includessites in South Carolina (Wheaton et al. 1983), Virginia (Kelso 1984; Noël Hume1974), and the Barbadoes (Handler and Lange 1978). Excavations of free black settlementshave 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 searchfor Afro-American survivals or patterning within the archaeological record. Recognitionof 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 continuedwell into the 19th century. Since these slaves had been part of very differentcultural systems than that into which they were transplanted, it is generally acceptedthat some African cultural forms survived within black American culture (Garrett 1966;Blassingame 1972; Gutman 1976). Blassingame (1972: 41) found African survivalsamong antebellum slaves in the form of religious beliefs, folklore, and dance. There isalso evidence that African traits are seen in some forms of material culture, such asbasketry, wood carving, and quilts (Vlach 1978). Recent findings suggest that patterningof Afro-American ethnicity may also exist within archaeological assemblages (Deetz1977; Otto 1975; Baker 1980).207

The areas where this patterning may be evident within the archaeological recordare in settlement patterns, architectural remains, and foodways. The premise behindthe search for Afro- American ethnicity in excavated material remains is that blacksadapted European forms of material culture to serve African cultural needs (Blassingame1972; Deetz 1977).The spatial arrangements of domestic structures on various Afro-American siteshave shown similarity to African settlement patterns (Deetz 1977; Fairbanks 1972;Wheaton et al.1983). Another focus has been on the proxemics of domestic structuresand the existence of Afro-American house forms (Vlach 1976, 1978; Baker 1980; Otto1975).Interest has also focused on subsistence patterns, a category which is well documentedthrough the archaeological record in the form of faunal and floral remains, ceramics,and cooking utensils. Archaeological evidence from faunal remains, as well asceramic assemblages, from slave and other Afro-American sites seem to point to a heavyreliance on semi-liquid foods (Deetz 1977; Otto 1980; Wheaton 1983). Another characteristicoften associated with Afro-American sites is the preponderance of chopped orcleaved bone. This pattern of butchering is common where diet includes many stews orsemi-liquid foods, since control over meat portion size was somewhat limited whenbutchering was done with an axe. This diet contrasts with that consisting of individualportions of meat and vegetables, characterized by the presence in the archaeologicalassemblage of sawn bone. Dietary patterns are also evident through analysis of ceramicassemblages. Ceramic assemblages reflecting a greater dependence upon semiliquidfoods would contain a large proportion of hollow serving vessels while a dietpattern of individual cuts of meat would be reflected in a greater proportion of platesand flatware vessels. Baker (1980) has stated that the presence of serving bowls exceeding40% of all tableware appears distinctive of Afro-American sites, both slave andfree.Limited work on Afro-American history has been accomplished within the studyarea through the use of archaeological resources, although the institution of slavery hadnational, regional and local impact (see Table 5.1 and Maps 5.1 and 5.2). The sites thathave been excavated (Hudgins 1977; Kelso 1984; Noël Hume 1963, 1974) provideglimpses into an archaeological record that holds great potential for the recovery ofinformation relating to the black history of this area. Additional work needs to be doneon the lifestyles of urban slaves, as well as plantation slaves. There has been no archaeologicalinvestigation of any sites which were occupied by free blacks, black craftsmenor emancipated blacks in the postbellum era. The development of a firm data basewithin 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 5.1STUDY UNITS XV-XX: KNOWN AFRO-AMERICANCULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevNo. Name Type Inv Quad Function ConditionJAMES CITY COUNTY:JC 32 Utopia Cottage AS III 09 Domestic Exc./pres.JC 33 Pettus Plantation AS III 09 Plantation ExcavatedJC 34 Bray Plantation SB III 09 Plantation ExcavatedJC 35 Littletown Quarter AS III 09 Slave quarter ExcavatedJC 37 Kingsmill Plantation SB III 09 Plantation ExcavatedJC 39 Kingsmill Quarter AS III 09 Domestic/ Excavatedslave quarterJC 44 Hampton Key AS III 09 Slave quarter ExcavatedJC 45 Tutter’s Neck AS III 09 Domestic? ExcavatedJC 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-AMERICANCULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevNo. Name Type Inv Quad Function ConditionJC 222 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownJC 234 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic UnknownYORK COUNTY:YO 59 New Quarter Site AS I 06 Domestic Undisturbed?YO 63 Blair’s Quarter Site AS III? 06 Domestic UnknownYO 109 Black Cemetery AS I 06 Cemetery UnknownYO 267 Roberson Negro Site AS MR 06 Domestic UnknownYO 306 Foace’s Quarter AS MR 06 Domestic?/ Unknownagricultural?YO 316 None AS MR 07 Slave quarter? UnknownYO 322 None AS MR 07 Slave quarter? UnknownYO 324 None AS MR 07 Domestic?/ Unknownslave quarter?YO 326 None AS MR 07 Domestic?/ Unknownslave quarter?CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:WB 3 College Landing AS II 06 Landing/ StablewarehousesCW-4* Custis Kitchen SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.CW-14A* First Baptist Church AS III 06 Ecc./cemetery P.excavatedCW-29E* Brush-Everard House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.U- 54* James City County Training DB I 06 School DestroyedSchoolU- 55* Bruton Heights School SB I 06 School GoodU- 56* Mount Ararat SB I 06 Ecclesiastical ExcellentU- 57* Odd Fellows Lounge DB I 06 School/public DestroyedU- 57a* Birthright Cemetery AS I 06 Cemetery UnknownU- 58* Samuel Harris Cheap Store DB I 06 Commercial DestroyedU- 59 Unmarked Cemetery AS I 06 Cemetery UnknownU- 60 * The Quarter SB I 06 Domestic ExcellentU-127* “Negro School” DB DR 06 School UnknownJC 110 Carter’s Grove Tannery (?) AS III 09 Tannery? ExcavatedJC 181 Rompfield Negro Site AS MR 03 Domestic UnknownJC 213 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown211

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: NationalLittle 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 tocontinue 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 untillater in the 17th century, however, that the slave labor system which formed the basis ofsouthern economy, became firmly established. Indications are that in the early decadesof colonization most blacks were employed as indentured laborers, supplementing thewhite labor force in agricultural pursuits. The numbers of blacks in the Tidewater remainedsmall throughout most of the century. Specific information on 17th-centuryTidewater blacks is scarce, and details concerning their lives and the effects of thecontact between disparate cultures is unclear.SUB-THEME A: TRANSPLANTING OF AFRICAN CULTURESThe first documented case of black presence in North America was at Jamestown in1619, when twenty-odd black men were left there by a Dutch frigate in exchange forsupplies. 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 thecolonies there (Craven 1971). It is likely, however, that small numbers of blacks werepresent in the Tidewater prior to 1619 (Morgan 1985). The importation of blacks remainedsporadic throughout the 17th century, with only the final thirty years showingan increase. When a census of the colony was taken in 1625, a total of 23 blacks waslisted in seven localities along the James River (Quisenberry 1900). In 1628, a substantialcargo of blacks was sold in the colony and from 1635 on, shipments of blacksarrived regularly. Table 5.2 lists the number of blacks imported to Virginia during the17th century. These were generally small groups, which were absorbed into theAnglo-American population, sometimes as indentured laborers. In 1649, there wereapproximately 300 blacks in the colony, compared with a white population of 15,000.Details concerning these early black residents are uncommon, and only modestprogress has been made towards identifying their precise African and Caribbean origins.Some studies have shown that the majority of slaves brought into the New Worldcolonies 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 hadpreviously 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, and213

TABLE 5.2NUMBER OF BLACKS IMPORTED TO VIRGINIA DURING THE 17THCENTURY aYear Quantity Year Quantity Year Quantity1619 21 1639 46 1677 1501621 1 1642 7 1678 1201622 1 1643 18 1679 2451623 1 1649 17 1684 341628 100 1652 7 1685 1911635 26 1656 30 1687 1201636 7 1662 80 1699 3491637 28 1665 59 1700 2291638 30 1674 650aTaken 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 tothe Chesapeake, have not been adequately examined.Although enslavement of blacks had not yet been institutionalized, the status ofblacks during the first half of the 17th century remains unclear. It appears that in someinstances blacks served a term of indenture, after which they could become freemen andacquire property (Tate 1965: 3). Although there is no evidence that free black communitieswere established on the Peninsula in the early 17th century, at least two suchcommunities were founded on the Eastern Shore (Deal 1982, 1984; Breen and Innes1980). There free blacks were able to acquire material possessions in the form of land orother capital goods. Deal’s work, however, suggests that free blacks never enjoyed thesame legal rights as white indentured servants, seldom rising from the lowest ranks offree society (Deal 1982: 245). It was probably much more common for blacks’ periodsof service to last indefinitely, often extended by charges of criminal offenses (Palmer1966: 357; Tate 1965: 5). Indications are that servitude was often noncontractual andinvoluntary (Deal 1982: 198), and that the status of blacks was probably lower than thatof indentured white servants.It was not until 1630, however, that any evidence exists of legal distinctions betweenblack and white servants (Palmer 1966: 356). As the use of white servitude declined,lengths of indentures for blacks increased, finally developing into legalized slaverybetween 1640 and 1660. The first recorded case of life servitude for a black servanttook place in 1640 (Palmer 1966: 357).SUB-THEME B: THE ROLE OF BLACKS IN THE EARLYTOBACCO CULTURE ECONOMYThe 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-intensive214

crop, required work from late winter through the following fall (Isaac 1982: 26). Blacksplayed an important role as laborers for this economic endeavor from the time of theirarrival in the colonies. During the early part of the 17th century, however, the pattern oflarge-scale tobacco plantations manned by substantial numbers of slaves had not yetbegun. Those persons who did own slaves were likely to have had only a few. Documentsseem to suggest that black labor had come to be preferred to that of white indenturedservants as more reliable and of better quality. This may have been partially becauseof the difficulties blacks would have encountered when attempting to run awayfrom their masters. While it was relatively easy for white servants to escape and begin anew life elsewhere, blacks’ skin color and small numbers prevented their blending inwith the general population at this point in the 17th century (Deal 1982: 154).SUB-THEME C: EARLY INTERACTION WITH WHITESBlacks and whites came into regular contact throughout the colonial period, particularlyduring the 17th century. Proportionally, the black population was still small incontrast to the white population, and large slaveholdings were rare. Scattered throughoutthe Tidewater in small clusters, the black population during the first half of the 17thcentury was probably simply not dense enough to support the development of distinctAfro-American cultural elements. Some blacks shared housing with their white employers,although the Virginia Muster of 1625 suggests that more than one-third of thehouseholds chose to quarter their servants separately (Deal 1982: 129). Even so, contactbetween blacks and whites was frequent, and complex social networks were formedas 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 identityseem[ed] to have been the chief factor in determining how blacks and whites dealtwith one another.” Other sources indicate that although race relations were more flexiblethan they would be later in the 17th century, discrimination on the basis of race wascommon (Deal 1982). Blacks were denied rights enjoyed by white servants, and wereoften punished more severely than their white comrades for identical crimes (Palmer1966). Indications are that race relations had begun to seriously deteriorate during thesecond 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. Theburial of what was tentatively identified as a black woman was located at the 17th-centurysettlement of Wolstenholme Towne (JC115) (Noël Hume 1982). This feature, containedwithin a complex of seven other burials, dates prior to 1650. Although there are norecords of blacks at Wolstenholme Towne at that time, records show that there was atleast one free black family living in the Martin’s Hundred Parish by the 1660s. Mostlikely, the demographic distribution of the small number of blacks in the Tidewaterduring this period was centered near white settlements.There are no standing structures associated with blacks from the first half of the17th century. Housing in Virginia during that period was, for the most part, impermanentin nature and the few surviving buildings are constructed of brick. Since brick215

construction was very expensive, this type of building was rare and not available toblacks during this period.It seems likely that the types of sites associated with blacks from the first half ofthe 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 livedeither 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 centuryhave been archaeologically examined (see Study Unit X), no substantial evidence ofblack occupation has been recovered. There have also been no investigations of earlybuildings known to have been associated with free blacks. The identification of thesebuildings and sites is complicated by the paucity of documentary evidence from thistime period, particularly concerning blacks.Although there seem to have been no formalized slave markets in the early 17thcentury, slaves generally were sold or indentured from some central location upon theirarrival to the country. These transactions most likely took place along the waterfront, orperhaps at public buildings in Jamestown and other settlements. Evidence of this activitywould not, in all probability, leave any traces which could be examinedarchaeologically.Although it is known that blacks lived and worked in the study area during the firsthalf of the 17th century, the difficulties of studying them are enormous. Documentarysources are inadequate and biased, with blacks either not identified as to racial status, orthought too insignificant even to record. No archaeological work to date has identifiedevidence of black material culture from this era and the potential for positively locatingdomestic black sites is probably minimal.SUMMARYThis period is represented by one known possible site (JC115), located in James CityCounty. Overall, documentary sources concerning blacks during the first half of the17th century are limited and biased. If a domestic structure could be identified as associatedwith blacks, archaeological examination of this property would be extremelyimportant in shedding light on the living conditions of early Tidewater blacks. Specificrecommendations for the study of this period, and the treatment of property types aremade in the following operating plan.STUDY UNIT XV: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitNational. The first documented case of black presence in North America was atJamestown in 1619, with importation remaining small and sporadic throughout the 17thcentury. Although it appears that slavery did not yet exist as a formalized institution, thestatus of blacks during this period remains unclear. It is known that some blacks served216

periods of indentured servitude, and played a key role in the labor force for the developingtobacco economy.Since Tidewater Virginia is documented as having been the first place in the mainlandcolonies to receive blacks, this area offers a unique opportunity to study the early17th-century life of blacks and their role in the development of the Virginia colony. Anumber of settlements from the first half of the 17th century have been studied, boththrough archaeological investigations and documentary research, but early black experiencein this area is poorly understood, both historically and archaeologically.Summary of Property TypesThere have been no buildings or archaeological sites from this time period positivelyassociated with blacks; however, documentary sources suggest the following as possibleproperty 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 thecolonies, their living quarters would probably be the only property types where distinctmaterial assemblages associated with blacks could be identified. These properties wouldmost likely be located in association with typical 17th-century fortified settlements andoutlying households, such as that of Wolstenholme Towne. Since there are no knownstanding buildings from this time period in the study unit, information on black householdswould be recoverable only through archaeological investigation and documentaryresearch.The scarcity of information on blacks in the early Tidewater makes any archaeologicalsite relating to blacks significant in terms of the National Register criteria (seebelow). However, the uneven documentation concerning blacks, combined with thesmall number of blacks who actually lived in the colony during the first half of thecentury, make identifying properties associated with blacks extremely difficult.Character of the Existing DataWhen dealing with Afro-American cultural resources from almost any period of Americanhistory, the same types of problems and biases will reoccur. What follows is a discussionof problems inherent in Afro-American research which will apply to all operatingplans in Section 5.First and foremost, tracing the history of Afro-Americans is impeded by the generalscarcity of existing data, not only from a documentary standpoint, but also forarchitectural 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 completedisregard 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 inthe study of colonial black history, but it is important to exercise caution when usingany document to make generalizations about the black experience.Perhaps what is most lacking in the way of documentation for Afro- Americans aredetails of daily life, not only for slaves, but for free blacks as well. Records of the laborthat slaves performed can be found in numerous planter’s diaries or journals, but reconstructingthe personal lives of slaves or free blacks, whether it be the kind of food theyate, 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 writeprior 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 thistype of documentation continued. A number of slave narratives and reminiscences areavailable which provide information on the hardships of slavery, although these documentshave many biases and inaccuracies as well.Archaeological data may be one of the best sources of information concerningdetails of black daily life. Archaeology can yield information, as well as generate questionsabout subjects not treated in documentary sources, while providing an unbiasedlook at the material objects which people actually used and discarded. Analysis of materialassemblages has been used with success in studies of slave quarter sites in theDeep 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 aboutAfro-American culture history is the difficulty of determining whether an archaeologicalsite was actually occupied by blacks. Probably the easiest type of black domesticsite 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, particularlythose of the 17th century. Of course, archaeology is also limited in that manyaspects of life, such as religious belief systems, dance, music, and oral traditions, didnot leave traces within the archaeological record.A recent trend in historical archaeology has been the search for patterns ofAfro-American ethnicity within the archaeological record. Although this research mayhave potential for elucidating patterns in other regions, the economic base of the VirginiaTidewater 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 theserelations gives rise to a number of questions, such as: to what degree can one separatedistinct black and white components of culture? How much acculturation took placebetween these two groups? Patterns which have been claimed as “Afro-American” byhistorical archaeologists (Deetz 1977; Otto 1984) actually seem more likely to be patternsassociated with economic status rather than race. Throughout American history,blacks have been subjected to conditions which made rising above a position of lowersocio-economic status almost impossible. Analysis of recent archaeological investigationsof poor white tenant farmers (Adams 1981; Moir 1982; Raab 1982) seems tosuggest that housing and diet patterns formerly believed to be Afro-American in originare actually reflections of poverty. This question needs to examined in further detail218

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 blackhistory, any archaeological sites, buildings, or structures which could be identified asassociated with blacks would be highly significant. Steps should be taken towards theidentification, recording, registration and preservation of these resources, particularlythose 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 ofinformation on the area’s black heritage.This geographic area offers a unique opportunity for the study of early Tidewaterdevelopment, 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 withblacks within the study area. The very intangibility of black presence, plus the biases ofprior archaeological research, are likely the causes for this. Biases of earlier excavations,such as those at Jamestown, included techniques which favored the location ofbuildings 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-economicscale, and not by blacks. Also, because of research biases within the field of archaeologyprior to the past decade, there was generally little or no interest in documentingremains of blacks or whites from lower socio-economic classes through the use of archaeology.Criteria for EvaluationFour 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 methodof 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. Thisstudy unit is significant in understanding the beginnings of slavery in American historyand in yielding information about the early history of Afro-Americans. Since none ofthe property types for this study unit are currently represented, with the exception ofone possible burial, the location of any property pertaining to blacks during the first halfof the 17th century would be significant in terms of the potential information which itcould contain.Although integrity is an important consideration when evaluating a property, thescarcity of 17th century properties makes this criterion not as crucial as in later timeperiods. 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 furnishingextremely important information and should be thoroughly documented.219

Present Condition of Property TypesEarly 17th-century settlements were generally located on high ground along navigablewaterways. Erosion along the shorelines of these waterways, particularly of the majorrivers presents a threat to these types of archaeological sites. For example, shorelineerosion has already claimed portions of the original sites of Jamestown and WolstenholmeTowne. Of the known and located 17th-century settlements, the property which containedthe early settlement at Jamestown is owned by the National Park Service, and theColonial Williamsburg Foundation owns the Martin’s Hundred/ Wolstenholme Towneproperty. Both are organizations which are receptive to the interests of preserving anddocumenting cultural resources. Currently, the only immediate danger for any of thelocated 17th century settlements in this area is developmental pressure at Governor’sLand. Through the efforts of the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks and the Collegeof 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 orhalt further development in this area.Although no 17th-century archaeological sites from these settlements have as yetbeen associated with Afro-Americans, they offer perhaps some of the few opportunitiesfor the possible identification and recovery of the property types defined within thisstudy unit.Recommendations for the type of preservation and treatment outlined for StudyUnits IX and X can also be applied to this study unit.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesIn light of the above, the following is a list of specific recommendations regardingidentification, evaluation, registration and treatment measures which should be takenfor property types within Study Unit XV. Any steps which can be taken towards elucidatingthis early period of black history are important. Further documentary research issuggested, as well as archaeological analysis of properties which could be related toblacks.Identification Goals• Contemporary documents, such as shipping records, muster lists, and headrightlists have been used for this area in determining the numbers and possible originsof blacks brought here in the 17th century. Additional documentary research isrecommended to broaden the scope of this data. A profile of 17th-century freeblacks on the Eastern Shore has recently been completed (Deal 1982) through theuse of court records, deeds, wills, and order books. Examination of similar YorkCounty records may uncover detailed information concerning the 17th-centuryblack community. Analysis of this material may provide important clues as to thestatus of blacks in this area, and the existence of free black segments within thepopulation, as well as locating general areas where blacks lived.• Conduct a systematic Phase I archaeological survey in areas which have been previouslyshown as likely to contain 17th-century settlements. Such a survey should220

include walk-overs of plowed fields in an effort to locate artifact scatters connectedwith settlements. In areas where surface visibility is poor, systematic shoveltesting would reveal information on site locations. Also recommended is an examinationof the area’s shorelines for artifact scatters or other features associatedwith eroding archaeological sites.Evaluation Goals• Re-examination of the spatial configurations and house sizes of early 17th-centurysettlements which have been examined archaeologically, such as WolstenholmeTowne (JC115) and its suburbs (JC120), The Maine (Governor’s Land [JC41]),Jamestown (47-9) and the Helmet Site (JC4). Documents and recent archaeologicalresearch (Neiman 1980) suggest an increasing tendency throughout the 17thcentury to house blacks and servants in separate dwellings. Perhaps structures andfeatures could be isolated as those likely to have been associated with servants/slaves. Re-analysis of artifact assemblages from these areas could provide informationon the lives of the servant class, as well.Registration GoalsAny site which can be associated with Afro-Americans from this time period would beevaluated as important. This judgement of significance is made in view of the fact thatno sites for Afro-Americans have been located to date. Registration goals include:• The nomination of any archaeological site which can be located pertaining to17th-century black occupation for National Register Status.Treatment Goals• Preservation or detailed archaeological investigation of any 17th-century site threatenedby or discovered during development. Even if such a site could be preservedintact, the potential for information which it could provide may be so great as topredicate data recovery through archaeological investigation and analysis.• Interpretation of 17th-century black life on Jamestown Island, particularly in viewof 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 VisitorCenter, and by signs located among the Island ruins.• Monitoring of the Governor’s Land tract, because of continued developmental pressurein this area. Preservation in place of any previously located archaeologicalsite is recommended. If this cannot be accomplished, complete documentation ofthe 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: NationalAs the 17th century progressed, laws governing the actions and lives of blacks continuedto become more restrictive, resulting in life enslavement for virtually all blacks bythe beginning of the 18th century. Slavery had become indispensable in the scheme ofVirginia’s agricultural economy, with most blacks serving as the labor force in the cultivationof tobacco and the operation of farms.SUB-THEME A: ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIVE BLACKPOPULATIONBlacks continued to be imported into Tidewater Virginia throughout the second half ofthe 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 throughthe Royal African Company. Until around the second decade of the 18th century, thegreatest 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 highestdensity 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 thesecond half of the 17th century (Brewer 1955). Free black communities were establishedon 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 17thcentury, most historians agree that those blacks suffered a serious deterioration in opportunitiesand status during the last part of the century. Most free blacks did not ownproperty, but instead were tenant farmers on white-owned land. On the whole, significantstatus differences did not exist within groups of free blacks (Deal 1982). Many freeblacks “tottered... on the brink of de facto re-enslavement” (Deal 1982: 2) as theystruggled in a society which was becoming increasingly hostile and racist. As the centuryprogressed, laws governing the actions and lives of all blacks continued to becomemore restrictive. Various liberties were abridged or eliminated, and the manumission ofslaves became less common. From study of the legislative and court records of theperiod, it is apparent that the Colony’s Assembly made no attempt to prevent the institutionof slavery and by the 1670s it was almost impossible for blacks to work their wayout of enslavement (Breen and Innes 1980).223

Beginning with a statutory law in 1660/61 stating that life bondage was a possibilityfor some blacks, a series of ordinances throughout the second half of the 17th centurylowered the status of blacks even further. This was most obvious in the laws concerningblacks and Christianity. During much of the same century, it was held that conversionto Christianity entitled heathen servants to their freedom. Various laws denyingthis liberty were passed during the second half of the 17th century, culminating in an actpassed in 1705. This act declared that all servants imported into Virginia, with the exceptionof Turks and Moors, who were not Christian in their native country, should beretained as slaves. This effectively enslaved virtually all blacks. Later conversion toChristianity was not recognized as grounds for freedom.SUB-THEME B: ESTABLISHMENT OF PLANTATION SLAVERYThe imposition of life enslavement for blacks was coincidental to the development ofstaple crop agriculture in the Tidewater. The rich soils and long growing seasons of thearea, combined with numerous navigable waterways for the movement of crops to coastalports, almost predestined that the Tidewater’s economy would be based on commercialagriculture. The plantation system which developed required several elements for success:an abundant supply of inexpensive fertile land, a dependable source of labor, anda staple crop. For most of the 17th century, tobacco was that staple crop, and until themiddle decades of the century, a sufficient labor force was provided by the supply ofEnglish indentured servants to the colonies. In the early 1660s, however, a decline inthe number of indentured men immigrating from England caused a labor shortage in theChesapeake (Carr and Menard 1979). This decline in immigration was due to a combinationof the lowered English birth rate and increasing real wages in England. Newersettlements 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 soughtusing slaves. By the end of the century, black slaves had almost completely replacedwhite indentured servants. Slavery had become indispensable in the growth of thetobacco-based economy, and the largest proportion of black slaves were assigned thetasks 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 maintenanceof houses, outbuildings, and fences, and in the tending of livestock. Slaves werealso were also trained as artisans, replacing free blacks and white indentured servants ascraftsmen (Deal 1984: 18).As the number of blacks increased throughout the 17th century, and as racial boundariesbegan to harden, the question of slave housing had to be addressed. Cary Carson’sresearch suggests that early Chesapeake planters favored cross-passage house plans,which allowed servants’ quarters to be separated from the living area of the planter andhis family. In this way, architecture served as an “instrument of segregation” (Carson1978: 54). Even greater separation, probably becoming more common as the number ofblack slaves increased in proportion to white servants, was brought about by the constructionof separate living quarters.Details of construction and locations of slave quarters during the 17th century areelusive since the impermanent nature of these structures has precluded their survival224

into present times. In addition, no contemporary documentation has been located whichadequately describes slave housing. However, it is possible to locate evidence of slaveor servant quarters through archaeological investigations, and generate information inthis fashion. Fraser Neiman’s archaeological research at Clifts Plantation in the NorthernNeck of Virginia located a small slave/servant quarter dating to the last decades ofthe 17th century (Neiman 1980). Although this quarter’s size and construction weremore typical of planter homes of that period, it was significant in that it was locatedoutside of the palisade which surrounded the main house. Here, slaves at Clifts Plantationhad not only been removed from the planter’s home, but their low status was reflectedin the manner in which the landscape had been divided. Neiman argues that thisis indicative of landscape alteration brought about to meet changing environmental,social, and economic conditions.SUB-THEME C: EFFECTS OF THE NEW AFRICAN PEOPLELater in the 17th century, the supply source for slaves shifted from the Caribbean toAfrica, due to that continent’s more abundant labor supply (Suttell 1965: 8). Althoughdocumentary sources seem to indicate that most of these slaves were taken from theGuinea Coast, they represented a diversity of tribal origins. The effects of this importationof 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 late17th century. Documents suggest that newly arrived Africans were thought to be a disruptiveinfluence, and were usually sold in small lots and dispersed among severalslaveholders (Mullin 1972: 15). Although this may in part have been from fear of slaveinsurrections, most likely this pattern of slave dispersal was predicated by the economyof Virginia. During the last half of the 17th century, nearly 75% of the slaves in southernMaryland lived on farms with twenty or fewer slaves (McDaniel 1982: 38). TidewaterVirginia, with its similar topography and economic base, probably had a similar slavedistribution. Social and cultural contact among newly arrived Africans was thereforerestricted.This pattern of slave distribution can be contrasted with that of 18th- and19th-century large-scale rice plantations in South Carolina. There large groups of blackswere in close proximity, and often removed from any direct contact with whites. Africancustoms and traits had more of a chance to solidify and become part of theseAfro-Americans’ cultural heritage, than for the Virginia Tidewater slaves. Even today,this patterning is still evident in the religious beliefs, language, and material culture ofblack populations on the South Carolina sea islands (Vlach 1978; Herskovits 1941).Such distinct patterning is not evident among present-day blacks in the Tidewater. Dispersalof slaves, whether intentional or not, plus frequent contact with whites, functionedto keep these patterns from forming.It has been suggested, however, that even though the Africans in the Tidewater andelsewhere spoke a variety of languages and came from different cultural backgrounds,they developed an African cultural “grammar” which transcended these differences (Isaac1982). This view sees the black population as coalescing into a distinct society whichwas neither African nor Anglican, but a unique combination of the two.225

SUB-THEME D: CONVERSION TO CHRISTIANITYAs the number of blacks in the colony increased, the question of their religious conversionbecame 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 responsibilityto familiarize blacks, as well as Indians, with the teachings of Christianity. Whilemany felt that this conversion would make blacks more satisfied and obedient, othersbelieved that this effort was wasted, arguing that blacks were uncivilized and had nosouls to save.A number of slave insurrections between the last decades of the 17th century andthe first decades of the 18th century were thought to have been caused in part by theissue of baptism and freedom (Jones 1961: 18). The question of whether baptism entitleda person to freedom was debated and some planters refused baptism to their blackslaves/servants for this reason (Tate 1965: 66). In 1667, the issue was resolved in legislationwhich decreed that baptism did not alter a person’s condition or bondage. Withthis legislation, a path was cleared for the defense of the institution of slavery as ameans of educating and civilizing blacks.SUMMARYWith the increasing number of blacks present in the Tidewater during the last half of the17th century, their representation in the archaeological record would be expected to bemore complete than for the previous period. The rise of the plantation economy musthave been accompanied by provisions to accommodate the growing number of slaves.Each plantation probably contained quarters, where the slaves lived and tended thesmall garden plots occasionally allowed for their own use. Within the study area, severalsuch plantations have been archaeologically examined. Green Spring Plantation(JC9), constructed in the mid-17th century, served as the manor house for Sir WilliamBerkeley. Archaeological excavations on the property in 1954/55 revealed an extensivelayout, 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 requiredthe labor of a number of slaves. No structures identified as slave quarters were locatedduring the excavations, but it is very likely that remains of these structures exist on theproperty.Slaves also lived in Jamestown during this time period, but no evidence of theirpresence has been documented in the archaeological record. During the 1970s, the VirginiaResearch Center for Archaeology conducted excavations at the Kingsmill Plantations.Although work revealed evidence of 17th-century occupation at numerousKingsmill sites, it is unlikely that there were any slaves on the Kingmsill property priorto 1670 (Kelso 1984: 103). Although the current evidence is conflicting, archaeologysuggests the presence of two possible late 17th-century slave quarters at the Utopia andPettus sites (JC32, JC33). These structures were archaeologically investigated by theVirginia 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 excavationsin Poquoson at the Bennett Farm Site (YO68) and at River Creek (YO67). Recordsshow that two slaves were acquired by the owner of Bennett Farm in 1690, and thatthere were five slaves at River Creek during this same period. Archaeological excavationshave 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 andJamestown, were biased towards the location of structures with brick foundations. Indicationsare 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 unlikelythat most blacks, occupying low status positions, would have been provided with quartershaving brick foundations, since impermanent log or post-in-the-ground structureswere less expensive to construct. With methodology favoring the location of brick structuralremains, the traces of many log or post structures would have been missed, thusbiasing the archaeological record against the documentation of these structures.Another bias inherent in early archaeological excavations, such as those atJamestown, Green Spring or Colonial Williamsburg could be described as “the greatman syndrome.” Interest centered mainly in the excavation of home sites of Americanfounding fathers, with little or no attention given to slaves or lesser white planters, wholeft no written record of their lives.STUDY UNIT XVI: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitNational. Blacks continued to be imported into the Tidewater throughout the secondhalf of the 17th century and were well on the way to forming a significant portion of thepopulation. It was during this period that laws governing the actions of blacks becamemore restrictive, culminating at the turn of the 18th century in an act which effectivelyenslaved all blacks.Any property which can be positively identified with blacks from the second halfof the 17th century will be of national significance. Archaeological sites from this periodhave the potential for providing information about black life during the developmentof the institution of slavery.Summary of Property TypesSince the population of blacks during the second half of the 17th century increased, thelikelihood of their representation in the archaeological record improves. The majorityof settlements were still clustered near the navigable water sources, but the nature oftobacco cultivation led to a more dispersed settlement pattern during the second half ofthe 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 werelarge. The distribution of properties associated with blacks should be concentrated nearthe 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 DataAlthough the public records for James City County have largely been destroyed for theperiod pre-dating the Civil War, a much more complete documentary record exists forYork County. An extensive survey of these records is currently underway through theYork County Project (Carson, Gill, and Kelly 1978) and integration of these findingswith the results of archaeological and architectural surveys would provide significantinformation about the second half of the 17th century.A great deal of documentary and archaeological work has been completed withinthe study area, but little of this work has focused on the role of blacks within Tidewatereconomy or society. There have been archaeological examinations of two possible slave/servant quarter sites on the Kingsmill property (JC32, JC33). By comparing ceramicassemblages from a slave cottage (JC32) with that of the corresponding plantation house,Outlaw, Bogley, and Outlaw (1977) have been able to show measurable differences inquality, quantity, and specialization of the ceramic assemblages. Current work on agriculturalfarmsteads, such as the River Creek site in Poquoson (YO67), may yet revealevidence of slave quarters.No standing structures from the 17th century have been positively associated withblacks. Even though all work for this period to date has focused on what are believed tohave been slave quarters, this data base is by no means an adequate sample. More studyof this area is strongly recommended. Some property types within this study unit, specificallymeeting/worship areas and slave markets, probably left little in the way oftangible archaeological remains and are likely to remain ephemeral.Criteria for EvaluationNational Register standards suggest two types of criteria to be used in evaluating aproperty: significance and integrity. Resources which would be of importance in this228

study unit would be those which could provide information on the status, and the livingand working conditions of blacks as slavery became a fixed institution in the area. Ofthe four criteria listed by the National Register, these resources would be covered underCriterion A, association with significant events in the broad patterns of our history, orCriterion D, which is the potential for yielding information important to the history ofthe past. As in the previous study unit, integrity of properties plays a less vital role forthis time period, when resources as scarce, than in later eras.Present Condition of Property TypesDue to the lack of documentary evidence, properties which have been associated withblacks from this time period have only been identified through thorough archaeologicalexcavation. Given the existing data base at this time, estimating the numbers of propertiesin the study area which are related to Afro-Americans is impossible. It is during thisperiod that blacks were moving into an important position in the labor force, and mostsites related to blacks should be found in conjunction with white properties. Althoughall property types associated with blacks from this time period would be consideredsignificant, the ephemeral nature of some of the properties, such as worship areas andslave markets, lessen their chances of ever being located through archaeological orother standard means of survey. Those archaeological sites associated with blacks whichhave 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 onarchaeological resources dating to this period is substantial.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesIn light of the above, the following is a list of specific recommendations regardingidentification, evaluation, registration and treatment measures which should be takenfor the property types within Study Unit XVI.Identification Goals• Combining documentary research of primary sources, such as court records, mapsand wills, with archaeological survey in order to establish patterns of slaveholdingsand the presence and status of free blacks.• Re-examination of state archaeological site survey forms in an effort to isolateproperties likely to contain archaeological remains of the study unit property types.These properties would then be checked for current condition, the presence ofstanding 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 theBennett Farm site (YO68), in order to determine if any structural or material remainsassociated with slaves can be located.Evaluation Goals• Re-analysis of previously examined 17th-century archaeological properties, suchas Green Spring (JC9), Governor’s Land (JC41, 42, 43, 85, 90, 94, 95, 96, and101), Kingsmill (JC32, 33), River Creek (YO67) and Bennett Farm (YO68), witha view towards establishing the presence and importance of blacks at these sites.Study of spatial configurations on agricultural properties should aid in delineatingareas set aside for slave use. Artifact assemblages should also be re-examined inan attempt to delineate patterns exclusive to Afro-Americans.Registration Goals• Any site from this time period which can be associated with blacks is eligible forNational Register status.• If a site could be located or connected with an early meeting place, such as thedocumented brush arbor at Green Springs, this property would be eligible for nominationto the National Register in view of its role in the development of early slavereligious belief systems.Treatment Goals• Preservation and protection or detailed archaeological investigation and recordingof any site associated with blacks which is threatened by or discovered duringproperty development.• If a site could be located or connected with an early meeting place, such as thedocumented brush arbor at Green Springs, this property should be protected andidentified, perhaps through a highway marker, in view of its role in the developmentof early slave religious belief systems.230

STUDY UNIT XVII.PLANTATION SLAVERY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OFSLAVE 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: NationalBy the mid-18th century, the black population had swelled considerably, comprisingover half of the Tidewater population. It was during this period that the black populationstabilized and a distinct Afro-American culture emerged. It is also during the 18thcentury that the of black churches and schools in the area were established.SUB-THEME A: STABILIZATION OF NATIVE BLACKPOPULATIONSThe slave population continued to grow throughout the opening decades of the 18thcentury, reaching approximately 60,000 by 1730. Most of this increase was broughtabout 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 increasingsocial conflict among blacks. Kulikoff (1978) argues that the disruptive influenceof slaves newly arrived from Africa kept settled slave communities from takingroot. 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 communitiesand a cohesive social life developed on many plantations.After the Revolutionary War, the slave population of James City County actuallysuffered 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 LowerPiedmont counties.SUB-THEME B: ESTABLISHMENT OF A DISTINCTAFRO-AMERICAN CULTUREThe extent to which slave culture retained aspects of the African cultures from which itwas derived has been a matter of debate. The blacks who were sent to the Chesapeakecolonies as slaves were the products of many diverse African cultures. It is likely thatsome slaves arriving together shared similar cultural and geographic traditions, whichwould enhance the continuity of their customs to various degrees. The character ofthese survivals, however, was strongly affected by factors beyond slave control, such as231

the type of colonial economy, settlement patterns, slave importation, and the compositionof colonial populations. Most 18th-century slaves in the Tidewater lived on smallfarms containing less than twenty bondsmen. Contact with whites was frequent andAfrican customs less likely to be retained. It has been suggested that blacks may havebeen 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 uniquecombination of elements borrowed from both, and commonly referred to asAfro-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 anddemographic composition of slave populations, it is difficult to define precisely thebeliefs and values associated with the developing Afro-American culture in the Tidewater.Current research suggests that the emergence of a distinct Afro-American culturein the Chesapeake was brought about by the development of a more stable slave familysystem (Kulikoff 1974; Menard 1974). The large scale importation of slaves directlyfrom Africa slowed, and by the mid-18th century, a native-born black population beganto 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 slavehousing. During the 17th and early 18th centuries, slaves are typically thought to havebeen housed barracks-style or in dispersed locations throughout the plantation, such asin barns, attics, and outbuildings. With the development of family units, there was ashift towards the use of quarters (Hayes 1974). A quarter, although sometimes describedas 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 ofVirginia slave quarters or settlements increased. The quarters were a place where slavescould congregate after a long day’s labor and be relatively free from white supervisionwhile they prepared their meals, nurtured children, and relaxed. It was here in the quartersthat distinctive Afro-American domestic and kinship networks developed, formingthe basis for Afro-American community life (Gutman 1976).Research conducted by Lorena Walsh in 1983, using inventories from York andJames City Counties, revealed quarter population figures for the second half of the 18thcentury. She found that a typical quarter contained a minimum of nine and a maximumof twenty to thirty adult slaves (Minutes 1985). Individual dwellings within the quarterstypically housed nuclear families, while unmarried adult slaves often lived in smallattached additions. The nature of housing for extended families and the number of personsoccupying each structure is unknown.This communal pattern of slave life can be contrasted with the increasingly individualizedlifestyle of 18th-century Anglo-Americans. These differences in lifestylesshould 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 consciousor unconscious design” (1982: 19). The landscape, as experienced by slaves, shouldalso be distinct from that of Anglo-Americans. What control black Americans had overthe shaping of their environment remains to be discovered.232

Although no objects particularly attributable to Afro-American cultures have beenlocated 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 imitationof European ceramic styles, while others suggest that slaves were responsible for itsproduction (Ferguson 1980). At the very least, the presence of Colono-Indian ware onsites which have been associated with blacks suggests interaction between the slave andIndian populations.SUB-THEME C: DEVELOPMENT OF PLANTATION SLAVE LIFEPlantation sizes remained small in York County throughout the first half of the 18thcentury, with only 18% of the population owning over 21 slaves for the period between1731 and 1740 (Kulikoff 1978: 241). Increases in the size of slaveholdings began laterin the 18th century, and between 1751 and 1760, 49% of the population owned over 21slaves. James City County compared favorably with York County, with 38% of thepopulation owning more than 21 slaves in 1783.The majority of these slaves, working at agriculturally related tasks, were unskilledfield hands, although domestic house slaves and artisans played an important role onplantations as well. Due to the dispersed nature of the Tidewater’s settlements and theabsence of towns, each plantation had to be virtually self-sufficient. Hugh Jones, in ThePresent State of Virginia (1724), noted that slaves were trained to be carpenters, sawyers,blacksmiths and coopers. Slave artisans were responsible for the bulk of skilledlabor on plantations, such as that needed for the making of shoes and the weaving ofcloth. Wills, court records, and newspaper advertisements reveal the extensive use ofskilled slave labor on colonial Virginia plantations, and document the increased resalevalue of skilled bondsmen.Slave housing on 18th century plantations can generally be divided into three maintypes. 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. Homequarters were usually located less than a mile from the main house and provided accommodationsfor the slaves who worked the fields adjacent to the owners’ homes. Distantquarters were located nearby the outlying fields, depending on the extent of the plantation.Edward Kimber, an English traveler to the Chesapeake in the 1740s describedquarters 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 Timesthe little Spots allow’d them” (Kimber 1906/07: 148). This quote sheds light not onlyon the quality of slave housing, but on spatial and demographic configurations withinquarters. 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 avariety 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 leastexpensive types of structures. Log cabins are thought to have been one of the mostcommon types of slave housing in the 18th century. As these dwellings, were impermanentlyconstructed, generally with ground-laid sills, they would leave behind few traces233

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 ashearth material than brick or stone. The placement of quarters adjacent to fields wherearchaeological evidence may have been destroyed by plowing also lessens the chancesof archaeological visibility of these types of quarters.Framed house construction, although more expensive than log cabins, was alsoused for slave quarters. More skilled work and labor would have been required in framingand finishing this type of housing, and post-in-the-ground or brick foundations forsuch structures would have been common.Doughoregan, a plantation in Maryland, was described in an 18th-century accountas 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 thevariety of slave housing that could exist within a single plantation and even withinspecific quarters. Descriptions of 18th-century slave dwellings in Virginia, found scatteredthroughout 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 tosome historical archaeologists (Deetz 1977; Baker 1980), architectural remains fromblack sites reveal the workings of an Afro-American mindset. Instead of the standardAnglo-American structural unit of sixteen feet, Afro-American architectural remainsare believed to have been constructed using twelve foot proxemic units. Both 18th- and19th-century documents, as well as archaeological evidence, refute this by showing thelarge range of dimensions used in Chesapeake slave quarters (Kelso 1984; Patrick 1985).The shotgun house, with its distinctive gable end doorways, has been acknowledgedas 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 thisarchitectural form first appeared in Virginia. An adequate survey of standing shotgunhouses in this area has not been attempted.Through documentation it is also possible to glimpse the landscape configurationsaround 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, oftencomprised part of this landscape.Several plantation sites containing slave quarters have recently been excavatedwithin the study area, particularly along the James River. The various sites include theKingsmill plantations (Kelso 1984), Carter’s Grove (Noël Hume 1974), and Tutter’sNeck (Noël Hume 1963). All of these 18th- century quarters contained square or rectangularroot cellars beneath them. The domestic nature of the artifact assemblages withinthe fill of these features suggests the use of the overlying structures as dwellings. WilliamKelso (1984) argues that the presence of these root cellars constitutes strong evidenceof slave occupation at the sites. Such root cellars have not been found on pre-slaverysites, 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 constructionsuggested in documents describing Virginia quarters.Besides those sites which have been examined archaeologically, there are alsonumerous 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 5.3QUARTER SITES AS REFERENCED ON LATE 18TH-CENTURY MAPSSite Site No. USGS Quad Map ReferenceFoace’s Quarter YO 306 Williamsburg DesandrouinsBerthierNew Quarter YO 59 Williamsburg DesandrouinsBlair Quarter YO 63 Williamsburg DesandrouinsSouthall’s Quarter ? Hog Island DesandrouinsPossible Quarter YO 316 Clay Bank BerthierPossible Quarter YO 322 Clay Bank BerthierPossible Quarter YO 324 Clay Bank BerthierPossible Quarter YO 326 Clay Bank Berthierences. Examples of these are Shellfield Plantation and Riverview Plantation. It is verylikely 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 referencedon late 18th-century maps.Overall, a variety of types of slave houses were seen throughout the Chesapeakeduring 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 anddetails. Although surely providing the labor that built the quarters, the amount of influenceslaves exerted on the appearance of their homes has yet to be determined.SUB-THEME D: SHIFT FROM A TOBACCO TO A WHEATBASED ECONOMYTobacco provided the main source of economic wealth for the study area since the earlydays of colonization. Depression in the tobacco economy in Virginia in the late 17thcentury, combined with loss of soil productivity and the presence of merchant middlemen,forced the Tidewater into agricultural diversification. Wheat and corn began toedge out tobacco as the dominant crops in the beginning of the 18th century (Deal1982). For a more complete discussion of this transition, see Study Unit XI.SUB-THEME E: URBAN BLACK LIFEIn addition to working on plantations, slaves were also an important component of thelabor supply in urban areas as well. The two main urban centers in the study area duringthe 18th century were Williamsburg and Yorktown. A definitive study of blacks in18th-century Williamsburg has been prepared by Thad Tate (1965), but no such comprehensivework has been completed for the Yorktown area.236

Documentary evidence from Williamsburg suggests that slaves were housed invarious ways. Domestic servants, who made up the largest portion of the black populationof Williamsburg, often lived in their master’s home, sleeping in hallways or smallrooms. There is also evidence that they were housed in outbuildings, such as kitchens orstables. Table 5.1 summarizes standing structures in the study area which have beenassociated with slaves and blacks. There have been no known slave quarters excavatedin 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 PrentisHouse. The sparse contents of the house described in the will suggest strongly that itwas a slave quarter. Recollections of the 19th century by ex-slave Eliza Baker testify tothe housing of slaves in the kitchen and laundry of the Coke-Garrett House, as well as inhouses behind Bassett Hall and the St. George Tucker House (Baker 1933). It is believedthat 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’sVirginia Gazette advertisement of October 1767 described the property he wished tosell as containing a house, outbuildings, and a “servants house,” the dimensions ofwhich were the same as the kitchen. Robert Nicolson, who lived on York Street, wasknown to have owned a number of slaves during the latter part of the 18th century. TheNicolson 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 agood candidate for the study of urban slave life.The construction techniques of those structures designated specifically for slavesis not known. Eliza Baker’s memoirs, however, suggest that although log cabins wereplentiful in rural areas outside of Williamsburg, there was only one cabin in town duringthe span of her memory (Baker 1933).For a large part of the history of Colonial Williamsburg archaeology, the focus ofinvestigations was to locate, for the purposes of reconstruction, structures depicted onthe Frenchman’s Map of 1782. This mitigated against the location of structures used asslave dwellings in two ways. First, although the accuracy of the Frenchman’s Map iswell accepted, the outbuildings where slaves were presumably living were frequentlynot illustrated and hence not sought by Colonial Williamsburg’s archaeologists. In addition,Colonial Williamsburg archaeological techniques up until 1957 usually consistedof cross-trenching at 45 degree angles to established property lines. This techniqueworked well for locating structures with brick foundations, but almost always missedtraces of more intangible archaeological features, such as quarters or outbuildings ofimpermanent construction. Also, assigning sites or structures to blacks (free or slave) isnot an easy task, especially in an area such as James City County, where official recordswere destroyed during the Civil War.Associated with Williamsburg and providing important links to the outside worldwere the ports of College Landing and Capitol Landing. Some of Williamsburg’s residents,including Lady Randolph, owned quarters at College Landing during the 18thcentury. Notices in the Virginia Gazette of runaway slaves sometimes stated that runawaysmay have been hiding in quarters located there. Traces of black presence at CollegeLanding have been located through archaeological investigation when salvage workthere in 1976 revealed twenty late 18th/early 19th-century burials. All interments werethose of black individuals in wooden coffins. The type of muscular development exhibitedby these skeletons suggests that they may have been engaged in craft or artisanactivities (Hudgins 1977). This evidence would seem to indicate that there was a communityof 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 ofthe South suggests that black craftsmen virtually replaced white artisans, this does notappear to have been the case in Virginia (Tate 1965: 40). Blacks seem to have beeninvolved in only about a dozen skilled trades in Williamsburg, a small number whencompared with other areas of the state. Two unusual industries at which skilled blackswere employed in Williamsburg during the 1770s were a vineyard and a linen weavingfactory (Tate 1965: 44).Free blacks did not comprise a significant portion of the Williamsburg populationduring 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, or5% of the county’s black population in 1800 (Morgan 1985: 11).Information on where free blacks resided during the 18th century, their economicstatus, and their relationships with slaves and whites is limited. The nature of the life offree blacks in the 18th century, along with that of slaves, deserves further study, boththrough documentary sources and archaeology.238

SUB-THEME F: RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONALDEVELOPMENTThe religious development of slaves and later, free blacks, is significant to any study of18th- and 19th-century black history. The church served as a focus for communal activitiesfor slaves, as well as free blacks. Religion has played such a vital role inAfro-American life that clear boundaries between the religious and the secular are oftenhard to determine, both in the past and the present (Isaac 1982: 307).Early religious services were sometimes held secretly by slaves in temporarilyconstructed 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 blackswere allowed to worship at Bruton Parish and over 1000 slaves were baptized there inthe last part of that century (Morgan 1985).There were black preachers in Williamsburg during the 18th century as well. GowanPamphlet was one such individual, preaching to a mixed congregation in the PowderMagazine. Prior to 1832, there were no statutory prohibitions against blacks preachingin the state of Virginia. Pamphlet and William Moses, another 18th-century blackpreacher, however, were often punished for holding religious gatherings. Despite this, itwas under their leadership that the First Baptist Church of Williamsburg was organizedin 1776.The First Baptist Church applied for membership in the Dover Baptist Associationin September of 1783, thus making it one of the oldest all-black churches in the UnitedStates. There are indications that the group worshipped in Robert Cole’s stable, the useof which was granted to the church in the early 19th century. Around 1828, constructionwas begun on a church for the congregation, and by 1855, a large brick building hadbeen completed on Nassau Street (Plate 5.5). The church remained standing, with anactive congregation, until it was demolished in 1955, to make way for the restoration ofColonial Williamsburg. The congregation is now housed in a new church on ScotlandStreet. Archaeological excavations of the lot containing the First Baptist Church wereconducted by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in 1957. This excavation revealedthat the 19th-century church had been constructed over the foundations of an earlierbuilding.Oral history sources revealed the possible presence of a cemetery on the formerFirst Baptist Church property, although the majority of black burials took place in theCedar Grove Cemetery (Kelly 1985). The 1957 excavations, however, did not revealany evidence of graves on the church property.Formal education for blacks during the 18th century was almost nonexistent. Manywhites undoubtedly believed that keeping blacks ignorant would make them more subservient;however, a few small steps were made in the way of education. This subjecthas 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 inWilliamsburg by the 1740s, the first school for slaves was established in 1760. Thepurpose 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, withan 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 theHot Water Tract, located in James City County (Morgan 1985: 11). Few adult blacksever received a formal education during the 18th century, but there is evidence that asmall minority of slaves did learn to read and write by whatever methods they couldmanage. In 1805, the State of Virginia passed a law which imposed penalties on anyonewho taught slaves to read or write. There have been no 18th-century black school siteslocated or examined in the study area.SUMMARYAlthough archaeological excavations have been conducted in Williamsburg for overfifty years, there is still good potential for the location of domestic slaves sites withinthe historic district and in other areas nearby. The College Landing and Capitol LandingRoad areas have good potential for archaeological remains, and these areas were documentedto have been frequented by blacks. Plantation sites still remain to be examined.Compiling a body of knowledge about slave quarters and material culture from theMiddle 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 riceand cotton plantations of the Deep South.For the past decade, one of the foci of historical archaeology has been the identificationof patterns of ethnicity in the archaeological record (Schuyler 1980). This hasproven to be a complex problem, and opinions are divided over the visibility ofAfricanisms within the archaeological record. Ethnic identification is often less thanclear-cut, with class and status considerations blurring the picture (Kelly and Kelly1980). As Robert Schuyler argues, “cultures are adaptive systems and do not exist orsurvive in historical vacuums. One of the primary contributions of Afro-American archaeologymay not be evidence for perseverance but rather evidence of human abilityto constantly alter or even totally invent new cultural patterns” (Schuyler 1980: 2).STUDY UNIT XVII: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitRegional. Numerous social and economic changes taking place during the 18th centuryhad a profound effect on the Chesapeake Tidewater. The first half of the century wasmarked by heavy importation of slaves directly from Africa, and by social conflict amongblacks. Only after mid-century did native born adults begin to predominate and stableblack family groups emerge. This period also witnessed the effects of a regional shiftfrom a tobacco to a wheat-based economy.Summary of Property TypesThe distribution of archaeological sites and architectural properties relating to blackswould reflect their predominant status within colonial society as slaves, with the majorityof these properties associated with plantations and farms. The mid-18th century sawthe emergence of slave quarters as centers of the developing Afro-American culture. Itis impossible at this point to determine the actual number of archaeological sites of eachproperty type which would have been associated with blacks. Although there are numerousstanding structures, such as kitchens, which are documented as having housedslaves, there are no surviving buildings within the study area which were known to havebeen 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 DataSlave quarters have been the only property archaeologically investigated for the 18thcentury 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 thesesites, JC45 and JC37, are listed on the National Register. Many 18th-century farm andplantation properties have been located within the study area, with good potential forslave 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 archaeologicalinvestigations on a number of outbuildings in Colonial Williamsburg, includingthe 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. Althoughthese structures are not individually listed in the National Register, they are partof a National Register district composed of the Williamsburg Restored Area. Burwell’sDependencies (JC37) which are standing structures believed to have once been used toquarter slaves, have also been archaeologically examined.Although free blacks are known to have been represented within both York andJames City Counties, documentary evidence for property locations is poor. There havebeen no archaeological investigations of any properties which are known to have beenassociated with free blacks.Although archaeological investigations of the 19th-century location of the FirstBaptist Church (CW-14A) were conducted in 1957, the 18th-century church has notbeen located. This site is significant in that it was one of the oldest all-black churches inthe United States.Criteria for EvaluationOf 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 fromStudy Unit XVII. To be considered for significance under Criterion A, a property mustbe associated with significant events in the broad patterns of history. Criterion D isconcerned 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 thesurvival of physical characteristics that existed in the property’s past. Even though verylittle slave housing survives intact from the 18th century, important information aboutquarters can be gained through archaeological resources. Although physical integrity isimportant, it is not necessary for significance, since even sites which have been disturbedcan provide information to answer research questions.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesIn light of the above, the following is a list of recommendations regarding identification,evaluation, registration and treatment measures which should be taken for propertytypes within Study Unit XVII.Identification Goals• Field checking of map-referenced slave quarter locations, such as those depictedon the Berthier and Desandrouins maps, for analysis of their current status andpotential for information retrieval. If these areas are currently undeveloped or appearas if they might contain potential for archaeological remains, a Phase I surveyprogram to establish the presence and integrity of these sites is recommended.• Architectural survey of existing plantations, combined with the use of historicaland map data, to delineate spatial configurations of landscape features on plantationsand farmsteads. This information would be used to form predictive models ofslave quarter locations within plantations. This model could be tested through variousphases of archaeological survey on the land holdings of documented plantationsand farmsteads.• Combinations of historical and map data with archaeological survey in an attemptto locate 18th-century schools and churches for blacks, such as the school which isdocumented 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 informationon the types of living conditions to which slaves were exposed.• Since a large majority of buildings, roads, and other types of properties were constructedusing the labor of slaves, what can be determined from standing structures,as a testimony to the skill and labor of blacks? Research should be conductedto determine what properties might reflect such skills. Good examples wouldbe buildings containing examples of artisan or craftsmens’ work, such as elaboratewrought iron or intricate woodwork.• Documentary research in order to locate the 18th-century school for slave childrenin Williamsburg. Previous documentary research (Stephenson 1963) suggests thatthe school was located at the northeast corner of Ireland and South Henry Streetsand possibly later on Capitol Landing Road. The northeast corner of Ireland andSouth Henry Streets has been developed and currently is the site of the Southern243

Bank. Sub-surface archaeological testing on this property would determine whetherany archaeological remains exist, as well as their extent and integrity.Evaluation Goals• Comparative analysis of the artifact assemblages from the slave quarter root cellarsat Kingsmill (JC34, 35, 39, 44, and 52), Tutter’s Neck (JC45), Brush-EverardKitchen (CW-29E) and Carter’s Grove (JC110). This analysis would search forregularities or patterns within the assemblages which may serve as a “flag” for theidentification of other studied structures (past or future) associated withAfro-Americans.• Archaeological examination of post-contact aboriginal sites in an effort to determinewhether Colono-Indian ware was being manufactured by the area’s NativeAmericans or by blacks, as some archaeologists believe (Ferguson 1980).• Excavation of slave quarters determined through archaeological survey to retainintegrity (see recommendations in identification goals), plus re-analysis of previouslyexcavated properties, in an effort to determine patterns and details of quartercomposition (i.e., numbers and types of dwellings, number of persons in each dwelling,quality of life as revealed through artifact assemblages, and landscape featuresassociated with quarters, such as granaries, paths, fences, and garden plots).Delineation of spatial patterning could be used to form predictive models to guidefurther testing and excavation.• If developmental or environmental pressures threaten or impact upon black cemeteriesfrom this or any time period, measures should be made to preserve thesecemeteries intact. If, however, they do have to be moved, documentation and carefularchaeological excavation of the bodies, followed by complete osteologicalanalysis prior to reinterment, would provide important information on slave andfree 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 enlighteningif a property could be located where the owner kept detailed records offood provided for the slaves. These records could be contrasted with faunal, floral,and shellfish assemblages to determine to what degree the planter-supplied rationswere being supplemented by slave-acquired food.• Re-analysis of specific properties/structures in Colonial Williamsburg which havebeen documented as having been occupied by blacks. Particular attention shouldbe paid to those which were excavated after 1957, given the more exacting natureof archaeological methods used and quality of artifact assemblages after this date.Specific properties would include the Brush-Everard Kitchen (CW-29E), the CustisKitchen (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 19thcentury (Shurtleff 1928).244

• Re-evaluation of the 1957 excavations on the First Baptist Church property in aneffort to determine whether the 18th-century building foundation located under the19th-century church could have possibly have served as the 18th-century FirstBaptist Church. This re-evaluation would consist of careful analysis of the 1957excavations results and further documentary research on the property, perhaps followedby an archaeological testing program on the site. This investigation andresearch should also include in its scope the property immediately to the south ofthe 19th-century church, since this area has good potential for having been theearlier location of the church.• Continued analysis of excavated sites from Governor’s Land, more specificallyJC98, 100, 112, and 113. These sites have been shown to contain ceramic assemblagesusually associated with lower socio-economic status, and it has been suggestedthat they were possibly occupied by blacks during the 18th century (Shogren1983).Registration Goals• Nomination of the site of the 18th-century Charity School in view of its importancein the history of local black education.• If an example of a building exhibiting qualities representative of the skills of blacklaborers and craftsmen can be identified, it would be eligible for nomination to theNational Register under Criterion C.Treatment Goals• Given the limited quantity of identified property types from this study unit, theidentification and documentation, through architectural survey and/or archaeologicalinvestigation of any structure, building or archaeological site which can be associatedwith blacks is recommended. Special attention should be given to any domesticcomplex which can be associated with free blacks.• Preservation in place of any cemeteries which can be associated with blacks fromthe 18th century.• If remains of the Charity School can be located, and are determined through testingto have potential for data retrieval, archaeological examination of this propertyis recommended. Recognition of this property as an important site in the history ofthe area’s black education is recommended in several forms. From documentaryevidence, it appears that the property where the school is believed to have beenlocated is not owned by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, but if evidence isfound to the contrary, the site could be reconstructed and interpreted by ColonialWilliamsburg as part of its “Other Half” program on Afro-Americans. If this cannotbe accomplished, identification of the site/property through a locational placardand guidebook references is recommended.• Mention should be made in the printed brochure for the Bruton Parish Church thatsome slaves were allowed to worship there during the 18th century.245

246

STUDY UNIT XVIII.FINAL YEARS OF SLAVERY AND THEESTABLISHMENT 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: NationalWhen compared to previous decades, census records show that the Tidewater experiencedan overall decline in the slave population during the 19th century. Numbers offree blacks showed a steady growth for the same time period, accompanied by a concurrentincrease in land ownership by free blacks. Although there had been a number ofslave manumissions following the Revolutionary War, the first decades of the 19th centurywitnessed the emergence of a renewed pro-slavery campaign, which arose in responseto the strengthening abolitionist movement.SUB-THEME A: FINAL YEARS OF SLAVERYAfter the Revolutionary War, James City County suffered a decline in the slave populationdue to the diminished economic potential of the area. After 1830, new agriculturalpractices such as truck gardening and grain and fruit production made smaller demandson slave labor. During this part of the 19th century, the practice of hiring out slavesincreased. Some were hired out to tobacco factories, coal mines, and iron manufactoriesnear Richmond, providing labor for these industries while relieving the overburdenedslaveholder of excess labor (Pinchbeck 1926: 58). There is also evidence that manyVirginia slaves were sold further south to large cotton plantations (Jackson 1942a: 56).The 1860 Census Records provide the following information concerningslaveholding patterns in York and James City Counties:TABLE 5.4SLAVEHOLDING PATTERNS IN YORK AND JAMES CITY COUNTIES,1860Location Number of Slaves1 1-5 1-9 over 50James 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: 2,586York County: 226 York County: 1,925aAll percentages are based on total of slaveholding population only.247

TABLE 5.5BLACK SITES AS REFERENCED ON 19TH-CENTURY MAPSSite Site No. USGS Quad Map ReferenceRompfield 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 1863/64Roberson Negro Site YO 267 Williamsburg Gilmer 1863/64From this table, it can be seen that the majority of slaveholders in both countiesowned less than ten slaves, with over half owning five or less.Researchers have a better opportunity to study the composition and character of19th-century slave domestic complexes. Not only are buildings more likely to surviveinto 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 withinthe study area during the Civil War period.SUB-THEME B: FREE BLACK LIFEThere were approximately 3000 free blacks in Virginia in 1783 (Hast 1969: 218), comprisingonly a very small percentage of the total black population. In 1800, there were150 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 studyarea continued to increase. The 1830 census records show 571 free blacks in James CityCounty and 627 (or 11.7% of the total black population) in York County. Free blacksmade up 12% of the total black population for the state of Virginia in 1860, althoughlarger 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 over1000 free black residents composed almost one third of the black population (Morgan1985).As the population of free blacks increased, so too did the ownership of land byblacks. Between 1830 and 1860, there was a five-fold increase in the ownership ofproperty by blacks in James City County (Jackson 1939). Tenancy of land was commonamong free blacks during this period as well, sometimes resulting in later ownership bythe tenant. Although farmers made up the greatest percentage of free blacks, there werealso bricklayers, teamsters, watermen, blacksmiths, millers, and mechanics in JamesCity County in 1860.On the basis of the 1850 census, Alain C. Outlaw (1977) concluded that free blacksin James City County generally resided in their own households, in stable nuclear familygroups. Records also indicate that the majority of free blacks were farmers and laborersin 1850, with no free blacks listed as domestic servants (Outlaw 1977). By248

1870, the household count for blacks living in the same area had increased slightly, andstable nuclear family groups remained the norm. The majority of blacks were still workingas farmers or laborers, but by this time, the percentage of farmers had decreased, and22.8% of free blacks were employed as domestics (Outlaw 1977). This increase in domesticemployment was most likely a product of emancipation. With the abolishment ofslave 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 lowerend 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 halfof 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 blackcommunity began. On the Gilmer Map of 1863/64, a “free Negro settlement full ofcabins and paths” is noted. Alain Outlaw’s research (1977) on this settlement showedthat of the 663 free blacks listed in James City County in 1850, at least 393 of themlived in or near Centerville. No records exist which date the initial settlement ofCenterville by free blacks, but it is probable that it was in existence by 1850. Centervilletoday is a thriving black community, located along Centerville Road near Lightfoot.Although by 1850, most free blacks lived in James City County rather than withinWilliamsburg, properties in the city are documented as having been owned and/or occupiedby free blacks. Mary Stith left her shop, currently reconstructed on Block 10, to herslaves in 1816. On the same block, Robert Anderson let freed slave Maria Griffin andher (their?) children use some of his property from 1859 to 1875, at which time theproperty was divided among Griffin’s children. A standing frame building known asThe Quarter is located on Francis Street near the Williamsburg Inn. This structure wasconstructed 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 documentaryevidence to date has been located which confirms that slaves ever actually lived in TheQuarter.SUB-THEME C: ESTABLISHMENT OF BLACK CHURCHESThe church, more than any other institution, provided an escape from the harsh realitiesof being black in a society where skin color was a justification for oppression. Developedand organized by a group which had never attained an equal standing with whitesin the realms of economic, political and cultural institutions, the black church providedan organizational hub for black life (Morris 1984). Besides its instrumental role in themodern civil rights movement, the black church has been an important aid in fulfillingthe social, artistic and political aspirations of its members.Even in the area of religious practice, blacks were restricted. Under a law passed in1832, all blacks, free and slave, were prohibited from preaching (Jackson 1942a: 21),nor could slaves attend white religious meetings without written permission from theirmasters. This legislation had the desired effect of eliminating blacks from influentialleadership positions during that time period (Jackson 1942a). Clandestine religiousmeetings surely continued, however.249

During the years spanned by this study unit, there were some advances made byblacks in the establishment of churches within this area. As discussed previously, thecongregation of the First Baptist Church completed an impressive brick church on NassauStreet in 1855. Prior to this, the congregation had worshipped in a stable provided forthat use.The Black Baptist Church in Williamsburg was closed for a brief period in the1830s due to racial conflicts (Morgan 1985). By the 1840s however, it was apparentlyoperating under white control. There was evidence of mixing of blacks and whites incongregations as well; for example, in the 1830s over half of the members of the ZionChurch were black.SUB-THEME D: GROWTH OF THE ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENTAND THE CIVIL WARDuring the 19th century, objections to slavery were growing throughout the colonies,becoming particularly strong during the 1830s. To counteract this movement, whichthreatened to destroy the very core of Virginia’s economy, a campaign of pro-slaveryeducation and philosophy was begun. This teaching emerged under the impetus of ThomasR. Dew at the College of William and Mary (Jackson 1942a). Dew justified slaveryon scriptural, moral and ethnological grounds and also attempted to rid the state of freeblacks. Legislative action, which would have called for the removal of all free blacks toLiberia, failed in 1833. Hostility towards free blacks, coupled with praise for the institutionof slavery, did not end with this legislative failure. Free blacks continued to becondemned as lazy and immoral until the Civil War.In the early 1860s, many slaves, drawn by the lure of freedom, left their formerhomes. 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 Hamptonand the Williamsburg/Yorktown area by the end of the Civil War (Plate 5.6). Some ofthose slaves who had stayed with their masters throughout the War were later rewardedwith farmsteads and land at Ruthville, in Charles City County. Other blacks establishedtheir own homesteads on land abandoned by whites in the wake of Yankee occupationand the burning of Hampton. These blacks were often forced off of this land after thewar by the return of the former owners.As in the 18th century, slave resistance continued, mainly through schemes to obstructthe workings of the plantation, and escape attempts. Advertisements for runawayslaves were common in the Virginia Gazette, and fugitive slaves often traveled fromplantation to plantation through a quarter underground network. Despite this, only onerunaway in three in Virginia prior to 1775 was able to leave his home province andbegin life again as a free person (Kulikoff 1978: 254). Slave revolts were rare in theChesapeake colonies, but there are documented cases of conspiracies in James CityCounty in the early 18th century. Archaeological remains which reflect efforts to resistslavery have not been specifically identified, but it is expected that a detailed analysisof existing and newly discovered assemblages will provide additional information onthis aspect of Afro-American history.250

Plate 5.6. Freed Slaves at Yorktown during Union Occupation.SUMMARYArchaeological potential for sites relating to 18th- and 19th-century black occupation isvery 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, nosites known to have been associated with these artisans have been located. Further documentaryresearch, coupled with archaeological investigation is likely to yield extensiveinformation about the important decades preceding emancipation.STUDY UNIT XVIII: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitRegional. After the Revolutionary War, the area suffered a decline in the slave populationdue to the diminished economic potential. New agricultural practices made smallerdemands on slave labor and many slaves were hired out or sold to other areas. Thenumber of free blacks, however, continued to increase throughout the first half of the19th century, with increased land ownership by this portion of the population.Summary of Property TypesDuring this period, a decline in the number of properties relating to slaves should beseen, 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 blacksettlements 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 DataPrimary 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 ofblacks during the final years of slavery and as free blacks within the Tidewater economy.No archaeological investigations of 19th-century black domestic structures haveoccurred, 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 tooverlook archaeological sites which post-date the 18th century. The 19th century marksthe period, however, from which slave/black housing begins to survive. At the presenttime there is no reliable count of the number of surviving buildings or archaeologicalsites associated with blacks from this time period.Criteria for EvaluationAccording to National Register Guidelines, two types of significance are most relevantto this study unit; Criteria A and D. To be considered under Criterion A, a property mustbe associated with significant events in the broad patterns of history. Properties may beeligible under Criterion D if they are concerned with resources yielding informationimportant in history or prehistory.Integrity is the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, as revealed by thesurvival of physical characteristics that existed in the property’s past. The question ofintegrity needs to be addressed when evaluating properties. Although little informationexists on the details of black life as revealed through architectural or archaeologicalinvestigations, the potential for the survival of property types from this time period isgood. Therefore, site integrity must be considered when evaluating a property from thisstudy unit.Present Condition of Property TypesCurrent rates of development in this area potentially threaten a large number of propertiesrelating to this study unit. In particular, outlying black communities and farmsteadsare threatened by development taking place in what were once isolated rural areas (forexample, Route 60 west of Williamsburg and along Route 17 in York County). There252

have been no measures taken to preserve or adequately study any of these 19th centuryproperty types from an architectural or archaeological point of view.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesIn light of the above, the following is a list of recommendations regarding identification,evaluation and treatment measures which should be taken for property types associatedwith Study Unit XVIII.Properties of public importance from this study unit are the First Baptist Churchand The Quarter.Identification Goals• Field checking of 19th-century Gilmer map reference sites in order to evaluatetheir current status and potential for information recovery. Although it is unlikelythat any standing structures associated with recorded properties on this map havenot been located, any such structures should be recorded according to the Secretaryof the Interior’s standards. If these areas are currently undeveloped or appearto contain potential for the recovery of archaeological remains, a Phase I surveyprogram, which would establish the presence and integrity of these sites, is recommended.• Analysis of landholding patterns of free blacks through documentary sources todetermine locations and sizes of holdings, and quality of land owned or farmed.Once located, a representative sample of these properties could be examined throughreconnaissance survey to determine current condition of the properties. A smallersample, culled from the properties having good potential for archaeological andarchitectural remains pertaining to the study unit, could be further examined todetermine integrity. This examination would take the form of sub-surface archaeologicaltesting and documentation of above-ground buildings and structural remains.• Further documentary research on The Quarter, in Colonial Williamsburg, to determineif this building was constructed by free blacks in the early 19th century, andwhen blacks first resided there.• Documentary research on the Hot Water Tract in an effort to determine the size andgrowth of the community over time. This documentary research could be combinedwith various stages of survey, including a reconnaissance survey to documentif any standing structures or other physical components of the communityremain. Archaeological survey may also be necessary to locate the community andassess its boundaries and integrity.• Archaeological investigations to determine whether patterns of resistance to slaveryare evident in material remains. Certain properties could possibly be identifiedas way stations through archaeological assemblages or components of thesite. Documentary research could be used to determine whether newspaper advertisementscould 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 centuryto the present.• Archaeological survey to determine the current status of the Hot Water Tract, a late18th/early 19th-century free black community, with research into documents for acomprehensive history of the community.• Archaeological survey or mitigation on 19th-century plantations, which would revealphysical modifications brought about by emancipation and the developmentof Southern farm tenancy.• If and when households of 19th-century black slaves and free black tenant farmersare examined through archaeological excavation, a comparison of a number offactors is recommended. These include house size and construction techniques,faunal and other foodways assemblages, landscape configurations (such as the placementof outbuildings, fences and fields), and ceramic and other material cultureassemblages. This would reveal the differences in lifestyles between free blacksand slaves in this area.Registration Goals• Nomination of Centerville and the Hot Water Tract as National Register Districtsin view of the fact that they were very early communities for free blacks in thisareas.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 archaeologicalexcavation and detailed recording of components of the community arerecommended.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: NationalWith Emancipation, blacks had opportunities to work, live and worship where and asthey wished. The ways in which former slaves responded to this new freedom weresurely varied. Although the majority of blacks were supported by agriculture, manyothers found they were, for the first time, in competition with whites for jobs. Blacksnot only faced exploitation in the job market, but also found many whites reluctant tosell them land. The formation of the Freedmen’s Bureau and of manual and industrialtraining schools helped smooth the path and create new opportunities for blacks in thewake of the Civil War.SUB-THEME A: ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW BLACKCOMMUNITIESDuring the period following the Civil War, black communities and settlements becamemore common throughout the Tidewater, although little is known about their organizationor members. According to a study done of Elizabeth City County (the present-daylocation of Hampton), land acquisition by blacks did not significantly increase after theend of the Civil War. Late in 1870, only 2.2% of Elizabeth City County blacks ownedreal 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 alongYork Street (Marie Sheppard, pers. comm. 1985). An unmarked cemetery, which servedmembers 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 WilliamsburgInn now stands. Older black informants remember that this settlement was reachedthrough Whale’s Alley, which cut across Francis Street. Perhaps connected with thiscommunity was the Birthright Cemetery, located near the present-day Providence Hall.Local sources remember many blacks being buried there in the opening years of the20th century. Another unmarked cemetery was located during parking lot constructionat Bassett Hall in 1980. These 18 burials, mapped by Colonial Williamsburg Foundationarchaeologists, were left unexcavated. It is not known, therefore, if these burialsalso comprise a black cemetery, perhaps associated with the York Street or the Whale’sAlley communities.255

In the early 20th century, blacks and whites lived alongside one another in thesame neighborhoods in Williamsburg. A circa 1898 handbook of Williamsburg lists thenames, addresses, and occupations of the black and white residents of the town (VirginiaGazette c. 1898). This directory also records the names of those individuals whoresided in various communities outside of Williamsburg, such as at Grove and Lightfoot.The handbook is an invaluable resource for reconstructing the demographic makeup ofWilliamsburg during that period.During the first several decades of the 20th century, blacks moved out of the centerof town in the wake of newly imposed Jim Crow regulations and the restoration effortsof the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Many of these blacks moved to the “WestEnd”, an early 20th-century settlement on Armistead Avenue, or to the Franklin Streetarea. Braxton Court, also in Williamsburg, is another area owned, built, and occupiedby 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 predominantlyblack residential areas were established at Grove, Croaker, Poplar Hall, andMooretown.The Grove, located at the eastern end of James City County, was a small settlementof farmers and fishermen established at the end of the 19th century. The formation ofGrove as a community came about when black landowners were displaced by the establishmentof the Naval Weapons Station during World War I and later by the constructionof Camp Peary. Most of the people who moved to the Grove were employed at theNaval 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. Thereare 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 organizedin 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 Grovewhen Camp Peary was constructed, in an April 28, 1976 interview (Orr 1976). Thecommunity contained a post office, as well as a black church, lodge, and cemetery.Recent archaeological survey on the Camp Peary tract by the Colonial WilliamsburgOffice of Archaeological Excavation located a black cemetery dating to the first half ofthe 20th century.SUB-THEME B: STORES, BUSINESSES AND PARTICIPATIONIN INDUSTRIALIZATIONAfter the close of the Civil War, former slave artisans found themselves in competitionwith 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). Asa result, blacks began to disappear from a number of the skilled trades which they hadformerly practiced almost exclusively. According to a study prepared by the VirginiaCommissioner of Labor, proportionally fewer skilled blacks were working in 1898 thanprior to the Civil War (Pinchbeck 1926: 73). By the beginning of the 20th century, thefuture for black skilled workers began to improve with the establishment of industrial256

and manual training schools. Still, wages for black labor were generally lower thanthose for comparable work by whites.By far, the majority of blacks in the study area were supported by agriculture. Afterthe Civil War, the government failed to set up a comprehensive land confiscation andredistribution plan. This, coupled with the refusal of whites to sell property or extendcredit to blacks, left many former slaves without means to make a living. Throughoutthe state of Virginia, the Freedmen’s Bureau was organized to protect the interests offormer slaves. This Bureau was instrumental in setting up county or district meetings tohelp blacks find employment, determine wage rates, and avoid exploitation (McConnell1910: 33). Northern agents felt sure that a system of contract labor would protect blacksagainst exploitation, while helping supply agricultural products, such as wheat, cottonand tobacco. Unhappy employees were free to seek employment elsewhere, and had thechance 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 couldnot due to the insolvency of Southern banks. Some blacks, especially directly followingthe Civil War, contracted with their employers to supply them clothing, food, and shelteronly, a condition almost identical to slavery (Jones 1985).As a result of the inadequacy of the wage labor system, sharecropping and tenantfarming became more common. As former slaves, many blacks had no capital withwhich to purchase land or homes after the war. Deprived of slave labor, Tidewater planterswere also faced with the dilemma of how to plant, tend and harvest their crops. Out ofthis joint need sharecropping or tenant farming arose. Although sharecropping keptmany blacks at or below the poverty level, it did allow the farmer a minimal amount ofcontrol over his own actions and also allowed his wife a choice in how to best divide hertime between the family and the field. The Freedmen’s Bureau records provide an importantsource of information on post-bellum black tenant farming for this area.A recent study by McDaniel (1982) closely examined the lives and homes of blacktenant farmers in southern Maryland. Through the use of oral resources, photographsand government documents, McDaniel was able to reconstruct the material culture oflate 19th- and early 20th-century tenant farmers.McDaniel concentrated on the temporal evolution of housing and found that manytenant farmers continued to occupy former slave quarters after the Civil War. On thewhole, tenant farmers’ homes, even those constructed after the Civil War, remainedsimilar 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 tworoom dirt-floored log buildings to four to six room frame structures with plank floorsand glass pane windows (McDaniel 1982: 136). The closer a house was located to anurban 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 theconsumer market, it is likely that the majority of blacks had little or no surplus capital tospend as they liked. Tenant farmers’ houses were described as dark and dirty, containinglittle in the way of material possessions. Given their constant mobility, many familiesprobably invested minimal effort in the appearance of their homes. Photographs anddocuments do show that efforts were made to brighten interiors with newspapers or257

colorful advertisements (Plate 5.7). Despite efforts such as these, many tenant farmswere dreary places, as evidenced by a photograph of a turn-of-the-century black farmsteadnear Newport News, Virginia (Plate 5.8).Beginning in the 1890s and into the 1920s, many blacks left James City County forjob opportunities in the North. Only in the 1950s did this exodus slow, due to the employmentprovided by the expanding tourist industry, the College of William and Mary,and Eastern State Hospital. Despite this exodus, there were many black-owned businessesin Williamsburg at the turn of the century, according to black informants. Theseincluded Samuel Harris’ Cheap Store, of which late 19th-century photographs exist(Plate 5.9). The circa 1898 Directory of Williamsburg was probably referring to SamuelHarris 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, CrutchfieldBarber Shop and Tea House, Hitchen’s Store, Skinner’s Tinner, and a meat market (MarieSheppard, pers. comm. 1985).Other sources of employment for blacks at this time no doubt came from the knittingmill and participation in the construction of the railroad in 1881. Truck farming asan industry was made possible by the railroad construction. The circa 1898 directorylists trucking and general farming as the principal occupations of James City Countyresidents, with Toano a large trucking center for “melons, sweet and Irish potatoes, peasand other early varieties of vegetables” which were shipped to the Northern and Westernmarkets. A Toano barrel-making industry in the early 20th century supplied employmentfor seventy to eighty persons. These barrels were used in shipping vegetables tothe Northeastern markets (Jeffreys 1984b). Employment opportunities were also suppliedby the construction of the seawall at Jamestown in 1905 (Gilley 1976: 30) and byvarious 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 thedevelopment of schools for black children. In 1884, a small two-room school for blackswas constructed on Francis Street behind the present-day Market Square Tavern. Duringthe first decade of the 20th century, this two-room school was relocated to NicholsonStreet, at the Odd Fellows Lounge, a social club run by blacks (Plate 5.11). The loungeserved as the primary school facility, with government barracks housing the upper levelclasses. There were 130 black students enrolled in the Williamsburg/James City Countyschool system that year (Anonymous 1984). There were also similar schools locatedthroughout James City and York Counties.SUMMARYTo date, there have been no archaeological investigations of any of the late 19th andearly 20th century black settlements in the study area. Research has been biased towardsthe identification of discrete settlements of blacks, when in reality there weremany isolated black dwellings throughout the area. Maps from the 19th century, such as258

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 forinformation gained through excavation of black residences and businesses is of merit,since many of these remain untouched. However, the feasibility of using archaeologyalone as an approach to gaining this information is doubtful, since there are black residentsliving in the area who grew up during this time period. Oral history and folkloresurveys on late 19th and early 20th century black history, such as that compiled by theJames 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 PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitRegional. With the freedom brought about at the close of the Civil War, blacks had theopportunity to work, live and worship where and as they wished. The majority of blacksstill suffered many hardships, but new settlements and communities were establishedduring 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 TypesThe black population of the study area actually declined after the Civil War, as moreblacks moved to the urban areas of the North. There is, however, an expansion in thetypes of properties which would be associated with blacks due to the new opportunitiesand potentials which were open to them. Property types which would ideally be associatedwith 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 DataFor this time period, the primary sources are much more complete than for any previouseras. Federal census records can provide information on a household level, allowing thedetermination of family composition, occupation and socio-economic status. Recordsof the Freedman’s Bureau also provide an important source of information on blacktenant 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 archaeologicalinvestigations of black-related buildings or properties from the last half of the 19thcentury have been undertaken.Criteria for EvaluationFour 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 methodof 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 unitwould be A and D.262

Present Condition of Property TypesThe resources for this study unit have already been dealt a severe blow by several developmentsin the 20th century. The restoration of Colonial Williamsburg effectivelydestroyed all 19th-century buildings, homes and businesses alike, within the 19th- andearly 20th-century core of Williamsburg. Several other black communities, such asMagruder, were displaced by the coming of the military installations in York County.The current physical condition of the structures associated with these displaced communitiesis not known, but it is likely that most were demolished.Increased developmental pressures within the study area currently threaten archaeologicaland architectural properties associated with this study unit.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesIn light of the above, the following is a list of recommendations regarding identification,evaluation, registration, and treatment measures which should be taken for propertytypes within Study Unit XIX.Properties of public importance from this time period are Odd Fellow’s Loungeand the Samuel Harris Cheap Store.Identification Goals• Analysis of the records of the Freedmen’s Bureau in order to determine status andtreatment of black tenant farmers in this area. This analysis will likely formulateresearch questions which could later be tested through a combination of documentarysources, architectural survey, and archaeological testing.• Use of documentary resources and architectural survey to determine the distributionof rural agricultural sites of blacks from the period after the Civil War to theopening years of the 20th century.• Use of oral resources for exploration of Afro-American traits which have beendocumented elsewhere, such as the decoration of graves and African influences onfoodways and music.• The identification of the possible influence of African cultures on mortuary patternsof black Virginians, using published ethnographic literature on cultures ofWest Africa. Slight differences in traits which may be caused by individual culturalelements would be less important than the underlying similarities of the WestAfrican heritage.Evaluation Goals• Comprehensive architectural survey of rural structures throughout the study areato answer questions about the use of slave quarters after the Civil War and spatialconfigurations 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 extentand 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-centurytenant farm property, in view of the importance of this lifestyle for many of thearea’s blacks.Treatment Goals• Preservation or complete documentation (archaeological and architectural) of19th-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: LocalEven into the second half of the 20th century, blacks still found themselves facing inequalityin the job and housing markets, as well as in pay scales. Separate facilities forblacks and whites, such as schools, theaters, stores, and the like were, as in many otherplaces, common within the study area. Despite segregation and the relative lack ofeconomic opportunities, local blacks remained and still remain very much aware oftheir heritage. Black citizens in the Tidewater are currently involved in issues dealingwith preserving the black heritage in this area.SUB-THEME A: INFLUX OF BLACKS FROM OTHER AREASA number of blacks were attracted to the study area during the first several decades ofthe century by employment opportunities offered by Eastern State Hospital, The Collegeof William and Mary, the Naval Weapons Station and the Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation. Williamsburg, in particular, began to prosper as a result of the ColonialWilliamsburg Restoration and the expansion of the College. Many blacks also workedin the Penniman shell loading plant on the York River during World War I. Present-dayindustries located within the study area, such as Anheuser-Busch and Ball Metal, createjob opportunities for blacks as well. Many blacks also arrived in the area in the wake ofmilitary installations such as the Naval Weapons Station and Fort Eustis.According to 1978 census figures, the population of blacks in the study area brokedown 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 Schwille1978: 11).SUB-THEME B: JIM CROW AND THE CIVIL RIGHTSMOVEMENTSegregation was very evident during the middle decades of the 20th century, unlike themixing of the races that had earlier characterized the Williamsburg area. The Jim Crowlaws developed at the turn of the century introduced segregation in residential areas, aswell as in schools and transportation systems. Social inequality was also felt in the jobmarket; statistics show that in a typical Southern city in the 1950s, nearly 75% of theblack men in the labor force were employed in unskilled jobs, compared to 25% of thewhite male labor force (Morris 1984). Approximately 50% of the black female laborforce 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 themedian white family income (Morris 1984).During the Depression, Civilian Conservation Corps camps were located at LakeMatoaka 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 ashopping center and theater for blacks on the Bozarth Mill property and there was alsoa proposal to build a USO building for blacks only during World War II. Plate 5.12shows the black fairground located in James City County at the beginning of the century.Despite segregation and the lack of economic opportunities, blacks remained verymuch aware of their heritage. For example, January 1st was always honored inWilliamsburg as Emancipation and Proclamation Day (Larson 1978). This day wascelebrated with a band and parade, which would march from the Odd Fellows Lodge tothe west end of Duke of Gloucester Street and back.SUB-THEME C: SCHOOLS, NEIGHBORHOODS, ANDORGANIZATIONSEfforts 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 for266

Plate 5.13. James City County Training School.Williamsburg because it acted as the first melting pot for black students from many ofthe neighboring small one and two-room schools scattered throughout James CityCounty” (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 vocationalagriculture shop. This school burned in 1954.Rosenwald schools for blacks children were constructed in the 1920s in variousparts of James City County, such as Centerville, Chickahominy, Oak Grove, MountPleasant, and Croaker. These schools were in use up until 1954, when the city andcounty school systems merged. In 1954, all of the black county students were sent tothe Bruton Heights School. Bruton Heights School, in Williamsburg, was constructedin 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 inVirginia. Bruton Heights School provided a public education for the black children ofWilliamsburg and James City County and was the first school in the area to offer ahigh-school diploma for blacks. Bruton Heights was also significant for its innovativecurriculum, 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, andtotal 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 (Deigh1978). A contest for local black school children was used to name the streets within theneighborhood after famous blacks. Braxton Court, Highland Park, and Crispus AttucksPlace are black neighborhoods within Williamsburg city limits. Crispus Attucks Place,the newest of these neighborhoods, was completed in 1976 (Anonymous 1980). At that267

time, the Williamsburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority replaced old housing atthe corner of Armistead and Lafayette with sixteen single-family residences.On the Peninsula, there are a number of local political action groups founded forand by blacks, the most obvious being the NAACP. The Williamsburg Chapter of theNAACP was organized at Mt. Gilead Baptist Church in 1942. Out of necessity, theNAACP often allied itself closely with black churches in the south, since these churcheswere often the only places where meetings could be held without interference from thewhite 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 preservingthe black heritage of the area. For example, current plans to demolish BrutonHeights School, which served as a school for black county and Bruton Heights districtstudents beginning in 1954, are being opposed by a citizen action committee. Throughthe actions of members of the First Baptist Church, a plaque now stands on NassauStreet marking the location of the 19th-century church. In 1976, the Grove Communityheld a festival in connection with the Bicentennial. Oral histories of community memberswere recorded, as well as histories of three of the community’s churches. Thesewere bound into a manuscript, along with a brief history of blacks in the area. TheGrove Community Action Organization was instrumental in helping get a playgroundand recreation building in their community.SUMMARYGiven the still uneven understanding of the great contributions made by the black communityto the shape of Tidewater society, a number of research strategies are recommended.Searches of local newspapers from the beginning of the 20th century wouldprovide invaluable information on all aspects of recent black history, especially forevents concerning the Civil Rights movement. The gathering of oral histories and cooperationwith black political and social organizations on publicly important issues arealso recommended. Survey and preservation of communities such as Braxton Court,and schools and churches significant in recent Afro-American history in the study areaare all also highly recommended, and crucial, as many of these resources are threatenedby current property development. Specific recommendations will be made in the operatingplan.STUDY UNIT XX: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitLocal. This study unit holds local significance in light of the still uneven understandingof the contributions of the local black community to Tidewater society and culture. A268

number of local properties are seen as important by the local black community andefforts are being made to preserve these resources.Summary of Property TypesGiven the growth and change of the study area during the 20th century due to militaryinstallations and the Williamsburg Restoration, many blacks were displaced from homesand neighborhoods. Physical evidence of most of these neighborhoods, communities,and businesses are now gone, and are known only through photographs and the recollectionsof the persons who were once familiar with them. Archaeologically, some ofthese properties may be recoverable, but in many instances subsequent developmenthas destroyed their potential for data recovery. New neighborhoods and communities,some centered around churches, have developed and these have been discussed in thenarrative.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 DataNo archaeological or architectural surveys of black-related property types from thistime period have been attempted. Potentials for the recovery of information relating toblacks is good, however, particularly in light of oral and documentary sources. Photographsand newspapers, as well as governmental and other official records, are excellentsources of data. Local informants can provide information not only on aspects oflocal history, but on the presence and continuation of folk traditions as well. Onlylimited work has been accomplished in this area (Dance 1978; Szwed and Abrahams1978) on black folklore.In view of the exacting nature of archaeological investigation, recommendationsfor archaeological excavations of properties from this time period are generally avoided.Exceptions would be made in cases where a property is identified as extremely significantand one whose information would be lost if excavations were not conducted. Giventhe better quality of records from the 20th century, information from this time periodcan generally be gathered through the more expedient means of documentary research.Criteria for EvaluationOf 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 UnitXX. Criterion A is concerned with associations with significant events in the broadpatterns 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 asthe authenticity of a property’s historic identity, is an important factor to consider whenevaluating property significance, particularly given the availability of property typesfrom this time period.Although black cemeteries from this study unit are not eligible for National Registerstatus, the community values placed on these and other similar properties calls forcertain levels of action, such as identification, recording, marking, and, where possible,preservation in place.Present Condition of Property TypesMany of the areas containing property types significant to this study unit are currentlyunder developmental pressure.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesIn light of the above, the following is a list of recommendations regarding identification,evaluation, and treatment measures which should be taken for property types withinStudy Unit XX.Properties of public importance from this time period include: James City CountyTraining School, Bruton Heights School, Grove Community, and the Mt. Ararat Church.Identification Goals• Analysis of the effects of the Colonial Williamsburg restoration on specific blackneighborhoods in Williamsburg, such as Whale’s Alley, Franklin Street and YorkStreet 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 onlylimited work of this sort has been accomplished in the study area (see Szwed andAbrahams 1978 for a bibliography of local research; Dance 1978), this is an extremelyimportant area of investigation. The gathering of oral traditional historywill help define a balanced picture of the various influences which have shaped thefolklore and world view of local blacks. Oral resources could also be used toreveal the local significance and importance of Emancipation Day, held in thisarea on January 1st.• Identification, location, and marking of black cemeteries which are currently unmarkedand in danger of being forgotten as older residents die. Two exampleswould be the York Street community cemetery, located north of the Patrick HenryInn, and the Birthright Cemetery on the Providence Hall property.• Identification of the reason there are so few blacks in the Poquoson area. Suggestedstrategies for this would be an evaluation of the census and Federal recordsfrom the Civil War period to the present to identify numbers of blacks living in thearea at regular intervals. The economic base of the Poquoson area (its swampy270

ground and possible greater emphasis on water related incomes than on agriculture)may be responsible for this phenomenon. Questions include: were blacksforced out through harsh racial policies or actions during Jim Crow period? Didthe political atmosphere during the annexation of York County to form Poquosonresult in exclusion of black neighborhoods? Another suggested source of informationwould 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-relatedfacilities for blacks and whites, the extent of Ku Klux Klan activities, and researchto document a possible migration of blacks away from the area during the early20th 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 ofeach. This should be done in cooperation with local black civic, social and politicalorganizations.Evaluation Goals• An in-depth examination of local black communities (Grove, York Street, BraxtonCourt) in terms of how communities began, rate of growth, demographic composition,kinship networks, etc. This could be accomplished through interviews withcommunity residents and analysis of census statistics.• Re-analysis of previously-collected oral history data, with a view towards organizingthem into a usable, easily accessible format. An analysis of what types ofinformation remain to be collected as well as previously overlooked resourcesneeds to be completed.• Analysis of the communities which were displaced by the Naval Weapons Stationand Camp Peary, in terms of community origins, rates of growth, occupations ofcommunity members, boundaries, and what happened to community members afterthey were displaced. This information could be gained though oral histories,census and other official government records, newspapers, photographic resourcesand personal papers.Registration Goals• Nomination of Bruton Heights School and the site of the James City County TrainingSchool to the National Register in light of the outstanding public interest inthese 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, oncepart of an active black community in that area. Several of these houses have been271

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY: STUDY UNITS XV-XXAbramowitz, Jack1950 The Negro in the Agrarian Revolt. Agricultural History 24: 89-96.Adams, William H.1981 Bay Springs Mill: Historical Archaeology of a Rural Mississippi CottonMilling Community. Resource Analysts, Bloomington, Indiana.Anonymous1976 Grove Festival. Manuscript on file, Williamsburg Public Library,Williamsburg, Virginia.1980 A Neighborhood is Transformed. Virginia Gazette, April 9.Ascher, Robert, and Charles Fairbanks1971 Excavation of a Slave Cabin: Georgia, U.S.A. Historical Archaeology 5:3-17.Baker, Eliza1933 Memoirs of Williamsburg. Excerpts from an interview conducted byW.A.R. Goodwin on May 4, 1933. Manuscript report, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Baker, Vernon1980 Archaeological Visibility of Afro-American Culture: An Example fromBlack Lucy’s Garden, Andover, Massachusetts. In Archaeological Perspectiveson Ethnicity in America: Afro- American and Asian AmericanCulture History, edited by Robert Schuyler, pp. 29-37. Baywood Publishing,Farmingdale, New York.Belvin, Ed1981 Growing Up in Williamsburg from the Depression to Pearl Harbor. TheVirginia Gazette, Williamsburg, Virginia.Billings, Warren M.1973 The Cases of Fernando and Elizabeth Key: A Note of the Status of FreeBlacks in Seventeenth-Century Virginia. William and Mary Quarterly30(3rd series): 467-474.Blassingame, John1972 The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South. OxfordUniversity Press, New York.Bonekemper, Edward H. III1970 Negro Ownership of Real Property in Hampton and Elizabeth City CountyVirginia, 1860-1870. Journal of Negro History 55: 165-181.273

Bradford, S. Sydney1959 The Negro Ironworker in Ante Bellum Virginia. Journal of SouthernHistory 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 Innes1980 “Myne Owne Ground”: Race and Freedom on Virginia’s Eastern Shore1640-1676. Oxford University Press, New York.Brewer, James H.1955 Negro Property Owners in Seventeenth-Century Virginia. William andMary Quarterly 12(2nd series): 575-580.Bridges, Sarah T., and Bert Salwen1980 Weeksville: The Archaeology of a Black Urban Community. In ArchaeologicalPerspectives on Ethnicity in America, edited by Robert Schuyler,pp. 38-47. Baywood Publishing, Farmingdale, New York.Bruce, Kathleen1926 Slave Labor in the Virginia Iron Industry, Part I. William and Mary Quarterly6(2nd series): 289-302.1927 Slave Labor in the Virginia Iron Industry, Part II. William and MaryQuarterly 7(2nd series): 21-31.Carr, Lois Green and Russell R. Menard1979 Immigration and Opportunity: The Freedman in Early Colonial Maryland.In The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century; Essays onAnglo-American Society and Politics, edited by Thad Tate and DavidAmmerman, pp. 206-242. W. W. Norton, New York.Carson, Cary1978 Doing History with Material Culture. In Material Culture and the Study ofAmerican Life, edited by Ian M. G. Quimby, pp. 41-64. W. W. Norton,New York.Carson, Cary, Harold Gill, and Kevin Kelly1978 Urbanization in the Tidewater South: Town and Country in York County,Virginia, 1630-1830. Research proposal submitted to the National Endowmentfor the Humanities, Washington, D.C.Cassell, Frank A.1972 Slaves of the Chesapeake Bay Area and the War of 1812. Journal of NegroHistory 57: 144-155.274

Caywood, Louis1955 Green Spring Plantation, Archaeological Report. National Park Service,Yorktown, Virginia.Charles, John1930 Recollections of John S. Charles. Typescript on file at ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation Research Center, Williamsburg, Virginia.Craven, Wesley Frank1971 White, Red, and Black: The Seventeenth Century Virginian. The UniversityPress of Virginia, Charlottesville.Dance, Daryl Cumber1978 Shuckin’ and Jivin’: Folklore from Contemporary Black Americans.Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.Deal, Joseph Douglas III1982 Race and Class in Colonial Virginia: Indians, Englishmen, and African onthe Eastern Shore During the 17th Century. Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof Rochester, New York.1984 A Constricted World: Free Blacks on Virginia’s Eastern Shore. Paperdelivered at the 45th Conference on Early American History, “The ColonialExperience: The 18th Century Chesapeake,” Baltimore, Maryland.Deetz, James1977 In Small Things Forgotten. Anchor Press, Garden City, New Jersey.Deigh, Robb1978 Carver Gardens: Where $7,000 Homes are Priceless Today. VirginiaGazette, Williamsburg, Virginia.Desandrouins1782 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 inthe Early Nineteenth-Century South. William and Mary Quarterly 31(3rdseries): 189-224.Dunn, Richard S.1977 A Tale of Two Plantations: Slave Life at Mesopotamia in Jamaica andMount Airy in Virginia, 1799-1829. William and Mary Quarterly 34 (3rdseries): 32-65.Eaton, Clement1960 Slave-Hiring in the Upper South: A Step Towards Freedom. MississippiValley Historical Review 46: 663-678.275

Eckenrode, H. J.1938 Negroes in Richmond in 1864. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography46: 193-200.Fairbanks, Charles1972 The Kingsley Slave Cabins in Duval County, Florida, 1968. Papers of theConference on Historic Sites Archeology 7(2): 62-93.Ferguson, Leland1980 Looking for the “Afro” in Colono-Indian Pottery. In ArchaeologicalPerspectives 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 WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Frenchman’s Map1781 Plan de la ville et environs de Williamsburg en Virginie, 1782. Map onfile, 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 SixthVirginia Volunteers. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 80:193-209.Gavine, Raymond1977 Hancock, Jackson, and Young: Virginia’s Black Triumvirate, 1930-1945.Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 85: 470-486.Geismar, Joan1982 The Archaeology of Social Disintegration in Skunk Hollow: A NineteenthCentury Rural Black Community. Academic Press, New York.Gilley, Willard1976 Interview conducted on April 25, 1976. Transcript in Tall Tales and Trueof 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 thePlantation 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 Lange1978 Plantation Slavery in Barbadoes: An Archaeological and HistoricalInvestigation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Hast, Adele1969 The Legal Status of the Negro in Virginia, 1705-1765. Journal of NegroHistory 14: 217-239.Hayes, Cheryl1974 Cultural Space and Family Living Patterns in Domestic Architecture,Queen’s County, Maryland, 1750-1776. M.A. thesis, Georgetown University.Herskovits, Melville1941 The Myth of the Negro Past. Harper and Brothers, New York.Hickin, Patricia1965 John C. Underwood and the Anti-Slavery Movement in Virginia,1847-1860. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 73: 156-168.Holt, W. Stull1972 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, Carter1977 Historical Archaeology and Salvage Archaeological Investigations atCollege Landing: An Interim Report. Manuscript report on file at theVirginia 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, Rhys1982 The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790. University of North CarolinaPress, Chapel Hill.Jackson, Luther P.1931 Religious Development of the Negro in Virginia from 1760-1860. Journalof Negro History 16: 168-239.277

Jackson, Luther P.1939 The Virginia Free Negro Farmer and Property Owner, 1830-1860. Journalof Negro History 24: 390-439.1942a1942bFree Negro Labor and Property Holding in Virginia, 1830-1860. Atheneum,New York (1969 edition).Virginia Negro Soldiers & Seamen in the American Revolution. Journal ofNegro History 27: 247-287.Jeffreys, Tina1984a How Grove Began. James City County 350th Anniversary. Virginia Gazette,August 24: 10.1984bWhen Toano was a Boomtown. James City County 350th Anniversary.Virginia Gazette, August 24: 3-4.Jones, Hugh1956 The Present State of Virginia, from Whence is Inferred a Short View of[1724] Maryland and North Carolina. Edited by Richard L. Morton. Universityof North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.Jones, Jacqueline1985 Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, Work, and the Familyfrom Slavery to the Present. Basic Books, New York.Jones, Jerome1961 The Established Virginia Church and the Conversion of Negroes andIndians, 1620-1760. Journal of Negro History 46: 12-23.Jones, Robert R.1972 James L. Kemper and the Virginia Redeemers Face the Race Question: AReconsideration. Journal of Southern History 38: 393-414.Kelly, Marsha, and Roger Kelly1980 Approaches to Ethnic Identification in Historical Archaeology. In ArchaeologicalPerspectives on Ethnicity in America, edited by RobertSchuyler, pp. 133-143. Baywood Publishing, Farmingdale, New York.Kelly, Vicki1978 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 ColonialVirginia. Academic Press, Orlando.Killinger, Charles L. III1969 The Royal African Company Slave Trade to Virginia 1689-1713.M.A. thesis, College of William and Mary, Virginia.Kimber, Edward1906 Observations in Several Voyages and Travels in America. William andMary Quarterly 15(1st series): 148.Klebaner, Benjamin Joseph1955 American Manumission Laws and the Responsibility for SupportingSlaves. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 63: 443-453.Kulikoff, Allan1974 The Beginnings of the Afro-American Family in Maryland. In Law,Society, and Politics in Early Maryland, edited by Aubrey Land, LoisGreen Carr and Edward Papenfuse, pp. 171-196. Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, Baltimore.1975 Black Society and the Economics of Slavery. Maryland Historical Magazine70: 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 Bowman1985 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 ofHistory and Biography 86: 169-179.Lewis, Roland L.1979 ‘The Darkest Abode of Man’: Black Miners in the First Southern CoalField, 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. Smithand Brothers, Pulaski, Virginia.McDaniel, George W.1982 Hearth and Home: Preserving a People’s Culture. Temple UniversityPress, Philadelphia.McGroaty, William Buckner1941 Exploration in Mass Emancipation. William and Mary Quarterly 21 (2ndseries): 208-226.Meier, August and Elliot Rudwick1973 Negro Boycotts of Segregated Streetcars in Virginia, 1904-1907. VirginiaMagazine 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 ofBlacks in Four Counties. William and Mary Quarterly 32(3rd series):27-54.Minutes1985 Minutes of the Carter’s Grove Quarter Study Group, Meeting No. 4, May9, 1985. Mansucript on file, Department of Architectural Research, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Moir, Randall (editor)1982 Season One (1982) Mitigation of Historical Properties in the Richland/Chambers Reservoir, Navarro and Freestone Counties, Texas: InterimReport. Southern Methodist University.Moore, James T.1975 Black Militancy in Readjuster Virginia, 1879-1883. Journal of SouthernHistory 41: 167-186.280

Moore, Sue Mullins1981 The Antebellum Barrier Island Plantation: In Search of an ArchaeologicalPattern. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.Morgan, Philip1985 Black Education in James City County, 1619-1984. Draft of unpublishedmanuscript on file at Office of Archaeological Excavation, ColonialWilliamsburg, Williamsburg, Virginia.Morris, Aldon D.1984 The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizingfor Change. The Free Press, New York.Morton, Richard L.1953 ‘Contrabands’ and Quakers in the Virginia Peninsula, 1862-1869. VirginiaMagazine of History and Biography 61: 419-429.Muggleston, William F.1978 The Freedman’s Bureau and Reconstruction in Virginia: The Dairy ofMarcus Sterling Hopkins, a Union Officer. Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography 86: 45-102.Mullin, Gerald1972 Flight and Rebellion: Slave Resistance in Eighteenth Century Virginia.Oxford University Press, New York.Neiman, Fraser1980 The “Manner House” Before Stratford (Discovering The Clifts Plantation),edited by Alonzo T. Dill. A Stratford Handbook, Stratford, Virginia.Noël Hume, Ivor1962 An Indian Ware of the Colonial Period. Quarterly Bulletin, ArchaeologicalSociety 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 Kyger1976 Interview conducted on April 28, 1976. Transcript in Tall Tales and Trueof James City County, transcribed by Mildred Bienfait Matier.Williamsburg-James City County Bicentennial Committee.281

Otto, John Solomon1975 Status Difference and the Archaeological Record: A Comparison ofPlanter, Overseer, and Slave Sites from Cannon’s Point Plantation(1794-1861), St. Simon’s Island, Georgia. Ph.D. dissertation, University ofFlorida.1980 Race and Class on Antebellum Plantations. In Archaeological Perspectiveson Ethnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian American CultureHistory, edited by Robert Schuyler, pp. 3-13. Baywood Publishing,Farmingdale, New York.1984 Cannon’s Point Plantation, 1794-1860: Living Conditions and StatusPatterns in the Old South. Academic Press, New York.Outlaw, Alain C.1977 Centerville: A Free Black Community Near Williamsburg, Virginiac. 1850-1870. Mansucript on file at Virginia Research Center for Archaeology,Yorktown, Virginia.Outlaw, Merry Abbitt, Beverly A. Bogley, and Alain C. Outlaw1977 Rich Man, Poor Man: Status Definitions in Two Seventeenth-CenturyCeramic Assemblages from Kingsmill. Manuscript on file, Virginia ResearchCenter for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.Pace, David1974 Lenoir Chambers Opposes Massive Resistance: An Editor AgainstVirginia’s Democratic Organization, 1955-1959. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 82: 415-429.Palmer, Paul1966 Servant into Slave: The Evolution of the Legal Status of the Negro Laborerin Colonial Virginia. South Atlantic Quarterly 65: 355-370.Patrick, Vanessa1985 Slave House/Quarter. Unpublished compilation of descriptions of slavehouses and quarters from various 18th century documentary sources.Prepared for the Carter’s Grove Slave Quarters Committee, Department ofArchitectural Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, June 1985.Perdue, Charles L. Jr., Thomas Barden, and Robert Phillips1980 Weevils in the Wheat: Interviews with Virginia Ex-Slaves. Indiana UniversityPress, Bloomington.Pilcher, George Washington1966 Samuel Davies and the Instruction of Negroes in Virginia. Virginia Magazineof History and Biography 74: 293-300.Pinchbeck, Raymond1926 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 Biography7: 364-368.Raab, Mark1982 Settlement of the Prairie Margin: Archaeology of the Richland CreekReservoir, Navarro and Freestone Counties, Texas, 1980-1981: A ResearchSynopsis. Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology,Southern Methodist University.Russel, Robert R.1937 The Economic History of Negro Slavery in the United States. AgriculturalHistory 11: 308-321.Savitt, Todd L.1977 Slave Life Insurance in Virginia and North Carolina. Journal of SouthernHistory 43: 583-600.Schaffer, Mike, and Kathy Schwille1978 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 MetropolitanNew York. Papers of the Conference on Historic Sites Archeology7(2): 12-52.1980 Afro-American Culture History. In Archaeological Perspectives onEthnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian American Culture History,edited by Robert Schuyler, pp. 1-2. Baywood Publishing, Farmingdale,New York.Sheldon, Marianne Buroff1979 Black-White Relations in Richmond, Virginia, 1782-1820. Journal ofSouthern History 45: 27-44.Shogren, Sam1983 Ceramics as an Indicator of Social Class: A Look at the Remains from theGovernor’s Land, James City County, Virginia. Manuscript on file, Officeof Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg, Virginia.283

Shurtleff, Arthur1928 St. George Tucker House, Existing Conditions. Map on file, Departmentof Architectural Archives, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg, Virginia.Simms, L. Moody, Jr.1967 Philip Alexander Bruce and the Negro Problem, 1884-1930. VirginiaMagazine of History and Biography 75: 349-362.Singleton, Theresa1980 The Archaeology of Afro-American Slavery in Coastal Georgia: A RegionalPerception of Slave Household and Community Patterns.Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.Stealey, John Edward III1974 Slavery and the Western Virginia Salt Industry. Journal of Negro History59: 105-131.Stephenson, Maryn.d. Notes on the Negro School in Williamsburg, 1760-1774. Manuscriptreport, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Suggs, Henry Lewis1979 P.B. Young of the Norfolk Journal & Guide: A Booker T. WashingtonMilitant, 1904-1928. Journal of Negro History 64: 365-376.Suttell, Elizabeth1965 The British Slave Trade to Virginia, 1698-1728. M.A. thesis, College ofWilliam and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.Szwed, John F. and Roger D. Abrahams1978 Afro-American Folk Culture: An Annotated Bibliography of Materialsfrom North, Central and South America and the West Indies. 2 volumes.Institute for the Study of Human Issues, Philadelphia.Tate, Thad1965 The Negro in Eighteenth Century Williamsburg. University Press ofVirginia, Charlottesville.Vaughn, Alden T.1972 Blacks in Virginia: A Note on the First Decade. William and Mary Quarterly29(3rd series): 469-478.Virginia Gazettec.1898 A Directory and Handbook of the City of Williamsburg and the County ofJames City, Virginia. The Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg.Vlach, John1976 The Shotgun House: An African Architectural Legacy, Parts I and II.Pioneer America VIII(1 & 2): 47-70.284

Vlach, John1978 The Afro-American Tradition in Decorative Arts. The Cleveland Museumof Art, Cleveland.Wall, Bennett H.1950 Medical Care of Ebenezer Pettigrew’s Slaves. Mississippi Valley HistoricalReview 37: 29-44.Wax, Darold D.1971 Negro Import Duties in Colonial Virginia: A Study in British CommercialPolicy and Local Public Policy. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography79: 29-44.1972 Whither the Comparative History of Slavery? Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography 80: 85-93.Wheaton, Thomas, Amy Friedlander, and Patrick Garrow1983 Yaughan and Curriboo Plantations: Studies in Afro-American Archaeology.Soil Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia.Williamsburg James City County School Board1984 Pride in the Past. Special Newsletter on the Hundredth Anniversary ofPublic Schools, on file, Williamsburg-James City County School Board.Wynes, Charles E.1964 Lewis Harvie Blair, Virginia Reformer: The Uplift of the Negro andSouthern 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 inconcept and form, as they trace centuries-long trends in the history of the Peninsula. 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 hascontributed to the distinctive cultural environment of the Peninsula, and each has invarious ways shaped its institutions and collective lifeways.Religion has always been to some extent a unifying force within a community, andit 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 themapart. Likewise, cemeteries reflect particular beliefs about death that are shared bymost members of a congregation, community, or society. The influence of belief systemsis 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 religiousconvictions. The belief systems of Native Americans, on the other hand, so distinctfrom 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-usedproperties 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 familyplots are very common in the study area, and public concern about their treatment isgreat.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 arefairly well researched.Public welfare institutions, like religious organizations, often come to symbolize acommunity’s identity. Care of the young, the poor, the deviant, and the dispossessedhas 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 welfarebefore the arrival of Europeans, the study unit begins with the first European institutionalizedforms: 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 buildingwas 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 ofthe 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 strongconstituency for preservation of some of these resources. Unlike ecclesiastical proper-289

ties, however, these sites, structures, and buildings may be under extreme developmentpressure. Early schools, for instance, were often moved or destroyed in the early 20thcentury when one-room schools were increasingly criticized as “backward” and thepush for consolidation of schools began. Only those with very strong community supportare likely to be saved based on public concern and value alone, but a great manymore have important research potential which should not be lost.The military shares with belief systems and public welfare institutions an influentialrole in shaping the Peninsula’s history. However, with the exception of those communitieswhich have developed based on military life, most notably those on- or offbasecommunities of military families which spring up around any large installation, ithas not really served as a community’s unifying force. Rather, military-related activityhas more often been disruptive, destroying communities and interrupting active socialtrends. This is clearly reflected in the history of the area, as major watersheds seem toappear around the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Along with the Indian uprisingsof 1622 and 1644 and Bacon’s Rebellion in 1675-1676, these were the major militaryactions fought on the Peninsula, and their effects were devastating. Although normalsocial and economic life returned after each upheaval, the wars left a lasting imprinton the people and on the countryside. In the 20th century, the military presencehas left a different sort of imprint, as military bases now occupy large portions of JamesCity 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 ofthese properties, and are extremely knowledgeable about their locations and functions.Twentieth-century military properties are less often a focus of public interest, but theirinformational potential is also high. The study of the rise of “Fort Virginia” must encompassall of these properties, and their changes through time.290

STUDY UNIT XXI.BELIEF SYSTEMSMajor 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 ofevangelical religions.C. Further divisions in Protestant sects: Methodism and theChristian Church.D. Multi-denominationalism in the 20th century.Significance: Regional and LocalAmong the many institutions by which Virginians have sought to order their existence,belief systems, particularly as they are expressed in organized religions, are among themost basic. For 17th-century colonists, like the Native Americans they supplanted andthe Afro-Americans they enslaved, religion served to rationalize experience and to providestructure 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 groundto evangelical sects during the era of the Great Awakening. With the Anglican churchdisestablished as a consequence of the American Revolution, competition for the mindsand souls of Virginians among a wide variety of Protestant sects became a primaryfeature of life in the Tidewater.Religious pluralism has continued in the 20th century as well. For non-white andethnic minorities throughout the nearly four hundred years of Tidewater history sincethe founding of Jamestown, the church has been a symbol of distinctive identity, and afocus 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 TidewaterVirginians’ relationship to God, but their relationship to other men and to the state aswell.Historians have tended to emphasize the commercial and political aspects of thecolonization of Virginia and have minimized the religious objectives of the settlers.While scholars of colonial New England have exhaustively explicated Puritan thoughtin all its richness, scholars of Virginia history have only recently begun to examine thecolony’s religious life. Religion in Virginia, once solely the domain of denominationalhistorians and antiquarians, has finally appealed to the “mainstream” historians whohave commenced in earnest an evaluation of the intellectual, spiritual, sociological, andanthropological 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 centuryto the present, survive for many churches. Table 6.1 summarizes The Virginia StateLibrary holdings for the study area.291

TABLE 6.1SURVIVING RECORDS FOR STUDY AREA CHURCHESDenomination Name Record Type DatesChristian Olive Branch Records 1833-1898Christian Grafton Minute Book 1834-1898Episcopal Blisland Vestry Book 1721-1786Episcopal Bruton Vestry Book 1662-1797Register 1868-1908Vestry Book 1889-1964Register 1903-1957Marriage Register 1936-1965Episcopal Charles Register 1648-1789, 1800Episcopal St.Peter’s Vestry Book 1685-1758Register 1685-1731Register 1733-1800Methodist York-Warwick Records 1851-1879Society of Friends Weyanoke Records 1699-1759Records 1780-1781Records 1781-1805Register 1703-1826Women’s meeting 1826-1832Women’s meeting 1830-1834Additional information concerning Virginia religious history can be found in avariety of journals, letters, and published descriptions, of which the Quaker ThomasStory’s journal (1747) and the diaries of William Byrd and Landon Carter are only a fewexamples. Many churches have compiled brief histories, which are noted in the bibliographyfollowing 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 historicalarchaeology in the area (Cotter 1958). Testing and exposure of foundations have beencarried out at the York Parish Church (Kandle 1984) and Bruton Parish Church. Foundationsof the Charles Parish Church are now stabilized (Mason 1939a). The VirginiaResearch Center for Archaeology, under the direction of Alain Outlaw, also conductedarchaeological excavations at the site of the Skimino Friends’ Meetinghouse (Outlaw1974). In general, these excavations were conducted to determine the location of earlierbuilding footings, and the materials and method of construction.The quality of archaeological information on religious structures and sites withinthe study area is uneven. Sites excavated or surveyed within the study area are summarizedin Table 6.2 and their locations illustrated in Map 6.1.Architectural surveys of standing church structures have also been conducted inthe study area, notably by Dell Upton (1979 and elsewhere). Upton has focused hiswork on analysis of church interiors, and the manner in which these reflected societalstability and change in the 18th century, a topic also discussed at some length in Isaac(1982).292

SUB-THEME A: TRANSPLANTATION OF THE ENGLISHESTABLISHED CHURCHChurch structures, as visible foci of community life, took many forms throughout thecourse of Tidewater history, and were variously located. The earliest Anglican churcheswere located within each parish, which in the 17th century could be made up of a groupof adjoining plantations, a single hundred, or a city (Cocke 1964: 30). During the Companyperiod, James City Parish, Martin’s Hundred Parish, and Governor’s Land Parishwere established, to be followed in the later decades of the 17th century by the parishesof 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 byjoining Harrops and Middle Plantation parishes, and in 1674, Bruton Parish combinedMiddleton and Marston parishes (Cocke 1964: 53). By 1707, Yorkhampton Parish wascreated out of old York and Hampton Parishes, to which Martin’s Hundred Parish wasadded in 1712 (Cocke 1964). A recent study of 17th-century settlement pattern in TidewaterVirginia argues that “churches were generally located at sites that provided convenientaccess for most of the parishioners” rather than in central locations, or nearother public centers (Grim 1977: 238)Five major property types are relevant to this and all sub-themes within the studyunit. Most significant, of course, are (1) church structures, which survive as standingbuildings and archaeological sites for all periods of study area history. In addition to thechurches themselves, are (2) cemeteries, both church-related, and single-family plots.Also associated with religious activities are (3) poorhouses and glebes, such as theBruton Parish Poorhouse, now on the National Register, and (4) parish houses. Finally,(5) domestic sites associated with members of various religious groups may possiblycontain information about the ways in which ideological differences are expressed inmaterial 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 (Mason1939a: 163). The second York Church, now Grace Church, is still standing. Thefirst Chiskiack Church was replaced by another, located on the old Williamsburg-Yorktown highway, and was known as the Cheescake Church. It was abandoned by itsEpiscopalian congregation in the early 19th century, to be occupied briefly by aCampbellite Baptist meeting. In 1833, the Baptists were “locked-out” of the church,and built another near the present Lebanon Church. Although the Cheescake Churchwas ultimately dismantled during the Civil War (Mason 1939a: 169), its graveyard wasused in later decades as a black cemetery.Foundations of the second Charles Parish Church in Poquoson, which was destroyedsometime between 1800 and 1828, have been stabilized. Possible remains ofthe foundations of the Marston Church survive near the head of Harings Creek (Mason1939a:172). Bruton Parish Church, completed in 1717, is still standing, and was restoredin 1905.In James City County, the tower of the Jamestown Church thought to have beenbuilt in 1639 remains standing. Excavations around the tower revealed at least two setsof 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, possiblyonce the Williamsburg Lower Church, and located at the crossroads two milessouth of Toano, was burned in 1864. It was replaced by a frame structure of the samename, 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 HickoryNeck Church (see Plate 6.1), is still standing as well, although the building was extensivelyaltered in 1825 (McCartney 1974).SUB-THEME B: THE DEVELOPMENT OF RADICAL SECTSAND THE INFLUENCE OF EVANGELICAL RELIGIONSWhile Anglican parishes developed and changed, dissatisfaction with Established Churchdoctrine led some to seek alternative modes of worship in the late 17th century. Quakermissionaries including the renowned George Fox and George Wilson, visited Virginiain the 1660s, and Wilson was imprisoned at Jamestown. The first Virginia meetings forDiscipline were held in 1672, although earlier informal meetings had been held in severalcommunities, as well as Green Spring Plantation. Thomas Story, who visited Virginiain 1698, attended meetings at Yorktown, Poquoson, and Martin’s Hundred. Storyalso attended an early meeting at the home of John Bates, later to become part of theSkimino Particular Meeting (McCartney and Weston 1972: 7).Until 1759, the Skimino meeting, like most Friends’ meetings in Virginia, washeld in a private home. Sometime before 1774, a separate Skimino Meetinghouse wasbuilt, 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 burialground. Little is known about the whereabouts and fate of other Virginia Tidewatermeetings. The strength of the Society of Friends in Virginia declined towards the end ofthe 18th century, and by the mid-19th century, most of the remaining Quaker familieshad migrated west, joining meetings in Ohio and elsewhere.Although Baptist missionaries preached in Yorktown as early as 1700, the realinfluence of that sect was felt in Virginia in the last quarter of the 18th century, whenSeparate Baptist converts numbered over 4000 (Semple 1894: 42, 79, 80). Challengingthe Tidewater-Planter hegemony, and rejecting the Anglican faith that sought to legitimizethat rule, the Baptist faithful sought freedom from social constraints, and greateremotional expression (Isaac 1973, 1974, 1982). Contrasts between the style and backgroundof these conflicting ideologies were reflected among other things, in churchstructures and interior spaces (Upton 1983, n.d.). The severe Baptist meeting houseswere visible expressions of a new leaning toward austerity and social equality (Isaac1982).Afro-Americans were drawn to the Baptist faith in the late 18th century as well. InWilliamsburg, the black preacher William Moses, and later Gowan Pamphlet, led congregationsmade up of both freedmen and slaves. Tradition states that these early meetingswere held at Green Spring, and later at “Racoon Chase” before a more-or-lesspermanent meeting site was established at the “carriage-house” in Williamsburg. Thecongregation applied for membership in the Dover Association sometime before 1793,and by 1860 had constructed a brick church on Nassau Street (Rowe 1983). There is294

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 strengthinto the 20th century, is the earliest Baptist church in Williamsburg (for a more detaileddiscussion of Afro-American churches, see Study Units XV-XX). The Zion BaptistChurch, with a predominantly white congregation, was not established until the late1820s.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, forexample, led to the establishment of the Emmaus Baptist Church there in 1866. A numberof offshoots of early black Baptist churches have developed in the Williamsburgarea, including the Little Zion and Mount Gilead Baptist Churches at Grove. Thesecongregations were established following displacement of black communities by thedevelopment 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 andthe Cheescake Churches also appear. Maps dating to the Civil War era show the JamesRiver 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 CityChurch in Lightfoot, a Baptist church in Poquoson, the Brick Church in Grafton, the295

Big Bethel Church, the Lebanon Church in Lee Hall, the Cheescake church on theWilliamsburg-Yorktown Highway, and the Liberty Church near Diascond Bridge.SUB-THEME C: FURTHER DIVISIONS IN PROTESTANTSECTS: METHODISM AND THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHMethodism reached Tidewater Virginia along two separate routes. In 1772, Robert Williamsfirst preached Methodism to a congregation in Williamsburg. By 1785, the“Williamsburg Circuit” had been established, and was made up of predominantly whitemembers. In 1790 there were 536 whites and 155 blacks listed as members of thatcircuit (Ironmonger 1959: 13-17).Another branch of Methodism was established in Poquoson and lower York Countyin 1817, brought by immigrants from the Eastern Shore. Dissatisfaction with the establishedchurch, and the disruptions of the Revolutionary war, led to the growth of factionalismin the old Charles Parish, such that many members were moved to leave thecongregation in favor of Methodism. Accordingly, in 1817, the Tabernacle MethodistChurch in Poquoson was established. Tabernacle was soon followed by the TrinityMethodist Church, the Zion Methodist Church at Crab Neck (now Seaford), and theProvidence Methodist Church in Grafton.Early Methodist services were held at camp meetings, such as one advertised bythe Williamsburg Methodist minister Stith Mead to be held in New Kent County in1812 (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 theCampbellites in the 1830s and 1840s. Among the earliest of the Campbellite or Christianchurches to be founded in the area were the Grafton Christian Church, whose memberscame primarily from the Grafton Baptist Church congregation, and formed a newchurch in 1832-33, and the Olive Branch Christian Church in Toano.Zion Methodist Church was destroyed by the Union Army during the Civil Warand was rebuilt in 1866. In 1884, Trinity Church was rebuilt. Tabernacle Church wasdestroyed by fire in 1884 and rebuilt. A third church building was erected by the Tabernaclecongregation in 1912. The Yorktown Methodist congregation succeeded in buildingtheir first church, known as the Crooks Memorial Methodist Church, by 1919. Twosignificant churches in this area have been destroyed by the United States government.Shiloh Baptist Church, constructed in 1898, was dismantled by the National Park Servicein 1971 to allow the reconstruction of the Yorktown Battlefield. Big Bethel BaptistChurch, built in 1866 and renovated in 1876, was condemned and destroyed in 1926during the construction of Langley Field.SUB-THEME D: MULTI-DENOMINATIONALISM IN THE LATE19TH AND 20TH CENTURIESOther denominations reached the Tidewater with the establishment of newer immigrantcommunities 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 laterfounded in Williamsburg, and is now housed in the former Lutheran Parish House (Plate6.2). The Scandinavian founders of Norge built the Zion Evangelical Lutheran Churchthere in 1904. That church, still standing today, is now known as Our Savior’s LutheranChurch (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 theWilliamsburg Church of Christ Scientist in 1919. The Yorkminster Presbytery was establishedin 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 thirteenin York County. At that time, James City County had seven Baptist congregations, twoMethodist, one Episcopalian and one Christian congregation.York County had seven Baptist churches, one Christian, one Episcopalian, andfour Methodist churches. In 1898, James City County and Williamsburg had two blackchurches. Williamsburg contained, besides these two churches, a Methodist church,two white Baptist churches, an Episcopal church, and a Presbyterian church. JamesCity County had an Episcopal church, a Methodist church, a Baptist church, and aChristian church.Today, there are over thirty churches in James City County, and twenty- one inYork County. Twelve of these have associated cemeteries, and there are at least sixother cemeteries still in use in the study area. To date, eight of these churches structuresPlate 6.2. Williamsburg Mennonite Church.297

have been surveyed (see Table 6.1), and twenty- three discussed in published sources. Inaddition, 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, arescattered throughout the study area, and are daily threatened by development and insome cases, by shore erosion. Little is known about the number and distribution of thesecemeteries, as few are mapped or catalogued.STUDY UNIT XXI: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitThe significance of church structures and cemeteries both to individual congregations,and to regional and in some cases national history is universally acknowledged. Thesebuildings and plots remain among the most important visible foci of community andlocal identity. In addition, standing church structures and especially church interiors aretangible representations of past and present social order, and as such are valuable “documents”for the social and architectural historian. Gravestones also document the livesand deaths of generations of Virginians, as well as stylistic and societal change on aregional level, while the structure of the graveyards themselves often provides additionalinformation about social ordering.Summary of Property TypesFive 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 DataTable 6.1 summarizes surveyed structures and recorded archaeological sites within thestudy area. Few late 19th and or 20th century church or parish structures have beensurveyed or recorded. Presbyterian and Methodist churches, important in this area, arepoorly known through surveys at present. Only a small percentage of the once widespreadfamily cemeteries have been recorded, and no systematic survey of graveyardsor cemeteries has been attempted for the study area.298

Map 6.1. Study Unit XXI: Known Resource Distribution.TABLE 6.2STUDY UNIT XXI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function ConditionJAMES CITY COUNTY:JC 10 Longhill Road Site AS I 05 Domestic/ UnknowncemeteryJC 102 Main Church Site (GL-27, AS III 08 Ecclesiastical Cultivated-38, -39)JC 115 Wolstenholme Towne (Carter’s AS III 09 Fortified ExcavatedGrove, Site C)villageJC 116 Carter’s Grove, Site A AS III 10 Unknown ExcavatedJC 124 Hickory Neck Church SB II 02 Ecclesiastical GoodJC 264 Olive Branch Christian Church SB I 02 Ecclesiastical GoodJC 295 Lutheran Parish House SB I 02 Ecclesiastical Good47-53 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. LevelNo. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition47-76 James River Church SB I 05 Ecclesiastical ExcellentU- 3 Chickahominy Church Site AS I 05 Ecc./cemetery DestroyedU- 12 Methodist Chapel Site AS I 05 Ecc./cemetery DestroyedYORK COUNTY:YO 7 Bryan Manor Plantation SB I 06 Plantation/ FaircemeteryYO 14 Edward Thomas Site AS I 06 Quaker dom. UnknownYO 15 Burkes Corner AS III 06 Quaker dom. ExcavatedYO 16 Skimino Meetinghouse AS II 06 Quaker ecc. UnknownYO 17 Yorke Village AS III 11 Ecc./cemetery/UnknowndomesticYO 18 Quaker Cemetery AS Inf? 06 Quaker DestroyedcemeteryYO 64 Bellfield Plantation AS I 07 Plantation/ UnknowncemeteryYO 109 Black Cemetery AS I 06 Cemetery UnknownYO 244 None AS I 10 Cemetery ErodedYO 258 None AS MR 06 Domestic/ Destroyed?cemeteryYO 259 None AS MR 06 Quaker ecc.? UnknownYO 377 SSE M-1 AS II 06 Unknown Threatened99-10* Grace Episcopal Church SB I 10 Ecclesiastical Excellent99-11 Grafton Christian Church SB I 11 Ecclesiastical UnknownU- 72* Bethel Baptist Church SB I ? Ecclesiastical GoodCITY OF POQUOSON:U- 66 Emmaus Baptist Church SB I 11 Ecclesiastical GoodU- 67 Trinity Methodist Church SB I 14 Ecclesiastical GoodU- 73* Tabernacle Methodist Church SB I ? Ecclesiastical GoodCITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:WB 3 College Landing AS II 06 Landing/ StablewarehousesCW-14A* First Baptist Church AS III 06 Ecc./cemetery P.excavatedCW-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 DestroyedU- 42* Williamsburg Baptist Church DB I 06 Ecclesiastical DestroyedU- 56* Mount Ararat SB I 06 Ecclesiastical ExcellentU- 57a* Birthright Cemetery AS I 06 Cemetery UnknownU- 59 Unmarked Cemetery AS I 06 Cemetery UnknownU-134* Cedar Grove Cemetery AS DR 06 Cemetery Unknown300

Present Condition of Property TypesPresently all standing church structures are in good or excellent condition. Cemeteriesin use are well maintained. The majority of family plots, and a large percentage ofmilitary-related cemeteries, are not only unsurveyed but endangered by development aswell. The Bruton Parish Poorhouse Site, although on the National Register, is at presentvulnerable to nearby development activities.Criteria for Evaluating SignificanceAlthough churches and cemeteries are generally excluded from National Register consideration,a number of property types associated with this study unit are significantbecause of their age, condition, and local, regional and national historical importance. Anumber of properties are presently on the National Register, including Bruton ParishChurch, Jamestown Church, Hickory Neck Church, Grace Church, and the Bruton ParishPoorhouse Site.Cemeteries and family plots, although often not significant in terms of NationalRegister 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 expressedabout their treatment. Thus, all cemeteries are considered significant by localstandards.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesIdentification Goals• Survey all family plots and cemeteries in the study area; record names, dates andtexts, map lay-outs, and determine their condition. This is a project that could conceivablybe carried out by local historical societies and student groups at minimalcost.• In survey of domestic structures, consider the religious background of the occupantsfor possible future comparative research.Evaluation Goals• Do further documentary research on early Baptist, Presbyterian and Methodistchurches in the study area to determine exact locations of former churches andparish houses, and to evaluate their integrity and research potential.Registration Goals• Complete steps necessary to nominate the Emmaus Baptist Church of Poquoson tothe National Register.• Take steps to complete a thematic nomination for early Baptist, Presbyterian, andMethodist Churches in the area.301

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

STUDY UNIT XXII.THE ESTABLISHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OFPUBLIC WELFARE INSTITUTIONSMajor Theme: The dialectic between private charity, and public socialprograms.Sub-Themes: A. Founding of major institutions of learning.B. Struggle to provide public education.C. Establishment of institutions for control and treatment ofthe deviant and dispossessed: mental institutions,poorhouses, prisons, etc.D. Founding and growth of service and fraternal organizationsdedicated to charity.Significance: National and RegionalPublic welfare systems in Virginia, including education,the care of indigents, healthcare, and institutions designed to curb deviant behavior, have since 1607 been a jointeffort 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, establishedin 1693 and one of the oldest continuous institutions of any sort in the UnitedStates, is a prime example both of attempts to answer public welfare needs and of thegrowth of government responsibility. The College, which at times has included both agrammar school and an Indian school, was never totally independent of governmentdirection or support. The trend over the history of the College has been towards greaterand greater state control until, in the 20th century, William and Mary became a stateagency.In this regard, the College serves as a model of sorts for many other institutionsthat in one way or another serve the public welfare. For example, the care of orphans inthe colonial era was a responsibility shared between church and state. By the end of the18th century, that particular kind of child welfare had developed into a state responsibility,although private organizations, both religious and secular, continued to contributevolunteer time and funding.As the oldest mental-health care institution in the region, the Williamsburg PublicHospital straddles the line between concern for those unable to care for themselves andthe effort to control deviant behavior (see Plate 6.3). Like the College, the Public Hospitalis a clear example of popular acceptance of the idea that state intervention in publicand private welfare has become more and more necessary as the number of peopleand the complexity of life have increased. While views on the treatment of the mentallyill have fluctuated, the responsibility of the state for administering whatever is the currenttreatment has gradually increased.The definition of public welfare, and the criteria for determining who is subject toit, have themselves undergone great change, expanding in times of crisis, while contractingduring periods of stability. During the Great Depression of the 1930s for example,federal relief agencies such as the Public Works Administration and the Civilian303

Plate 6.3. Administrative Building, Williamsburg Public Hospital, c. 1885.Conservation Corps subsidized segments of the middle class that in a better economicclimate would have been able to fend for themselves. There are many “monuments” tothe broadening scope of public welfare systems in the Tidewater, ranging from countypoorhouses of the 19th century to public works constructed by the Civilian ConservationCorps.SUB-THEME A: FOUNDING OF MAJOR INSTITUTIONS OFLEARNINGThe need for education was one of the first concerns of colonists in the New World. Asearly 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 another75 years before efforts to build the university were finalized. The Reverend James Blairhad been authorized in 1691 by the General Assembly to travel to England to present apetition to the King and Queen to grant a charter. William and Mary granted the charterin 1693.By 1694 a grammar school was opened under the tutelage of Reverend MungoInglis as schoolmaster. This school was held in a building apparently already in use as aschool and was open to children aged eight or older for the learning of Greek andLatin (Tyler 1907: 129). As this school had an integral role in the primary education ofthe 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, laterre-named the Wren Building. A symbiotic relationship between the College and thecolonial governing body soon materialized and the College Building became the temporaryhome for the government after the capital was moved to Williamsburg fromJamestown. The College remained the legislative headquarters until May 1704 whenthe capitol building was completed.By 1700 plans were apparently complete for the Indian School which was to be apart of the College of William and Mary. In that year Governor Nicholson instructed hisemissaries to go to the Indian nations and “... acquaint them that this next summer therooms will be made ready at the College for their reception and accommodation andthat if any one Great nation will send 3 or 4 of their children thither, they shall havegood, valuable clothes, books and learning and shall be well look’d after both in healthand sickness” (Bullock 1961: 45). These children were to be taught reading, writingand “vulgar arithmetic” at the separate Indian school, and it is believed that four or fivestudents were enrolled.Only a year after the General Assembly moved to their new home in 1704, theCollege Building burned, and it would be another decade before it was rebuilt. TheIndian school moved into the new Brafferton building in 1723.Despite the new building, however, few Indian students were found. At first thecolonists considered buying the children of hostile tribes captured at war and placingthem in the school for instruction. When this proved unsuccessful, Governor Spotswoodcarefully tried to orchestrate the recruitment of pupils by inserting clauses in each of thepeace treaties with various tribes, mandating the sending of Indian scholars. By theterms of these treaties each of the Indian nations were required to send two sons of itsleaders to be educated at the Indian school and to serve as hostages for the good faith oftheir nations. In 1711 Spotswood was able to report that each of the Indian nations hadcontributed their “hostage” and that the Indian school seemed a success. Indeed, hewrote to the Bishop of London thatThere are now... about twenty Indian Children at the College, they have a Master to teachthem and they seem very well pleased with the change of their condition as indeed theirparents and others of their nations who come frequently to see them, express much satisfactionwith the care that is taken of them, and frequently lament their own misfortunes for nothaving the like advantages in their Youth...(Bullock 1961: 45-48).Throughout the 18th century the College prospered with funds ranging from dutieson imported spirits, taxes on exported tobacco, earnings from real estate, private fundsfrom the estate of Robert Boyle, gifts from the Virginia General Assembly and Royalwarrants from Queen Anne. More buildings were constructed including the chapel, theBrafferton 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 or15 of them on scholarship or foundation funds. On the eve of the Revolution the studentbody numbered about 70.Throughout this era the College buildings were used for more than simply educationalpurposes. When the Capitol burned again in 1747 the General Assembly metthere for seven years. Samuel Levingston petitioned to hold his dancing classes at theCollege until a proper building could be erected, and his dance master presided there forseveral years.305

The Revolutionary War disrupted the activities of the College for some time, eventhough classes continued to meet. A number of faculty and students joined militia companies,and others with more Loyalist inclinations fled to England. Disaster struck thePresident’s House when it was accidentally burned while being used as a hospital forwounded French soldiers.This time of turmoil also saw a change of purpose for the College. In 1779, underthe direction of Thomas Jefferson as Governor of Virginia, it became a university. TheGrammar and Divinity schools were discontinued, and professorships of anatomy, medicine,modern languages, law and police were introduced. Just a few years earlier thefirst American intercollegiate Greek letter fraternity, Phi Beta Kappa, was establishedby College students. Even though it only lasted five years, other chapters were establishedat Harvard and Yale and later became widespread among Northern colleges.The post-Revolutionary period in the history of the College of William and Marywas generally one of decline. In 1787 the General Assembly divested the College ofmany of its funds, and this, in combination with loss of royal support and the Boylelegacy, reduced the assets of the College considerably. Only real estate remained as asource of revenue. Although there were a record 92 students in 1817, that number quicklydeclined. The harsh economic times and the rapid depopulation of the Tidewater in theearly 19th century caused a drop in attendance. In addition, Jefferson’s withdrawal ofsupport following his decision to establish the state university in Charlottesville severelyaffected the College’s prestige and attendance. Jefferson and his supporters feltthat such an “antiquated institution” in so “unhealthy” a region could not be revived andpromoted their own plans for what is now the University of Virginia.The early 19th century evidenced widely fluctuating enrollment at the College ofWilliam 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 weremade to move the College to Richmond in 1824-1825, a request that was made againafter the Civil War.The College suffered most during the Civil War era. Burned in 1859 and re-built, itwas 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 againstConfederate attack as the Union Army continued to occupy the College buildings. Classeshad previously ended when the President and much of the student body had enrolled inthe Confederate Army, and it was a weary and much dispirited group that returned in theFall of 1865 to the ruined buildings.Facing what appeared to be insurmountable problems, the College closed in 1881due to lack of funds. Seven years later it was revived. Largely due to the efforts ofPresident Lyon G. Tyler, son of U.S. President John Tyler, a system of normal instructionand training was added to the general college course. For the next quarter-centurytight finances limited the staff to seven professors, although student enrollment reached104 in 1889.It was in that year that the most important change in the 200-year history of theCollege occurred. All college property was transferred to the Commonwealth of Virginia,an action designed to increase the revenues of the College. Tyler went to greatlengths to justify this transfer. His comments provide insight into the relationship of the306

public and private sectors in the history of the College of William and Mary. He wrotein 1907:This [transfer] was done without violence to any one’s feelings, and seemed to be a naturalconsummation of the relations which the college has always borne to the State. In its originthe college was a State creation, and for a hundred years the only one in Virginia.... After theRevolution, State and college drifted apart, but in 1888, the connection was renewed; andafter drawing closer and closer together, the college was finally absorbed by the state.... Theprocess was very simple (Tyler 1907: 193).The 20th-century history of the institution is one of increasingly tighter state controlsand continued growth. For instance, in 1960 the General Assembly of Virginiaaltered the College’s name to “The Colleges of William and Mary”, creating an administrativegroup to supervise the senior colleges at Williamsburg, Norfolk and Richmond,as well as the junior colleges at Newport News and Petersburg. However, this wasrevoked only two years later.Several important points can be made based on this brief history of the College ofWilliam and Mary. First, it is one of the only features of Williamsburg life that remainedconstant throughout the almost three hundred years of its existence. Even afterWilliamsburg ceased to be a colonial capital it remained a college town, and most of itsprominent 19th-century residents were connected with college life. Travelers commentedthat Williamsburg was the height of dullness and “if it were not for the College and theCourt 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 Williamsburgprior to the Restoration. According to Elizabeth Hayes Goddard’s memories ofWilliamsburg, written in 1923, Williamsburg’s “main interest centered in the College ofWilliam and Mary”, and “the college and its professors dominated the social life inWilliamsburg at this time” (Anonymous 1984b: n.p.). She reported that the small groupof bachelor professors and young women teachers often dined together at the Collegedining 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 wasa major source of local income, especially after the loss of the capital. Throughout itshistory students at the College boarded with families in town, providing additional incomefor local residents. As Ruffin pointed out, “the money brought by the students ofthe college was almost entirely a foreign supply, and served as an important aid to thesupport of the village, and its adjacent county” (Ruffin 1842). The College also suppliedemployment to area residents.In addition, the function of the College was never solely educational, at least not inthe strict modern academic sense. With the frequent fires and often cramped quarters ofthe 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 theinstitution ran model schools throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries.Finally, throughout its history the College wavered between governmental controland autonomy. With the Revolution the College’s connection with the British Crownwas dissolved, as well as most of its funding, and the new state did not take the schoolunder its wing until the late 19th century. Of course, all the Virginia colleges foundedduring the 18th and 19th century were privately funded. The one exception to this was307

the newly established University of Virginia, to which funds originally intended for theeducation of the indigent were diverted, and Hampton Institute, established by theFreedmen’s Bureau.Several buildings of the College of William and Mary have been investigatedarchaeologically. The Wren Building was the subject of a large-scale investigation byDuell and Ragland in 1930, aimed mainly at architectural description of the buildingand its foundations prior to restoration. Brafferton Hall and the President’s House werealso partially excavated later in that decade, again prior to restoration. Testing has sincebeen 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 utilitytrenches throughout the historic campus.SUB-THEME B: THE STRUGGLE TO PROVIDE PUBLICEDUCATIONIn 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). Lawspassed in 1643 and 1646 also provided for the education of servants and slaves. Charitableschools, sometimes called “old field” schools, were founded by private philanthropistsin 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 18thcenturies. Robert Leightenhouse had a private school in York Parish before 1697 whenSir Francis Nicholson gave 1 1/2 acres for a public school. In 1711, William Stark gaveone-quarter acre for a “public scule to educate children now lying in York-HamptonParish 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 sharedthe 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 ofthe 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 ofWilliam and Mary, admitting students in 1710. The importance of the Grammar Schoolhas often been underestimated and even though the school was sometimes closed itsvalue to the community was significant.In 1705 another school was known to be in operation in Williamsburg. By that yearnine-year-old Matthew Whaley had died. His mother had established a school for himand his friends on the west side of Capitol Landing Road, called Mattey’s School. Uponher death in England in 1742 her will stipulated that the small piece of land which heldMattey’s Schoolhouse and a dwelling for the schoolmaster be given to Bruton Parishfor the carrying on of the school’s operation and the education of the “neediest” in theparish. The poor were to be instructed in “reading, writing and arithmetick.” Unfortunatelylegal technicalities delayed the funds in England until 1865, and it is uncertainhow this school was funded prior to that time.308

Although Williamsburg did not have an official public parish school in the early18th century, enquiries by the Bishop of London concerning the state of educationalfacilities were answered by both Bruton Parish and York-Hampton parish. Their repliesare markedly similar, noting that “Little School(s) to teach to read and write andarithmetick are set up, wherever there happens to be a convenient number ofscholars” (Bullock 1961: 128-129).However, by the second half of the 18th century Williamsburg was well equippedfor the education of scholars. There were at this time schools for nearly every age, sexand race of child. Aside from the Whaley School for the indigent, there was Miss Hallam’sSchool for females, the Brafferton School for Indians, and another school for youngboys in the same building. In addition, there was the Grammar School for older boysand at the College advanced degrees were available for young gentlemen.In 1760 a school for blacks was established in Williamsburg, endowed by a groupof London philanthropists. Mrs. Anne Wager was the first and only teacher of that schoolwho was employed at an annual salary of 30 pounds sterling, a sum that included thecost 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 ofIreland and South Henry Streets and possibly later on Capitol Landing Road.In September of that year the Williamsburg Negro School was opened with 24pupils. Nine years later Robert Nicholas reported to the benefactors that he had increasedthe number of students to 30 and had asked Mrs. Wager to dismiss the dozenwhite students. As that was the last mention of white pupils it can be assumed that forthe next five years only blacks were enrolled.Although there was little problem finding black students there were difficulties inensuring attendance. Slaveowners were willing to send their servants to school but rarelylong enough for any benefits to be gained from an education. Additionally there werecomplaints that the slaveowners all too often were sending only their house servants toteach them manners and needlework. It seems that a large part of this education wasdevoted to religion, and the merest fundamentals of reading and writing. With the deathof Mrs. Wager in 1774 the school was closed (Bullock 1961: 53-61).Three privately run schools for boys in Williamsburg were advertised in the VirginiaGazette in the 18th century and in 1776 a Mrs. Neill announced plans for theopening of a girl’s school. The girls would learn “Reading, Tambour, and other kinds ofNeedle Work”, as well as guitar, and would have the “best masters to teach Dancing andWriting” (Bullock 1961: 115-117).The 19th century was a time of increased interest in school reform and the educationof women became a matter of great concern. The Williamsburg Female Academywas under operation at least by 1805 when it was reported in the Richmond Enquirerthat “Mr. Anderson’s institute for instruction of young ladies enjoys particular advantageof situation.” In 1810, George Blackburn, head of the English department of theAcademy, wrote in the same newspaper:Ten years experience in Virginia and more in other countries, has taught me that females areas capable of acquiring that kind of learning which demands patient investigation as theother sex (Bullock 1961: 135).309

Insurance records from 1851 provide further information concerning theWilliamsburg Female Academy by recording the building of a new “Kitchen” and “MusicHouse” 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 andpainted [and] Warmed by two furnaces. In the Upper story there is a tank to hold about1000 gallons of water.” Both the Kitchen and Music House were of brick covered withwood, and each measured 18 by 22 feet.The interest in the education of women continued into the early 20th century. TheEducation Board of the Norfolk Presbytery chose Williamsburg as its location for aFemale 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 fewyears and was most likely demolished when Matthew Whaley School was moved tothat location in 1929.The number of private schools in Williamsburg to serve the local area is just oneindication of the continuing concern for education of Virginia’s youth. Some schoolswere short lived, others were of a more sustained nature, but few details are known oftheir location, curriculum, or facilities.Some details about local schools can be gained from public census records andother contemporary documents. Joseph Martin’s New and Comprehensive Gazetteer ofVirginia of 1835 reported “a very respectable Female Academy, and 3 other privateschools” (cited in Carson 1961: 99). Statistics regarding schools and literacy were includedin early federal census records. In the 1840 Census, James City County listedone grammar school with 140 scholars and four primary schools with 93 scholars. thisis 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.” Whetherthese queries included literacy among females is not known, but only 29 adults werereported as illiterate in James City County in that year.In the 1850 Census, however, this number was doubled, and another 108 werereported for York County. The 1850 Census gives further information on schooling forthis area as well. In James City County 150 students were listed at colleges, academiesand private schools providing an annual income of $7045. Public schools, in the sensethat term carried at mid-century, enrolled 165 pupils. Thirty-six percent of the whitesbetween 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 anonymousletter from Williamsburg in 1855 reported two female and two male academiescommencing their sessions on October 1 “under favorable auspices” (cited in Carson1961: 107).Virginia legislative acts of 1818 and 1846 provided for the maintenance of schoolsfor the poor. Since the school commissioner of York County petitioned the GeneralAssembly for money due York County schools in 1837, the county must have madesome formal efforts at supporting education (Hopkins 1942: 13). James City Countyand Williamsburg established district free schools under laws of 1839 and 1846. Althoughthey were not extremely successful, their introduction paved the way for theideas 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, bothblack and white. The College of William and Mary was supported as one such trainingschool 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 Boardwas held. One of their first tasks was conducting a local census of children aged 5-21 toascertain if there was justification for a local school. Satisfied that this was the case, theBoard authorized the hiring of three teachers, even though they refused to pay theirsalary, maintaining that compensation was the duty of the state. In addition the boarddecided that schooling for local whites would be divided by the sexes and that theschool 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 bothJames City and York County sent their students to the Williamsburg schools on a tuitionbasis. In the first year of operation, Williamsburg employed three teachers who performedtheir 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 thedescendant of the Matty School of the 18th century and the finally-endowed “Grammarand Matty School” which began in the Brafferton Building in October 1867. The newMattey School, also called the Matthew Whaley School, was built in 1870 out of theoriginal endowment, and this was the building rented by the Williamsburg SchoolBoard (Byrd 1968: 6). A one-story, four room building, it was located on the PalaceGreen, near the site of the Governor’s Palace, and measured 40' × 60'.The number of Williamsburg and surrounding area students quickly outgrew theMattey School and rooms were rented in various homes throughout town. The ArmisteadHouse 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, Williamsburgfinally obtained funds to construct their own schoolhouse. It was located on FrancisStreet (behind the recent Market Square Tavern) and cost under $1000 to build. Thiswas for the instruction of black children. Unfortunately no photographs or drawingsremain of this early structure.Attempts to purchase the Mattey School from the College were unsuccessful andin 1898 another new school opened in Williamsburg for city and county students. Thiswas the Nicholson School, named for the street on which it was built. It contained fourrooms and cost nearly $4000 to build. A directory of Williamsburg in that year estimatedthe average attendance to be 100 students. Also noted in the directory is PublicSchool No. 2, a black primary school with 75 students in a nine month term (WilliamsburgCity Directory 1898:13). The directory also listed “about” nineteen schools in JamesCity County, eleven for white students and eight for black students.Detailed information about early York schools is sketchy, but it is known that eightschools were in existence before 1900. The earliest school was probably located atSeaford, a community which had been an early center of population. The first Seafordschool was a log structure. Located on the site of the current Zion United MethodistChurch, it was replaced a two-room frame structure in 1885.311

Other local 19th-century schools included: Mill Pond, a one-room frame school onGlebe Land about four miles from Felgate’s Creek at Charles Corner, and closed in1921; Springfield, on Penniman Road near Jones Point; Corner Pine School, a one-roomframe 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 BaptistChurch, moved in 1924 to Darby, and demolished in 1978; Grafton School on BrickChurch Road; and Poor House Lane or Farm Road School, built circa 1890, in thevicinity 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 thehistory 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 priorto consolidation, including many schools for black students, such as the York CountyTraining School. A movement had begun for a school for black vocational education in1914 and Dr. Jackson Davis, the state supervisor of Negro education took interest. In1915 a four room frame building was constructed. An old abandoned store was convertedto a domestic science room for girls, and the adjacent lodge hall became a manualarts building. The school was located within a 12,000 acre site purchased by theU.S. Government in 1918 for a Naval Mine Depot; York County received $6000 compensationfor the school.With this $6000, $1600 from the Rosenwald Fund, and $4300 raised by privatedonations, entertainments and solicitations, a six room Rosenwald-type school was built,with an auditorium, office and cloak rooms. A Home Economics cottage was added aswell as a Vocational and Agricultural Shop, and an old one-room school building wasconverted into a science laboratory. This school was the site of several innovative blackeducation 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 TrainingSchool, was constructed in Williamsburg in 1924 for Williamsburg and James CityCounty black students. Its usage was discontinued when Rockefeller purchased the land.Elementary schools built by James City County in 1920 for black students wereCenterville School, a one-story frame building containing grades one through seven intwo 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 betterschooling for their children. They dreamed of a modern school near the C & 0 RailroadDepot in Toano, so students could commute by train from New Kent County, CharlesCity 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 studentsbetween James City County and Richmond.By the 1920s the “one room school” was coming under attack nationally as part ofthe “rural improvement” wave. These old schools were viewed as remnants of the oldorder and consolidation of schools was urged. Plate 6.5 is an example of “An Old Typeof Country School Building” which George Betts criticized in his 1914 book BetterRural Schools. Already, however, consolidated schools such as York County TrainingSchool 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 providingplans and specifications for school buildings. In 1920 the Division of School Buildingswas officially established for this function. Between 1920 and 1946 schools becameincreasingly standardized across the state as counties were required to obtain officialplans for new construction and additions. This ended the local variety evidenced in late19th-century school buildings (McCleary 1985: 32).A statistical abstract on Virginia education was published in 1927, using the 1920Census and other data. It was found that York ranked 37th out of 100 counties in thepercentage of population that was illiterate, and James City County ranked 63rd. In the1925-1926 school year 80.1% of York County’s school age population were enrolled inschool, 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 roomschools, with 40 per cent of James City schools having one room. York County’s one-roomschoolhouses 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, buttheir salaries ranked second. James City County however spent much more to educateits children than other local counties; the per capita cost of education was nearly doublethat of York County at $50.67. James City ranked first in the state for per capita expenditureon education (Gee 1927: 149-153).In 1928 the proposed restoration of Williamsburg was made public and the groundsnear the Palace Green on which the Williamsburg High School (built in 1921) and theMattey School were located were sold to Rockefeller. With the $400,000 obtained theMatthew Whaley School was built in 1930. The first fully accredited high school for314

lack students, Bruton Heights, was constructed in 1940 off the western side of CapitolLanding Road. Funding for it came from federal government sources and a gift of 29acres and $50,000 from John D. Rockefeller. The only condition of the Rockefeller giftwas that the James City Training School site on the corner of Nicholson and BotetourtStreets 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 theBruton Parish district of York County.Racial desegregation of local schools began in 1966, on a voluntary basis, but fewstudents took advantage of the option. In 1969 the School Board mandated integrationand reorganized the division of James Blair, Berkeley, Bruton Heights, Norge, MatthewWhaley, and Rawls Byrd schools. There are now sixteen public elementary and secondaryschools in the study area, as well as a number of private schools, and the College ofWilliam and Mary.SUB-THEME C: ESTABLISHMENT OF INSTITUTIONS FORCONTROL AND TREATMENT OF THE DEVIANT ANDDISPOSSESSED: MENTAL INSTITUTIONS, POORHOUSES,AND PRISONSCare of the Mentally IllPublic health care, and care for the mentally ill have a long tradition on the VirginiaPeninsula. Shomer Zwelling, whose recent study of the Williamsburg Public Hospitalhas uncovered many details about 18th-century health care, notes that until 1766 “theinsane 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 haphazardand 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 leastfour mentally ill persons were imprisoned in the Williamsburg Public Gaol. The establishmentof the Public Hospital in 1766 however, made Williamsburg the site of the firstpublic institution devoted to the care of the mentally ill in colonial North America. Theoriginal building was destroyed by fire in 1864, and another erected on the same site. In1911 it was reported to care for 642 inmates, 338 males and 304 females (Tyler1907: 244).The hospital, now known as the Eastern State Hospital, was moved to its presentlocation in 1965, and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation has recently completed thereconstruction of the first Public Hospital building at its original location.Treatment of the IndigentThe care of the poor in the Virginia colony was based on a institutions and practiceswhich can be traced back to the Middle Ages. Originally, relief of the poor must have315

een a private matter but successive periods of great economic hardship required governmentalintervention to prevent national distress.In the very earliest days of colonization there were no official channels for the careof the poor, and the indigent were either aided by their churches or cared for by localcitizens. The financial burden of subsidizing the poor began to fall increasingly on thelocal vestry, with citizens receiving reimbursement for the cost of room and board forvagrants, elderly, orphans, and infirm persons. For instance in 1658, James Whiting ofYork County petitioned for and received compensation from the vestry for his troubleand expense in looking after a “poore woman” who had died in his home after an illnessof three weeks (Hoffer 1929: 47-50).By 1661 the Virginia government had officially assigned the care of the poor tothe local vestries of the colonial parish churches. Thus the vestries were given civilpower 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 poorpersons to earn their own keep, and they were often bound out as servants. An act waspassed in 1668 to set up poorhouses to teach spinning, weaving, and other trades, but itwas later repealed and the workhouses never constructed.As the population increased in the colonies, the care of the poor became more andmore of a burden to the local parishes. In the first half of the 18th century the colonialgovernment 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 toconstruct almshouses, none had been built by the mid-18th century. Increasing demandsforced several parishes to request this right, including James City County and BrutonParish Church in the City of Williamsburg.Martha McCartney has done extensive research into the Bruton Parish PoorhouseSite (YO60) as part of its National Register Nomination. According to McCartney, onMay 16, 1755 the Minister and Churchwardens of Bruton Parish Church petitioned theHouse of Burgesses for permission to operate “a workhouse, where the Poor might bemore cheaply maintained and usefully employed.” They claimed that the “Charge ofproviding for the Poor of the said Parish hath always been burdensome...and of lateYears hath much increased.”The petition attributed this excessively large number of indigents to “the greatnumber of Idle Persons that resort to the city of Williamsburg... [and] lurk about theTown.” It further claimed that these vagrants came to the city during various PublickTimes and stayed long enough to fulfill the Bruton Parish residence requirements. Thechurch 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 parishesto construct such workhouses, if the so desired. This act provided many specific rulesand granted the church wardens the right to “employ all such poor persons in such workas shall be directed by the said vestry...and to take and apply the benefit of theirlabor...toward their maintenance and support.” Local sheriffs could be ordered to bringall beggars to the nearest poorhouse where they would be put to work for no longer thantwenty 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 policiesof poor relief, at least within the limits of the new law. The effect of this was to alter thestatus of the distressed, adding a social stigma to indigence. All poorhouse inhabitantswere forced to wear a conspicuous colored badge on their sleeve, signalling their degradationto all (McCartney 1983).The terms of the 1755 act remained in effect until the close of the RevolutionaryWar. At that time the separation of Church and State required that the official role of theparish be terminated. The welfare of the poor was then assigned to the incorporatedtowns 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 “theheaviest rate is for the sustenance of the poor. Each house-keeper contributes, for himselfand for each of his negroes above the age of sixteen years, half a dollar for thatpurpose (Rochefoucauld 1797: 27).Not until the early 20th century would the care of the poor come under the aegis ofthe 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 feeblemindedthen, 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 inthe county almshouse” (Virginia State Department of Public Welfare 1926: 15).With the change to a state system of institutionalized welfare those with many ofthe above problems were weeded out. Outdoor relief, or the placing of the poor in homesfor reimbursement, replaced indoor, or almshouse relief, and a “generally improvedsocial life industrially, educationally and otherwise has served to reduce the almshousepopulation 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 recommendedthe closing of some of the smaller institutions and James City and YorkCounties were among the thirty counties who did so. In 1926 York’s poorhouse was notin use but 140 acres valued at $3,500.00 with buildings were listed and the Supervisorof 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. TheBruton Parish Poorhouse Site is located on land controlled by the Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation and represents a unique resource for the study of a largely unknown segmentof colonial population and Virginia’s first attempt to institutionalize welfare forher people. In March of 1985 logging in the environs of the site precipitated emergencymonitoring and surveying activity by the Office of Archaeological Excavation of theColonial Williamsburg Foundation. Priority was given to the accurate demarcation ofspecific site boundaries to minimize damage to the resource (Alexandrowicz 1985: 7-8).On the other hand, the York County Poorhouse, undoubtedly of the post- Revolutionaryperiod, represents a secular attempt to provide for the welfare of the county’sindigent. Little is known about this building but it is recorded through photographs ofthe Virginia Historic Buildings Survey, taken in the 1930s (Plate 6.6). Probably a oneroom structure with side chimney and separate stairs and entrance on the second floorside, this building may have housed men and women, or two individuals. As notedabove its use was discontinued in the early 20th century. It may have been constructedas a result of a petition granted in 1843 for the establishment of a district poor-house for317

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 ChildrenCare of the other less fortunate groups such as orphan children was also of concern tothe colonists. A 1727 law dealt with the binding out for apprenticeship for three distinctgroups of children: poor orphans; children who were not being brought up properly dueto 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 ofvagabonds, the improved raising of dependant children, and relief from the burden ofpublic support (Hoffer 1927: 96-97).Prisons and JailsThe punishment of society’s deviant was another major concern for the colonists. By anact 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 threerooms on the first floor, the two smaller for the confinement of prisoners, and the largerroom, as well as the floor overhead for the use of the jailer and his family. A yard, 20feet square, was enclosed by a ten foot brick wall. The prison itself was unheated, althoughthe jailer’s chambers probably had a chimney.After the removal of the capital to Richmond, the jail was used by Williamsburgand James City County. This use continued until the Civil War when much of the buildingwas torn down, although a portion of it was later rebuilt. This structure has twicebeen investigated archaeologically by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.A debtor’s prison was ordered to be constructed in 1711, on a lot near the othergaol. The act provided that this prison be built of brick, 32 feet by 20 feet. According tolocal tradition, a brick office behind the Greenhow-Repiton House was formerly thedebtor’s prison, although there is no documentary evidence to substantiate this (Plate6.7).SUB-THEME D: THE FOUNDING AND GROWTH OF SERVICEAND FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS DEDICATED TO CHARITYEFFORTThe modern welfare system bears little resemblance to that of the first 200 years ofcolonization. In the early 20th century reform became an issue for public and privategroups and state and federal governments increasingly took responsibility for the welfareof citizens.This change did not go unnoticed. Writing in 1929 the Commissioner of the VirginiaState Department of Public Welfare noted:In the past quarter of a century there has been a veritable revolution in our ideas of thefunctions of a state government. The old concept, that government is best which governs319

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 tomatters... of a purely material and mechanical nature but that it should be concerned primarilywith public welfare and the promotion of happiness (Virginia State Department of Welfare1926).Even as the federal and state governments have taken over the majority of whatwere once private or local concerns, private efforts have continued and in many casesmultiplied. It is impossible to list the many service organizations in the area and evenbrief synopses are beyond the scope of this report, yet several examples may proveuseful in illustrating the important role these groups have had in the care for the localpoor or needy.The church has always felt an obligation for the needy, beginning with the parishconcern for the poor. It is impossible to estimate the role religious organizations haveplayed in public welfare through time, mainly because such efforts are not always formalor publicized.The private papers and diaries of Williamsburg residents do, however, offer glimpsesof the charitable concerns of one group. The King’s Daughters in the early 19th centurysupported 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 thegroup 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, indicatesthat on November 28, 1916 a group visited “the old jail, where this community housesthe coloured paupers” and were appalled by its conditions. “We found things there inthe 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 theKing’s Daughters become formalized as Williamsburg contributed $200 to the King’sDaughters for their role in emergency poor relief and hospitalization for selected tubercularcases 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 noticein the Virginia Gazette that “The ancient and loyal Society of free and acceptedMasons, 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 toattention 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 intown (Kidd 1957: x). British Masonic records do list a Yorktown order at the SwanTavern warranted on 1 August 1755 with 205 members. Its numbers dwindled duringthe second half of the 18th century, decreasing to 119 by 1792, the last recorded date. In1773 an order is recorded for a group called the “Williamsburg Lodge,” beginning with457 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 offeredthe best social life of the men of the community”, it also performed works ofcharity. In 1775, the death of Brother Rind, a printer for the Virginia Gazette provokeda decision to support his children andThat 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 anyagreement by him made for this purpose (Kidd 1957: 36).The minutes continue the discussion of the support of Brother Rind’s childrenuntil 1778. A sermon by the Reverend James Madison near Christmas 1777 furthertouches on the role of the “True Mason”—raising a “lasting monument of worth uponthe 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 thedemise of the Grand Lodge of Virginia in 1780, the membership of the WilliamsburgLodge decreased rapidly and in 1849 only 22 members remained.Little is known about the local Masons in the 19th century although they continuedto meet. In 1849 they rented the “old Lodge Hall,” indicating that it was built in the firsthalf of the century. In 1856 that building was purchased, but in the late 19th centurythey met in other quarters, usually in stores or other buildings. For instance, in 1891they met in Mahone’s Store on the southeast corner of Duke of Gloucester and BotetourtStreets and in 1895 moved to Spencer’s Store on the southeast corner of Duke of321

Gloucester and England Streets. In the early 20th century they attempted to reclaim andrestore the old Masonic Lodge Hall, but it was not possible. A modern reconstructionnow stands on the site of an 18th-century meeting place.Fraternal organizations and service groups played an important role in the privatesector’s concern for the welfare of the less fortunate. The Lion’s Club, for example, wasformed in reaction to the common businessman’s club, often called booster clubs, thatmet solely to promote each other’s business. A need was felt to form a group specificallyto serve the community. Lions International was formed in 1917 and a local chapterbegan on April 21, l934 meeting in the Richard Bland House. Chapters now areactive in Williamsburg, York, Jamestown, and Poquoson.Modern organizations have proliferated and a “Directory of Local Organizationsand Services” produced by the Williamsburg Area Chamber of Commerce containseleven pages of local clubs and organizations. Many of them have a charitable role evenif it is not their primary purpose, and most of them are local chapters of national organizations.SUMMARYThe 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 Englishprecedent, these were usually joint efforts of the state and private institutions, especiallythe Church. With the Revolution and the separation of Church and State, more ofthis responsibility was placed with local governments, but by the early 20th centurywas officially vested in state and federal welfare institutions. Certainly, however, privatecitizens have played a crucial role in ameliorating the conditions of harsh or inadequateinstitutional care.The study area was representative of all these trends, but was special in its earlyrole in formulating policies and establishing institutions. The Williamsburg Public Hospitalwas the fist mental health care facility in Virginia, and through it can be traced theevolution of attitudes and treatment of the mentally ill. The College of William andMary 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 promptedstate legislation that affected the treatment of the poor until the 20th century.STUDY UNIT XXII: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of the Study UnitCertain property types within this study unit are national in significance. These includethe Williamsburg Public Hospital, the Bruton Parish Poorhouse Site, the York PoorhouseSite, and the College of William and Mary. The 18th-century “Negro school” ofWilliamsburg, 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 6.3STUDY UNIT XXII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevNo. Name Type Inv Quad Function ConditionJAMES CITY COUNTY:JC 124 Hickory Neck Church SB II 02 Ecclesiastical GoodU- 15* Toano High School Site AS I 02 School DestroyedYORK COUNTY:YO 60 Bruton Parish Poor House Site AS I 06 Poor house Undisturbed?U- 91* York Poor House AS MR ? Public UnknownU-105* Mill Pond School DB DR ? School UnknownU-106* Springfield School DB DR ? School UnknownU-107* Corner Pine School DB DR ? School UnknownU-108* Grafton School DB DR ? School UnknownU-109* Poor House Farm School DB DR ? School UnknownU-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. LevNo. Name Type Inv Quad Function ConditionU-111* Smithville School DB DR ? School UnknownU-112* Yorktown School DB DR ? School UnknownU-113* Cary Chapel School DB DR ? School UnknownU-114* Bethel School DB DR ? School UnknownU-115* Darbytown/Tabb School DB DR ? School UnknownU-116* Fish Neck (Dare) School DB DR ? School UnknownU-117* Oak Grove School DB DR ? School UnknownU-118* Seaford (Lewisville) School DB DR ? School UnknownU-119* Tampico (Hornsbyville) School DB DR ? School UnknownU-120* York County Training School DB DR ? School UnknownU-121* Dare-Grafton School DB DR ? School UnknownU-122* Goodwin’s Neck School DB DR ? School UnknownU-123* Magruder School DB DR ? School UnknownU-124* Seaford School DB DR ? School UnknownU-125* Yorktown School DB DR ? School UnknownCITY OF POQUOSON:U- 63 Lodge Hall SB I 14 Public GoodCITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:WB 2 Wren Building Extension AS I 06 Unknown UnknownWB 8 President’s House Yard AS I 06 Domestic? UnknownWB 10 Brafferton Cistern AS I 06 Cistern UnknownCW-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 DestroyedU- 50* Miss Gibbie’s School DB I 06 School DestroyedU- 54* James City County Training DB I 06 School DestroyedSchoolU- 55* Bruton Heights School SB I 06 School GoodU- 57* Odd Fellows Lounge DB I 06 School/public DestroyedU-100* Masonic Lodge SB I 06 Public GoodU-126* Miss Hallam’s School for DB DR 06 School UnknownFemalesU-127* “Negro School” DB DR 06 School UnknownU-128* Williamsburg Female School DB DR 06 School UnknownU-129* Nicholson School DB DR 06 School UnknownU-130* Williamsburg High School DB DR 06 School UnknownU-131* Matthew Whaley School SB DR 06 School UnknownU-132* Williamsburg Female Seminary DB DR 06 School UnknownU-133* William and Mary Academy DB DR 06 School Unknown324

Summary of Property Types(1) Major institutions of learning. The College of William and Mary has had amajor role in the area’s development since the 18th century.(2) Private schools. Often located in private residences in the 18th century, specialbuildings were often constructed in the 19th century. There seems to havebeen a higher density of these schools within the City of Williamsburg. Sixteenprivate schools have been documented prior to 1900.(3) Public schools. At least 28 schools were scattered throughout the area prior to1900, often found in more densely occupied areas. By the 1920s one-roomschools were increasingly being replaced by new consolidated schools.(4) Institutions for social control. Insane asylums, poorhouses, workhouses andprisons, as well as local residences used for these functions were found throughoutthe study area.(5) Fraternal and service organizations. Even though some larger fraternal ordershad their own meeting halls, most met in semi-public buildings and privateresidences.(6) Public works projects. Perhaps the least information has been culled for thesebuildings and structures, even though a Civilian Conservation Corps camp isknown to have existed in York County.Character of Existing DataResearch biases are strongly in favor of the institutions of higher learning, and otherearly historical sites. Information on specific early schools is scattered through localpublications and oral histories of the various localities, as well as in federal and staterecords.The level of knowledge of the early public schools of York County, James CityCounty and Williamsburg varies. Both York and James City County/ Williamsburg (combined)school districts have brief written histories of the schools of their area. OnlyYork County, however, provides information on locations of these early schools, dividingtheir discussion into three classes or “generations.” As of 1983, only three pre-1900schools 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 integratedinto other consolidated school buildings. Little is known of the early rural James CityCounty schools.Private schools are well-represented in the documentary record. The number andrange 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 noattempt has been made to determine the locations or appearances of these early buildings.Criteria for EvaluationNational 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 broadpatterns of history, and Criterion D, representing potential historical information, aremost applicable. Criteria B and C may be applicable in certain cases, including dwellingsof persons important to local, state, or national history, or structures embodying aspecific style or period of construction, such as a one-room school building constructedfollowing early state guidelines. Integrity evaluates the ability of a property to answerthe research questions related to its significance. The National Register outlines sevenways 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 specificsites. This is an important consideration for at least one property type in this studyunit. Schools are an integral part of many memories and local citizens are anxious topreserve 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 itsdemolition. It may even be said that it has taken on a symbolic meaning for a segment ofthe community and bumper stickers proclaim “Save Bruton Heights.”In a recent letter to the editor of the Virginia Gazette, Hattie J. Sasser criticized theopinions of architects that urged the demolition of Bruton Heights and the building of anew 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 animportant 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 certainlysignificant to the local constituency and should be evaluated on that basis.Present Condition of Property TypesIn general, the property types can be divided into two categories: those that are notgenerally threatened, such as the College of William and Mary, and those which havelittle or no protection, such as one-room school buildings.Little impact on the 18th- and 19th-century structures of the College of Williamand Mary is anticipated. However, any future building on the college grounds will undoubtedlydisturb earlier features. Detailed archaeological investigation is strongly recommendedin those areas.Graduate students from the Department of Anthropology at the College have previouslyvolunteered 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 thereany policy for alerting the Anthropology or History Departments in advance of suchactivity. Such a policy is recommended.The Public Hospital has been extensively excavated by the Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation and an interpretive reconstruction has been completed. Future archaeologymay be possible in any undisturbed areas.326

The Bruton Parish Poorhouse Site is located on land controlled by the ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation. Even though it is a National Register site, it is currentlycritically threatened by logging activity.Other sites are less well known. For instance, it seems that the York County Poorhousewas still standing until its destruction in the late 1970s, and its status as an archaeologicalsite is unknown. Similarly, many schools have been documented but theirexact location or status is not generally known.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesThe range of property types in this study unit can be divided into several categories andlevels. One category is comprised of unique sites for each property type, such as theWilliamsburg Public Hospital, while the other group includes more generic propertytypes such as 19th-century or modern schools. The latter group is generally only minimallyknown.Identification Goals• Compilation of data (number, types, and general histories of structures) on publicschools through the records of local school boards, oral history, federal and staterecords, and architectural survey of those remaining structures, particularly oneroom, two- to three-room graded schools, and early consolidated schools. Strongpublic involvement is highly recommended and may be accomplished through localschool boards, PTAs, and other constituencies.• Documentary study of private education to determine the nature and location of18th- and 19th-century schools (prior to widespread state-supported public education).The historical context is briefly sketched, but it is necessary to focus attentionon the locations of these early efforts at education and their current status.Particular attention should be paid to the 18th-century school for blacks inWilliamsburg.• Phase I survey to evaluate the condition of the York County Poor Farm and itsvarious components.• Thorough study of Bruton Heights School and the methods possible to guaranteeits preservation.• Field check of Civilian Conservation Corps camp on Cook Road in York County.Evaluation GoalsSome goals for evaluation are listed below. Each of these goals are based on the historicalcontexts provided in the narratives, but also seek to establish the specific meaning ofNational Register criteria—such as integrity or associations—as they apply to theseproperty 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 the18th-century black school in Williamsburg.327

• Physical survey of York County Poor Farm to develop a model of the growth andorganization of county-supported poor relief, particularly as a comparison to thechurch-supported 18th century institution. This should include sub-surface testing.• Evaluation of York County Training School as a possible candidate for NationalRegister nomination. Built in 1915, it was a model vocational and educationalschool for blacks, and offered a course in “Negro History” in 1934, long before thedays of heightened black consciousness.Registration Goals• Nomination to the National Register of the York County Poorhouse Site (pendingfurther investigation and evaluation). In association with this property was thePoor House Lane School, built circa 1890, and also possibly eligible for nomination.• A thematic nomination to the National Register (pending further evaluation) of allprivate education sites and structures prior to state-supported schools begun in1870.Treatment GoalsThe 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 forpreservation, documentation, and/or study. If documentation or salvage is the only possiblecourse of action for a resource then several basic steps must be carried out. Theseinclude a minimal assignment to a property type and study unit, and extensive documentationprior to loss, including photographs, drawings, measurements, boundaries,and artifactual descriptions. This documentation should also seek to provide informationfor the goals of evaluation as listed above. Specific treatment goals include:• Preservation of remaining extant one-room schools. If it is not possible to preservethem in their original authentic context, re-use as domestic residences such as hasproven effective in York County may be feasible.• Preservation of Bruton Parish Poorhouse from current threat. The ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation is strongly urged to fund and staff a thorough examinationof 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 Tidewatersociety.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 LocalPerhaps no other area of the United States has been so directly affected by militaryevents, 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 andsocial organization quasi-military. Indeed, 17th-century Virginia was in many senses amilitary outpost. In only the first 70 years of its history, the Tidewater was the scene oftwo major Indian wars and a colonial rebellion. Imperial wars, on the seas with theDutch in the 17th century, and on land and sea with the Spanish and French in the 18thcentury, were primary forces that, while they did not produce actual fighting in theregion, did shape the nature of the colonial economy. If the “invasion” of Virginia by17th-century Europeans led to a permanent “occupation” of the country by Englishmen,the 18th and 19th centuries produced invasions by occupations of outside forces, bothfriendly and hostile.The Revolution brought French and British troops to the climatic battle of thatstruggle, while the Civil War saw an almost immediate conquest of the Peninsula byUnion 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 ofreadiness for war. Fortifications, bases, and equipment for every era, including reconstructedbattlefields, 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 thesepermanent installations has skewed the local economy, supporting heavy industry onthe Lower Peninsula as Virginia’s major contribution to the American military-industrialcomplex and service industries elsewhere that are largely dependent upon the hugemilitary population. The military bases have also altered demographic patterns, providing(for example) the catalyst for the creation of communities of black workers dependentupon jobs on Army and Navy bases during the era of World War II. In short, thecharacter of Tidewater society and culture has been in many ways shaped by continuousmilitary presence.The outcome of the military events in the Peninsula significantly affected the entirenation. More than once, the resources of colonial powers and the United States havebeen focused on this Peninsula due to its strategic importance.329

Lying between two rivers of commerce, the Peninsula also fronts on the ChesapeakeBay, giving it a position of maritime importance. From the 17th century up to thepresent, 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 defensiveefforts against the Indians, Spanish, Dutch, and Nathaniel Bacon’s Rebels. Duringthe 18th century, Williamsburg was the colonial capital and became a place of munitionsstorage during the Revolutionary War. In the Civil War, the capture of Richmondwas the major objective for the Union forces and the Peninsula quickly became a battlegroundon which to achieve it. Currently, the Peninsula and Norfolk guard the waterwayto Washington D.C. and have become centers for military bases andmanufacturing. Clearly, the military activity in the study area has been and continues tobe significant on the national level.Official state records are, not surprisingly, a major source of documentation of pastmilitary activity. For the 17th century, several references to warfare can be found inthese sources: Hening (1809), Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts,1652-1781 (1875), Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial VirginIa (1925), Minutesof the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia (1979), and McIlwaine(1915). Unfortunately sources for military activity during this period are scattered andrequire time and patience to use.Government records are again the major source of documentation of warfare forthe 18th century. Aside from the references listed above, the compilation of documentsby Van Schreeven (1973) can prove valuable. Contemporary newspapers such as theVirginia Gazette also provide additional bits of information. Many officers kept journalsduring this period and these too prove to be helpful sources. After the war, it appearsthat every major officer wrote his memoirs for publication. Among the best knownare by Jean Baptiste Rochambeau (1838), Charles Cornwallis (1866), and the Marquisde Lafayette (1837).The publication of memoirs by army commanders continued into the 19thcentury. After the Civil War, the majority of the well-known commanders for both sidespublished their stories, full of recriminations and speculations of altered courses ofevents. The increased rate of literacy by time of the Civil War enabled the common footsoldier to maintain a correspondence with his family, which provides additional insightinto the war. A large collection of government records is compiled in The Official Recordsof the Union and Confederate Armies, 1861-1865 (1891).Records concerning military bases on the Peninsula during the 20th century arenot readily available. The best sources of information on current bases are recent newspaperarticles and living informants.Most traditional military historical works focus on the drama and tragedy of thecampaign and battlefield. Histories of military units and places generally serve to showwhat role these components played in the overall saga of war. The principal playersseem to be the commanders and unit officers, less often the common soldier. The personalitiesof the officers affect the outcome of the campaign. Often in these narrativesthe mass of soldiers become mere reflections of the commander’s will and their corporateidentity 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 as330

“Patton’s Division.” This bias is not solely the responsibility of historians, but is reflectedin the primary sources as well.Unfortunately, documents relating the conditions of civilian life during wartimelife and social life in the military before the Civil War are scarce. This is extremelysignificant when one considers the high proportion of the population that served in themilitary and the possible lasting effects the service could have on them. Also ignored isthe impact of military activity on civilians. Undoubtedly, the massive destruction ofwarfare altered houses, land, environment, family structure, and way of life. When oneconsiders the convulsions and changes a society undergoes during warfare, the lack ofhistorical treatment of this theme is surprising.Also surprising is the lack of archaeological investigation of military sites, althougha few have been well researched. For the 17th century, for example, Ivor NoëlHume 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, healso found a cache of arms and armour; similar caches have been discovered at theHelmet site (JC4) and at “The Maine” (JC41).Aside from weapons and fortress-related features, it would be difficult to distinguishthe “military” from the “civilian” in the 17th century. Louis Caywood found littleat Green Spring, a long-term camp of Bacon’s rebels, for example, to denote militaryactivity (Caywood 1955). References occur in the primary sources to a fort in theYorktown area (McCartney 1985), but little else is known about it, and no likely remainshave been identified.The 18th century is better represented archaeologically. Other than the PowderMagazine (CW-12A&B) (Plate 6.8) and James Anderson Forges (CW-10A, E&G) atWilliamsburg, most of the archaeology of this period has been undertaken at Yorktown.For the purpose of restoration, the National Park Service has conducted excavations atthe battlefield from the 1930s into the 1970s. Norman Barka excavated the siegeworksof 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 FrenchBattery of the First Parallel, the Main Siege Line, American Redoubt #2, the communicationtrenches, and the mid-section of the Second Parallel. He found several artifactsthat yielded information about military life during the 18th century and a distributionpattern of artillery shell and shot. Since the accounts of contemporary journals, especiallythose of the French engineers, offer little detail on the siege, Barka concluded thatit was a conventional siege for the time (Barka 1976).Very little archaeology of any substance has been done for the period of the 19thand 20th centuries. The National Park Service has excavated some Union siege lines atYorktown. 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 YorktownBeach but found little (Sands 1983). The Rangers at Newport News Municipal Parkmay have collected military artifacts at Lee’s Mill, but again no written report has beenreleased 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 ACTIVITYAs suggested above, 17th-century settlements on the Peninsula were quasi-military inform and function, and the distribution of towns and hundreds coincided with the spreadof fortified European sites into the interior. These fortifications, designed for protectionboth from marauders from the sea and the Indians surrounding them, proved inadequateto defend the English colonists against the Indian offensives of 1622 and 1644. Afterthat date, the influx of English settlers and a deliberate policy of genocide towards theremaining Powhatan resulted in the establishment of an almost Indian-free zone on theLower Peninsula, guarded by a line of fortresses and checkpoints at Fort Royall on thePamunkey River, Fort Charles on the James, Fort Henry on the Appomattox, and FortJames on the Chickahominy (McCartney 1984: 104-105). Other checkpoints were establishedat Shirley Plantation further up the James, and at Chiskiack, within the studyarea.In order to combat the Indian threat, the English settlers organized themselvesinto groups of militia by county of residence. According to John Smith, most Virginianshad a gun, body armour, and some sort of sword. The militia drilled every Holy-day andweapons were carried everywhere, even to church (Shea 1981).The English believed that an active offense was the best way to “defend” againstthe Indian threat. A punitive expedition was organized at Chiskiack, to answer the April1644 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 sailedup the York and conducted a “feedfight,” a standard tactic which destroyed native cropsand 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 nearbyland granted to the garrison (Shea 1983). This defensive line was the nucleus of thesettlement at Middle Plantation.The English Virginians also faced a threat from the Spanish and Dutch attacksfrom the sea. For maritime defense during the Anglo-Dutch wars of the 1660s, merchantships were periodically formed into convoys, as at Gloucester Point. For additionalprotection, a battery was also erected at Gloucester Point, and probably a correspondingone 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 merchantmanand burning an English warship. In response, Governor Berkeley embarked900 militiamen on nine ships in the York River, but failed to engage the Dutch (Shea1983).The next threat came from within. In 1676, a group of dissatisfied colonists followingNathaniel Bacon annihilated several villages of non-hostile Appamatuck,Chickahominy, and Pamunkey. Moving east with 800 rebellious militiamen, NathanielBacon attacked Governor Berkeley at Jamestown later that year. Berkeley’s forces failedin their attempt to fortify the neck of land that connected the island with The Maine andceded to Bacon’s demands. Berkeley fled to the Eastern Shore but later returned tooccupy Jamestown in force. Bacon attacked again, this time successfully barricadingthe area where the neck of land joins The Maine.A sally party emerged from Jamestown and tried to take this position, but it wasbeaten back and Berkeley fled again. Bacon reoccupied Jamestown, this time burningit. Moving up the Peninsula to Otho Thorpe’s house at Middle Plantation, Bacon’s rebelsswore an oath of loyalty to him (Washburn 1957). The rebels concentrated their forcesat West Point and stationed 1300 men at Green Spring, where Bacon succumbed to afatal illness. After Bacon’s death, Berkeley stepped up waterborne attacks and capturedseveral of the rebels on one such attack at the Yorktown Bluffs. Eventually, Berkeleyreduced Bacon’s remaining forces this way, and the rebellion slowed to a halt (Shea1983). At its close, most of the rebel leaders were executed at Middle Plantation orKing’s Creek House (Carson 1976).British troops and munitions arrived after much of the fighting and were sent backhome. One hundred remained to guard the artillery and specialized gear being stored atthe Magazine at Middle Plantation. They mutinied in 1682 and these men were senthome. 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 ACTIVITYFor nearly a century after Bacon’s Rebellion, little military activity took place on thePeninsula. However, the area remained in readiness and structures such as the PowderMagazine in Williamsburg were erected (see Plate 6.8). Most of the 18th- century conflictsflared up in border or frontier areas away from the heart of the colony. Althoughthe strategy for the Seven Years’ War for the Virginia territories may have been formulatedin 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 ChesapeakeBay or on the Atlantic Coast.However, with the coming of the Revolution, the Peninsula became an importantstrategic battleground. In 1775, John Murray, the Fourth Earl of Dunmore and Governorof Virginia, tried to rally Loyalists at Williamsburg. He failed, leaving the area on aBritish frigate. The House of Delegates successfully convinced Brigadier General CharlesScott 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 establisheda trans-peninsula defense line, an echo of the 1633 palisade and a precursor of the 1862Confederate Defense line.Williamsburg was not the site of a battle in this war, but the surrounding countrywas subject to British raids and skirmishes (see Plate 6.9). In 1780, Benedict Arnoldand his men attempted to land at Burwell’s Ferry but were repulsed by the militia underColonel Nathaniel Burwell and James Innes. From the York River, Lieutenant ColonelDundas and 300 British soldiers navigated the Back River in small boats, capturing asloop and sinking another. On land they destroyed 70 muskets and captured cattle, butencountered the Elizabeth City Militia under Colonel William Roscow Wilson Curle atRace Path (near Big Bethel?) who drove them off toward Newport News.In April 1781, Major General Phillips led the Queen’s Rangers, Hessians, andArnold’s American Legion up the James River to plunder American stores. They landedand brushed aside the militia at Burwell’s Ferry before moving on to Ruffin’s Ferry. Themilitia under Innes had already transferred their supplies to Allen’s Ordinary, inpresent-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 Countyto Williamsburg. Hessians and the Queen’s Rangers performed rear-guard duty to slowthe advance of the Continentals under Lafayette. At Diascund Bridge, the Hessiansplundered warehouses and burned Cooper’s Mill, and repaired the bridge with the scraplumber this generated. However, after the party crossed the bridge, they again destroyedit. The rear guard was surprised by a forward detachment of Lafayette’s men while theywere camping at Spencer’s Ordinary, now Centreville. The Queen’s Rangers and Hessianssuccessfully drove off the Continentals in the battle, and barricaded the road toWilliamsburg. 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 residentsto complain about the biting flies that followed the army. When the British evacuatedthe Peninsula from Jamestown, they camped between the James River and PowhatanCreek. In order to stop Lafayette’s pursuit, Cornwallis hid his army along PowhatanCreek 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 nearChickahominy 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, establishinga camp on the western point by the creek’s mouth. Most of the Allied Army camped atWilliamsburg. When approaching the British at Yorktown, the Allied army divided atthe Halfway House and invested in a formal siege around the town. Washington’s suppliesand heavy artillery landed at Trebell’s Landing, near Carter’s Grove. The history334

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 notbe repeated here. However, before the British occupied Yorktown, the militia had erectedsome sort of a defense there, since Simcoe and his Queen’s Rangers are reported to havecaptured several artillery pieces and burned down their barracks at Yorktown in a 1781raid. The militia occupied the strategic points of both Yorktown and Jamestown withrotating garrisons throughout most of the war (Riley 1949; Hatch 1942).In a naval defense of Yorktown, the British ships Charon and Guadaloupe shelledthe French land forces on the Old Williamsburg Road approach to the town. The Britishconverted the Vulcan into a fireship and unsuccessfully sent it at the blockading Frenchfleet. Five more ships were converted into fireships and chained together in order toimpede the French fleet’s advance. A variety of British ships were then scuttled aroundYorktown (see Plate 6.10) to either discourage enemy ships from entering the harbor orto keep them from going into enemy hands (Sands 1983).During the Revolution, a shipyard was established by Virginia on the ChickahominyRiver in a sheltered location with plentiful trees for lumber nearby. The Navy Boardpurchased 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 businessmatters of the shipyard; when the free laborers demanded higher pay, the Board resortedto buying slaves. The ship Thetis and the brig Jefferson were both constructed atthe Chickahominy Shipyard (Middleton 1981). But the shipyard had a short life; in1781, the British army embarked at Barrett’s Ferry and destroyed the shipyard alongwith the naval supplies at Diascund Bridge. The ship Thetis fired a few rounds at the335

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 Britishon the James River at Osborn’s Wharf (Ewald 1781).SUB-THEME C: 19th-CENTURY MILITARY ACTIVITYIn 1807, the British ship HMS Leopard attacked the U.S.S. Chesapeake off the coast ofVirginia. The incident sparked war fever through the state and rioting in Hampton. FourBritish ships were blockaded in the harbor of Norfolk and militia units were raised forGovernor Cabell, but the tense situation was eventually defused (Gaines 1956). A fewyears earlier, the “XYZ Affair” created a national emergency in which militia unitswere also drawn up (Gaines 1948).Open conflict did occur in June of 1813 when the British Navy under Admiral SirJohn Borlase Warren invaded Hampton after being repulsed at Craney Island by themilitia. 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 Monroewas constructed in 1819 (Rouse 1968). During the War of 1812, British ships controlledthe Chesapeake and frequently raided the coast. In this conflict as others, the slavepopulation became restless. In 1814, Vice-Admiral Cochrane decreed that slaves couldemigrate to other British lands; therefore slaves often stole boats and escaped to Britishcruisers. 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 Americanprivateer. Aside from “underground” assistance, a number of blacks joined the BritishArmy and formed a Marine unit. The unexpected resistance of the slaves during the Warof 1812 meant that Virginia fought a war on two fronts, one with the British and anotherwith the slaves (Cassell 1972). A similar pattern occurred during Bacon’s Rebellion, theRevolutionary War, and the Civil War.SUB-THEME D: THE CIVIL WARBy the end of 1861, General George McClellan of the Union Army planned to takeRichmond by marching up through the Peninsula. In preparation, the Union Army establisheda fortified base at Camp Butler in Newport News. In June of 1861, the UnionArmy attacked the entrenched North Carolinians at Big Bethel Church, then in lowerYork County, but failed to dislodge them.The Confederates, under General Magruder, constructed defense lines across thePeninsula to halt or delay the Union advance. Three systems of earthworks were builtwith slave labor, and were situated to maximize the protection offered from cross-cuttingstreams. The first stretched from Harwood’s Mill on the Poquoson River to Young’sMill on Deep Creek, but left only three miles of solid ground on which the Union couldapproach them (see Plate 6.11).The second defense line anchored at refortified Yorktown, ran up Yorktown Creekover to the headwaters of the Warwick River, following it down to the James River byFort Crafford on Mulberry Island. Along this waterway, dams were built in addition tothe mill dams already present to provide moat-like protection to the defenses. Two roadsextended up the Peninsula and intersected these fortifications. The first was at Lee’sMill 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 Creekwith Queens Creek. Fourteen redoubts were built on this line, and the largest, FortMagruder, blocked off the major road into Williamsburg and the Upper Peninsula.The Confederates withdrew from the first line due to the lack of manpower neededto hold it against the larger Union force. When the Union Army probed up to the secondline, they found it well-manned and fortified. The army failed to dislodge the Confederateforces at Lee’s Mill, so McClellan settled in for a full scale siege of Yorktown. Theentrenchments of his army were neat and well-constructed (see Plate 6.12). OnceMcClellan had eight mortars and other heavy artillery in place, the Confederates quietlywithdrew, their relatively bloodless stand costing McClellan a 30-day delay. When theFederals 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 mainarmy. The Federals attacked May 5, 1862, after the ground (and soldiers) were soakedby a month-long rain. All supplies, and therefore army movement, was bogged down inmud. 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 ofWilliam and Mary and at Bruton Parish Church. The Federals transported their woundedto Fortress Monroe and to Yorktown through Capitol Landing (Kettenburg 1980).The strategic importance of this area can easily be seen by the reoccurring attemptsto invade and defend it. The trans-peninsula defense line was rebuilt severaltimes throughout the 300 years of this area’s historic occupation. It was first erected in1633 for protection against Native Americans, and rebuilt in 1779 around Williamsburgfor defense against the British. In 1862, new attempts were made to fortify the areawhen 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 andMap 6.3).The locations of certain Civil War sites can be gleaned from military maps anddocuments (Plate 6.12). Big Bethel Church in Tabb was the scene of the first fighting ofthe area. Most of the site is underwater today save for a few monuments and graves. Inthe first defense line, several Confederate entrenchments protected Harwood’s Mill andMrs. Cheeseman’s House near Harpersville Road, which is just out of the study area.Earthworks protected every main intersection along the “Old Stage Road” connectingHarwood’s Mill and Yorktown, now replaced by Route 17. Some sort of defensive workwas placed at most strategic transportation points as well. A Confederate work wasplaced on Ship’s Point on the Poquoson, another on Selby Point on the York River, andyet another at a narrow passage on Crab Neck. The Federals found deserted barracks onthe west side of Harwood’s Mill Pond, and another south of Wormley’s Creek, whichincluded a fort.The second line was fortified more heavily. A strong system of trenches can stillbe 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. Barrackswere also a part of the Wynn’s Mill trench system. The “White” and the “Red” Redoubtsguarded Gooseley Road near Yorktown. This Confederate military complex includedlog 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 Warphotographs. Soldiers intentionally cut down all the vegetation around their defenses toavoid giving an attacking enemy any cover, and they also obstructed roads and approachesto impede any attack. As in the Revolutionary War, wood was the basic buildingmaterial for military shelter and other engineering projects. Therefore, the extensivetimber cutting by the military during the war had a profound effect on the landscape andpossibly produced soil erosion.Yorktown was the focal point of military activity at the time of the PeninsularCampaign. During the siege, the area around Wormley’s Creek was heavily occupiedby the Federals. Photographs survive the Civil War and yield information about themilitary complexes; the battery of eight mortars stationed off Wormley’s Creek appearsin one photograph (Davis 1982). Photographs also show an entrenched battery servicedby a barge for ammunition. The crew was living in a buried shelter to be safe of incomingshells (see Plate 6.13). The areas west of the main body of Wormley’s Creek andbetween its tributaries were the locations of the main camps of the Federal Army. Thewaters of the creek were spanned by several pontoon bridges. Frequently, at a permanentcamp such as this, soldiers built log cabins for shelter, especially if they campedfor 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 a340

Plate 6.13. Mortar Battery and Barge on Wormley’s Creek.library with them. Freed slaves followed the Army and worked as servants (see Plate6.14). Fort Butler at Newport News had so many slaves gathering there that a shantytown went up on its outskirts. It is probable then that quarters for servants still survivearchaeologically at Yorktown.Inside Yorktown, the Confederates used sandbags and cotton bales to strengthentheir walls. Cornwallis’ Cave served as a magazine. When the Union Army occupiedYorktown, they used it as a supply depot for the rest of the war (Sands 1973). Severalphotographs survive (see Plate 6.15) that show rows of artillery shells, field pieces, andmortars 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 redoubtscan still be seen today at Tutter’s Neck Pond and at the Fort Magruder Inn. Someof the remains of Fort Magruder still survive at the intersection of Penniman and Queen’sCreek Roads.SUB-THEME E: 20th-CENTURY MILITARY BASESThroughout the 20th century, military bases have been established and have grown todominate the Peninsula region. The latest series of topographical maps document theamount 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 waveof construction of military bases and defense plants. By 1916, the DuPont Corporationbuilt and operated a munitions factory by Penniman Spit. The factory drew 10,000 peopleto the area, who flooded the stores of Williamsburg (Rouse 1973). Most of these workerslived in the “city of Penniman,” a shanty town built of cardboard and other materials341

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 situationonly 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 Plate6.16) to be devoted to the testing and storing of mines during the First World War (Clingan1961). The costs of the initial construction totalled almost three million dollars and thecomplex included a mine loading plant, ten magazines, five storage buildings for mines,barracks, a mess building, administration buildings, a pier, a power plant, a machineshop, and a railroad. Part of Old Williamsburg Road, or State Route 238, was closed offin 1920 as part of the enclosure. At the same time, the administration buildings andOfficer’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 thebase 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 personneland 2300 civilians (including 545 women) worked at the base. During the height ofactivity, the base expanded and closed off a section of the Colonial Parkway for ammunitionstorage. Late one night in 1942, a crew was loading torpedoes when the ammunitionin their work area exploded. All of the crew died, but the damage was contained. Itis 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 toa complement of 2400 in 1968, about one-sixth of which were women. In 1958 thename 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’sCreek. This site was chosen for the Mine Warfare School in 1940, but transferred to theCoast Guard in 1959. Presently, the Coast Guard operates eight schools at this site,training 1100 students, including regulars, auxiliary personnel, people from other Federalagencies, foreign military, and other branches of the Armed Forces. The Officer’sCandidate School, the Boatswain’s Mate School, the Engineering School, Leadershipand Management School, Marine Safety School, Marine Science Technician School,and the Marine Law Enforcement School require the services of 450 military personneland 80 civilians (Anonymous 1985).Fort Eustis, which sits just outside of the study area in Warwick County, occupiesMulberry Island and the surrounding area. It was named in 1923 and later housed convicted“bootleggers” during Prohibition and POWs during the Second World War. Justup the James River was Camp Wallace, used to train Coastal Artillery crews and housinga Balloon Observation School. Today Fort Eustis is the site of the U.S. Army TransportationCenter, the U.S. Army Transportation and Aviation Logistics School, and the7th Transportation Group. Currently posted with 9500 military personnel and 3000 civilians,Fort Eustis is a small city with its own shopping center, restaurants, andlibraries (Anonymous 1985).344

Over the remains of the city of Penniman, the Navy’s Cheatham Annex was constructedin 1943 to store military hardware and supplies. Aside from acres filled withmilitary hardware, the Annex also operates 18 huge warehouses covering 2,500,000square feet. The Annex stores food and supplies for the Navy around the world, includingequipment for sale to foreign countries. About half of the staff of 450 are housedoff-base, even though the base is equipped with its own power plant, sewer plant, autoshop, theatre, and bowling alley. Although situated next to the Yorktown Naval WeaponsStation, the Annex has no official connection to it (Anonymous 1980).Also established by the U.S. Navy during the Second World War, Camp Peary wasused as a base to train Seabees until 1944, when it became the Naval Training andDistribution Center. Camp Peary also housed German POWs during the war. In 1951,its name was changed to “Armed Forces Experimental Training Activity” and is nowrun by the Central Intelligence Agency (Anonymous 1980). The College of William andMary was and still is used to train officers for the army. In the First World War, soldierscamped on College grounds.All of this military build-up has had its effect on the local communities. The establishmentof the Yorktown Mine Depot, the largest Navy base at the time, displacedseveral communities, some of which were re-established at Grove. When Camp Pearywas constructed, the entire community of Magruder was displaced, and many againresettled 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 inthis region. The U.S. Navy, approving of the deep channel and self-cleaning propertiesof the York River, established its base along the river in York County. The U.S. Armychose the area around Mulberry Island on the James River. Many of the retiring officersfrom these bases remain in the Williamsburg area, thus reinforcing the military characterin the study area.SUB-THEME F: MILITARY-ORIENTED INDUSTRIESDuring the 17th century, most craft activities were so generalized that it is difficult todefine a military-oriented industry for this period. Jamestown did have at least onegunsmith from 1620 onward. No armourer worked at Jamestown, however; most armourwas imported as outdated cast-offs from the Tower of London.Cottage industries, such as the home manufacturing of cloth, were seen as patrioticduring the Revolution. The processing of linen was also important to the war effort.Operated in 1776 by John Crawford, the Williamsburg Manufactory employed spinnersand weavers in factories and in their homes. The factory produced sail duck for theVirginia Navy (Herndon 1966). Rope was another highly-desired commodity for shipsduring the war. In 1776, the Public Rope Walk moved from Norfolk to Warwick Countyand supplied the Chickahominy Shipyard. Another rope walk was operated at Yorktownby William Reynolds in 1777. It is also known that ships were refitted there, so it islikely that other naval suppliers were located at Yorktown (Herndon 1966). James Andersonwas the public armourer at Williamsburg during the first part of the Revolution. Athis 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 19thcentury, but it is likely that local industries such as lumber mills or tanneries producedgoods 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 themilitary is a thriving business in Newport News and employs many people in YorkCounty.STUDY UNIT XXIII: OPERATING PLANIntroductory DiscussionSignificance of Study UnitNational, Regional, and Local. The series of military events that occurred on the Peninsulaare significant on all levels: local, regional, national and even international. Asdiscussed in the narrative, the strategic importance of the Peninsula often placed it inthe midst of both invading and defending forces. Several nationally-recognized individualswere involved in the military activity on the Peninsula, including NathanielMap 6.3. Study Unit XXIII: Known Resource Distribution.346

TABLE 6.4STUDY UNIT XXIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevNo. Name Type Inv Quad Function ConditionJAMES CITY COUNTY:JC 4 Helmet Site AS III 09 Trash pits Excavated?JC 9 Green Spring Plantation AS III 05 Plantation ExcavatedJC 14 Shipyard Landing AS I 05 ?/shipyard P.destroyedJC 15 Shipyard Landing AS I 05 Unknown UnknownJC 30 None AS I 09 Earthworks/ Preservedshell middenJC 40 Burwell’s Landing AS III 09 Plantation? ExcavatedJC 41 The Maine (GL-12, -13) AS III 08 Ossuary/dom./ Exc./p.pres.cemeteryJC 50 Chickahominy Shipyard Wreck AS I 04 Shipwreck ThreatenedJC 115 Wolstenholme Towne (Carter’s AS III 09 Fortified ExcavatedGrove, Site C)villageJC 126 None AS I 05 Earthworks UnknownJC 135 None AS I 05 Camp/dom./ Cult./p.dest.militaryJC 136 None AS I 05 Camp/dom./ Cult./p.dest.militaryJC 186 Shellfield Plantation AS MR 06 Plantation UnknownJC 244 Battery AS MR 09 Battery UnknownJC 245 Battery AS MR 09 Battery UnknownJC 247 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown47- 9 Jamestown Island AS III 08 Town ProtectedU- 25 New Magazine Site AS I 06 Military Destroyed?YORK COUNTY:YO 12 Cornwallis Cave Shipwreck AS I 10 Shipwreck ThreatenedYO 47 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 6YO 49 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 7YO 50 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 8YO 51 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 9YO 52 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 10YO 53 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 11YO 54 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 14YO 71 Back Creek Location # 1 AS I 11 Earthworks UnknownYO 85 None AS I 10 Shipwreck ThreatenedYO 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. LevNo. Name Type Inv Quad Function ConditionYO 88 None AS III 10 Shipwreck UnknownYO 89 None AS I 10 Shipwreck ThreatenedYO 94 None AS I 10 Shipwreck ThreatenedYO 101* Ballard House SB III 10 Domestic/ P.exc./rest.batteryYO 107 American Redoubt AS I 11 Earthworks ExcavatedYO 108 None AS I 11 Earthworks UnknownYO 116 Wynn’s Mill (Lee Mill) AS I 10 Earthworks ProtectedFortification LineYO 169 None AS Inf 11 Unknown UnknownYO 170 Harwoods Mill Farm AS I 11 Camp/dom./ P.destroyedmilitary campYO 218 British Encampments AS III 10 Military ExcavatedencampmentsYO 219 Grand French Battery AS III 10 Battery/ ExcavatedearthworksYO 220 Mid-Second Siege Parallel AS III 10 Earthworks ExcavatedYO 221 15Y AS III 11 Domestic/ ExcavatedearthworksYO 222 None AS I 10 Shipwreck UnknownYO 227 None AS I 11 Earthworks GoodYO 231 None AS I 11 Earthworks Fair to goodYO 233 None AS I 11 Earthworks Fair to goodYO 245 Colonial Yorktown Wharf AS I 10 Wharf Threatened?YO 247 St. Simone’s Warpost AS MR 06 Military post UnknownYO 251 Yorktown Beach Site AS I 10 Beach lithic P.destroyedsiteYO 350 Revolutionary War Battery AS MR 11 Battery UnknownYO 353 French Hospital AS MR 10 Military hosp. UnknownYO 354 American Hospital AS MR 10 Military hosp. UnknownYO 355 British Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks UnknownYO 356 American Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks UnknownYO 357 British Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks UnknownYO 358 American Artillery Park AS MR 10 Battery UnknownYO 359 General Rochambeau’s AS MR 10 Military h.q. UnknownHeadquartersYO 360 Adjuctant General’s AS MR 10 Military h.q. UnknownHeadquartersYO 361 French Headquarters AS MR 10 Military h.q./ Unknownand CemeterycemeteryYO 362 Washington’s Headquarters AS MR 10 Military h.q./ Unknownand CemeterycemeteryYO 365 Military Camp AS MR 10 Military UnknownencampmentYO 368 British Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks UnknownYO 382 Von Steuben’s Headquarters AS I 10 ?/military Cult./p.dest.headquarters348

TABLE 6.4 (cont’d)STUDY UNIT XXIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**Site Res. LevNo. Name Type Inv Quad Function ConditionYO 388 None AS MR 06 Battery UnknownYO 393 Surrender Field Site AS I 10 ?/battlefield P.destroyedYO 396 Burwell’s Mill Civil War AS II 06 Earthworks Eroded?EarthworkJC 59 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 4JC 60 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 599- 12 Kiskiack SB I 10 Domestic GoodCITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:WB 4 Palisade of 1634 AS I 06 Palisade UnknownWB 5 Capitol Landing AS I 06 Landing/ P.destroyed(Queen Mary’s Port)warehousesWB 11 Palisade of 1634 AS MR 06 Palisade UnknownCW-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 UnknownDefenses Fort 1JC 57 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 2JC 58 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks UnknownDefenses Fort 3JC 302 None AS MR 06 Battery UnknownU- 47* Penniman Munitions Plant DB I 06 Military DestroyedBacon, George Washington, Comte de Rochambeau, Lord Cornwallis, Marquis deLafayette, George McClellan, and George Armstrong Custer. On the local and regionallevels, 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 strongeconomic force in York County.Summary of Property TypesThere are at least ten different military-related property types. These are:(1) Battlefields. These properties are generally distinguished by broken or abandonedequipment, ammunition, hasty field fortifications, field hospitals, andthe general’s or other major officer’s headquarters. A naval battlefield mayalso include relatively isolated fragments of shell or cannonballs and perhaps ashipwreck. One possible 17th-century battlefield is Neck of Land, while RevolutionaryWar battlefields include Spencer’s Ordinary (near Centerville), GreenSpring, Race Path (location unknown), and Yorktown. Civil War battlefields349

include those along the Williamsburg defense line, Lee’s Mill, Yorktown, andBig Bethel.(2) Field camps. These are temporary camps with tent shelters and improvisedfacilities. Likely remains are postmolds, possible trash pits, and scatters ofartifacts. Seventeenth-century field camps include those at Green Spring,Yorktown, and Middle Plantation. Field camps during the Revolutionary Warwere 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 mapsof the era.(3) Permanent camps. These were normally built to last through a winter, as thefamous ones at Valley Forge and Morristown. Barracks, identical in style, weremade from logs into cabins sleeping six enlisted men. These barracks would beplaced in at least two rows with major roads between them. Officers’ quarterswere 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 permanentcamp. Kitchens usually were erected and had baking ovens. An artillerypark stored the field pieces, limbers, ammunition, and repair facilities. Separatefrom the camp was the hospital. These structures could hold all woundedunder one roof or in a tripartite plan. Even farther away from the camp was theslaughter house. “Sinks” or “necessaries” were primitive privies dug at theedge of a cliff or gully. A parade ground and color line would be found near thesoldiers’ barracks. A color line was formed by stacking muskets around standingflags beside the parade ground.Jamestown was the most notable permanent camp in the 17th century, whileboth Williamsburg and Yorktown were also occupied during the RevolutionaryWar. Permanent Civil War camps were established near Fort Magruder, inYorktown, and all along the Confederate defensive line.(4) Sieges. Sieges are combinations of a battlefield and a permanent camp. Elementsof 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, wereused with lumber to reinforce a trench to make a breastwork. The elaborateearthworks, complete with their zig-zagging communication trenches, weremade by the methods prescribed by a manual of 18th-century siegecraft, writtenby Sebastian le Prestre de Vabaun (Barka 1976).A 17th-century siege could be found at Jamestown, while Yorktown wasthe most notable 18th-century example. Yorktown is also a major siege areaduring the Civil War.(5) Shipyards. These are the grounds on which warships were built and maintained.Chickahominy Shipyard was the most notable during the RevolutionaryWar, while no shipyard appears to have been present in the area during theCivil War.350

(6) Moorings and wharves. These are the places where warships or other navalcraft were moored and supplied. They would yield piling foundations, associatedstructures, and trash thrown overboard ships (Sands 1985). Jamestownhad a wharf during the 17th century, while during the Revolutionary War theseproperties were located in the study area: Yorktown, Burwell’s Ferry, Trebell’sLanding, College Landing, and Jamestown. During the Civil War, there weremoorings or wharves at Yorktown, Capitol Landing, Jamestown, and Burwell’sLanding.(7) Shipwrecks. These may include both pieces of the hull and its contents. Themost famous local wrecks are the Yorktown Shipwrecks, a National Registerproperty composed of several merchant vessels scuttled by Lord Cornwallisduring the Battle of Yorktown. There may be 17th-century shipwrecks south ofNewport News in the James River, and Revolutionary War wrecks may belocated, in addition to those at Yorktown, near the Chickahominy Shipyard.(8) Military burials. These are scattered around places of military activity andare found in several forms: mass graves or single graves, ordered or random,marked or unmarked. Known war-related burials include 17th-century sites atJamestown and Wolstenholme Towne; Revolutionary War sites near theWilliamsburg Governor’s Palace, Yorktown, and possibly Green Spring; andCivil War sites at Bruton Parish Church, the Williamsburg Presbyterian Church,and Cedar Grove Cemetery. Other Civil War graves are located in front of theWilliamsburg Courthouse and around Croaker.(9) Twentieth-century bases. These bases may take on the appearance and functionof 20th-century industrial plants and company towns. There are many exceptions,however, and many military-related structures are mass-produced andtemporary, such as “Quonset huts.”(10) Military-oriented manufacturing sites. These are sites where armaments orother supplies needed by the military are produced. These sites tend to flourishduring wartime and decline during peace. No general characteristics woulddistinguish these from other industrial sites, save an emphasis on security andthe military-related objects that were manufactured. RevolutionaryWar-associated sites can be found at the Williamsburg Manufactory near theBruton Parish Poorhouse, the Chickahominy Shipyard, James Anderson Forges,the Anthony Hay Cabinetmaker’s Shop, and in Yorktown.Character of the Existing DataThroughout the history of historic preservation in America battlefields and forts havereceived disproportionate attention when one considers the entire universe of militarysites. To obtain the best archaeological information about the military way of life, oneshould examine the places soldiers occupied for the longest period of time. Battlefieldsand field camps represent such a brief period of occupation that little can be expected tobe found on these sites. An excavation of a battlefield would yield little, perhaps ascatter of shot and gear from which positions might be identified and tactical situationinferred. Field camps promise little more than an artifact scatter, improvised facilities351

and maybe generalized features, but, since so little is known about them, they need to bestudied. At a permanent camp site, however, one has a greater chance of uncovering theremains of shelters, privies, and artifacts associated with military life. A siege has perhapsmore information potential than most other property types, and therefore is veryimportant. Shipwrecks contain excellent context for the information they yield and ranknext to permanent camps in information potential, and several studies of shipwrecks inthe project area have been completed or are currently underway. Military-oriented manufacturingsites probably have little to distinguish them from other industrial sites thanthe nature of their product, but so little has been done with them in this area that onecannot easily judge them.As yet, no excavations of permanent military camps other than Barka’s investigationsat Yorktown have been conducted. No original military-related standing structuresor buildings, other than public and domestic buildings, survive in this study area withthe exception of those constructed in the 20th century. Graves, hospitals, and privies areundoubtedly located at the site of every military engagement mentioned above, butnone have been adequately studied. No systematic survey of military graves and cemeterieshas been completed for the study area, and no survey of military-related domesticsites has been conducted to date.Criteria for EvaluationMilitary-related resources can be significant under any one of the four National Registercriteria. The integrity of 18th- and 19th-century sites and structures is often fairlyhigh, since many lie outside the developed urban areas on farmland or in protectedparks. However, later military resources, dating from after the Civil War, have oftenbeen extensively altered as parts of active military bases, and so may not contain thesame degree of integrity.Although military property types are similar throughout the area’s history, it isimportant that a sample of each type for each temporal sub-theme be preserved or recordedthoroughly. The variations among property types through the centuries, for example,may be very significant, but in most cases, not enough data exists to study thesevariations. In most cases, therefore, one criteria for evaluating significance is the needfor more information on a specific property type. In addition, the following criteriashould also be considered: (1) the amount of information already gathered from a culturalresource of a similar period and type; (2) the uniqueness or the availability ofresources of similar types throughout the country; (3) whether the resource exemplifiesa broad national, regional, or local trend; or (4) public support. Public values are oftenparticularly important, since military sites, especially those dating to the Civil War,have attracted so many local interest groups.Present Condition of Property TypesFortunately, many of the high priority sites of this study unit are currently preserved bythe Colonial National Historical Park and by the Newport News Municipal Park. Theseparks continue to maintain a policy of discouraging looting activities and monitoringany new construction. At the opposite extreme are the remains of the battlefields around352

Green Spring and Williamsburg, which are threatened by development. These two areasmay also contain other site types such as field camps. Since data concerningmilitary-related properties is so poor, it is difficult to provide an accurate assessment oftheir condition.Operating Plan—Goals and PrioritiesIdentification Goals• Phase I archaeological testing in the vicinity of Green Spring before any new developmenttakes 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 thatcurrently undertaken by Carl Cannon at Fort Eustis.• Architectural survey of early mass-produced buildings and roads on 20th-centurymilitary bases.Registration Goals• Nomination to the National Register of any property discovered which falls intothe 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” ora public park.• Preservation in place of Revolutionary War burial grounds at Williamsburg’sGovernor’s Palace and Yorktown. The Sons of the American Revolution are currentlylocating other grave sites of this period, which should be preserved as well.• Preservation in place of Civil War grave sites at Bruton Parish Churchyard andCedar Grove Cemetery, as well as those around other old churches and large buildingsused as hospitals during the War. The Sons of the Confederacy are activelyinterested in preserving such sites.• Preservation of the remaining Yorktown Shipwrecks as an underwater archaeologicalresource.353

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY: STUDY UNITS XXI-XXIIIAlexander, Arthur1946 Desertion and Its Punishment in Revolutionary Virginia. William andMary Quarterly 3(3rd series): 383-397.1947 A Footnote on Deserters from the Virginia Forces During the AmericanRevolution. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 55: 137-146.Alexandrowicz, J. Stephen1985 Monitoring Activities: Monthly Report on Archaeological Activities.Office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg, Virginia.Anonymous1959 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. PrestigePress, Hampton, Virginia.1980 Cheatam Annex: A Military Storage Center. Daily Press, September14: 12.1984a1984bPages 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 ofArchaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.1985 Military Bases in the Peninsula. Williamsburg Magazine (March): 1-2.n.d.an.d.bn.d.cHistorical 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. SouthsideHistorical 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 ofEducation 35(1). Virginia State Library, Richmond.Byrd, Rawls1968 History of Public Schools in Williamsburg. Dietz Press, Richmond.Carson, Jane1961 We Were There: Descriptions of Williamsburg, 1699-1859. Manuscript onfile, 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 NegroHistory 57: 144-155.Caywood, Louis R.1955 Green Spring Plantation Archaeological Project. Colonial NationalHistorical Park, Yorktown, Virginia.Chambers, Lenoir1965 Notes on Life in Occupied Norfolk, 1862-1865. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 73: 131-144.Clingan, Susan1961 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 Publication14. Virginia State Library, Richmond, Virginia.College of William and Mary1859 A Catalogue of the College of William and Mary in Virginia: From ItsFoundation to the Present Time. College of William and Mary,Williamsburg, Virginia.1983 A Chronology of the College of William and Mary. College of William andMary, Williamsburg, Virginia.Cornwallis, Charles1866 Cornwallis, 1st Marquis, 1738-1805, Answer to Sir Henry Clinton’sNarrative 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 MaryQuarterly 19(2nd series): 181-186.Daniel, W. Harrison1974 The Effects of the Civil War on Southern Protestantism. Maryland HistoricalMagazine 69: 44-63.Davis, William1982 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, John1979 Diary of the American War: A Hessian Journal. Reprint. Yale UniversityPress, New Haven.Foss, Robert1977 Report on the 1975 Archaeological Excavations at the James AndersonHouse. Manuscript on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation, ColonialWilliamsburg 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 SixthVirginia Volunteers. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 80:193-209.Gee, Wilson, and John J. Corson1927 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 MemorialLibrary, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.357

Greenwalt, Bruce S.1970 Virginians Face Reconstruction: Correspondence from the James DormanDavidson Papers, 1865-1880. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography76: 47-463.Grim, Ronald1977 The Absence of Towns in Seventeenth Century Virginia. Ph.D. dissertation,University of Maryland.Gulick, Luther Halsey1932 Modern Government in a Colonial City: A Survey of the City Governmentand 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 MaryQuarterly 5(2nd series): 159-170.Hatch, Charles E., Jr.1940 Gloucester Point in the Siege of Yorktown, 1781. William and MaryQuarterly 20(2nd series): 265-284.1942 Jamestown and the Revolution. William and Mary Quarterly 22(2ndseries): 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 PublicLibrary, York County, Virginia.Heath, Kingston1982 A Dying Heritage: One-Room Schools of Gallatin County, Montana. InPerspectives in Vernacular Archaeology, edited by Camille Wells. VernacularArchitecture Forum, Annapolis.Hening, William W. (compiler)1809- The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia1823 from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619. 13 vols.Franklin Press, Richmond, Virginia.Herndon, G. Melvin1961 The Confederate States Naval Academy. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 69: 30-323.1966 A War-Inspired Industry: The Manufacture of Hemp in Virginia Duringthe Revolution. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 74: 301-311.Hiden, Mrs. Philip Wallace1927 Losses of York County Citizens in the British Invasion, 1781. William andMary Quarterly 7(2nd series): 132-135.358

Hoffer, Frank William1929 Counties in Transition: A Study of County Public and Private WelfareAdministration in Virginia. Institute of Research in the Social Sciences,University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.Holmes, Reverend Richard1974 Shiloh Baptist Church, 111th Anniversary 1868-1974, Yorktown, Virginia.Manuscript on file, York County Library, York County, Virginia.Hopkins, Garland Evans1942 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, Rhys1973 Religion and Authority: Problems of the Anglican Establishment in Virginiain the Era of the Great Awakening of the Parson’s Cause. Williamand Mary Quarterly 30: 3-36.1974 Evangelical Revolt: The Nature of the Baptists’ Challenge to the TraditionalOrder in Virginia, 1765-1775. William and Mary Quarterly 31:343-368.1982 The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790. University of North CarolinaPress, Chapel Hill.Jackson, Luther P.1942 Virginia Negro Soldiers and Seamen in the American Revolution. Journalof Negro History 27: 247-287.James City County1984 James City County 350th Anniversary: Supplement to the Virginia Gazette,August 24, 1984.Jensen, Merrill1969 Trading with the Union: The Evolution of Confederate Policy. VirginiaMagazine 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 Ambler1952 The War Did Not End at Yorktown. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 60: 444-457.359

Jones, T. Catesby1941 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 forthe Purpose of Reconstruction. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology,College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.Kay, William Kenna1968 Drewry’s Bluff or Fort Darling. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography77: 191-200.Kelso, William M.1973 Kingsmill Interim Report 1973 Field Season. Manuscript on file at theVirginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.Kennedy, John P. (editor)1915 Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia. 4 volumes. Virginia StateLibrary, Richmond, Virginia.Kettenburg, Carol A.1980 The Battle for Williamsburg. M.A. thesis, Department of History, Collegeof William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.Kidd, George Eldridge1957 Early Freemasonry in Williamsburg, Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond,Virginia.Kirby-Smith, Edmund1888 The Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, 1861-1865.Washington, DC.Lafayette, Marquis de1837 The Memoirs, Correspondence, and Manuscripts of Marquis de Lafayette.Volume 3. London.Lane, John1895 Masonic Records 1717-1894; Being Lists of all the Lodges at Home orAbroad. Freemason’s Hall, London.Lewis, Roland L.1979 ‘The Darkest Abode of Man’: Black Miners in the First Southern CoalField, 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 Biography41: 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 Biography74: 387-426.McCartney, Martha1974 The Hickory Neck Church. Report on file, Virginia Research Center forArchaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.1978 The Chickahominy Shipyard, James City County, Virginia. Excerptedfrom the National Register nomination form on file at the Virginia ResearchCenter for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.1983 National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Nomination Form forBruton Parish Poorhouse. Manuscript on file, Virginia Division of HistoricLandmarks, Richmond.1985aThe Suppression and Containment of Indians in Tidewater Virginia.Journal of the Middle Atlantic Region VI. In press.1985b Correspondence.McCartney, Martha, and Margaret Weston1973 The Friends of Skimino Meeting. Report on file, Virginia Research Centerfor Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.McCleary, Ann1985 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 StateLibrary, Richmond, Virginia.1919bLegislative 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. VirginiaState Library, Richmond, Virginia.1932 Journals of the Council of the State of Virginia. 2 volumes. Virginia StateLibrary, Richmond, Virginia.Mason, George1939a The Colonial Churches in James City County, Virginia. William and MaryQuarterly 19(2nd series): 510-530.1939bThe Colonial Churches of York County, Virginia. William and MaryQuarterly 19(2nd series): 159-180.361

Middleton, Arthur Pierce1981 Ships and Shipbuilding in the Chesapeake Tributaries. In Chesapeake Bayand the American Revolution, edited by Ernest M. Eller. Tidewater Publishers,Centerville, Maryland.Mooman, W. Hugh1958 The British Leave Colonial Virginia. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 66: 147-160.Morgan, Gwenda1973 Virginia and the French and Indian War: A Case Study of the War’s Effecton Imperial Relations. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 81:23-48.Morris, Eli Jr.1983 Footprints: A History of York County Public Schools. Manuscript, YorkCounty Public Library, York County, Virginia.Naisawald, Louis Van L.1952 Robert Howe’s Operations in Virginia, 1775-1776. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 60: 437-443.Naval Weapons Station1968 20th Anniversary, 1918-1968; The Naval Weapons Station Story. UnitedStates Naval Weapon Station, Yorktown, Virginia.Noël Hume, Ivor1972 Excavations at the President’s House: College of William and Mary. Block16, 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 ResearchCenter for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.1980 The 1975 Survey of the Governor’s Land Archaeology District. Manuscripton 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, NewYork.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 BicentennialCommission, Williamsburg, Virginia.Rease, George H. (editor)1967 Journals of the Council of the State of Virginia. 2 volumes. Virginia StateLibrary, Richmond, Virginia.Reynolds, Donald E.1965 Ammunition Supply in Revolutionary Virginia. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 73: 56-77.Riley, Edward M.1948 St. George Tucker’s Journal of the Siege of Yorktown, 1781. William andMary Quarterly 5(3rd series): 375-395.1949a1949b1949cYorktown During the Revolution. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 57: 22-43.Yorktown During the Revolution, continued. Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography 57: 176-188.Yorktown During the Revolution, continued. Virginia Magazine of Historyand 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 Baptiste1838 Memoirs of the Marshall Count Rochambeau, translated byM.W.E. Wright. Reprint, 1971.Rochefoucauld, Duke de la1799 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, editedby 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 JamesJarvis. 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, Linda1983 Memo Concerning the Black Baptist Church of Williamsburg. Memorandumon file, Research Department, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg, Virginia.Rowland, Dan1978 Norge Shelters Norwegians. In Peninsula Roots. Collections from theNewport News Times Herald. Newport News, Virginia.Ruffin, Edward1841 The Farmer’s Register. Volume VIII.Ryckman, W. G.1967 Clash of Cavalry at Trevilians. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography75: 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, Robert1894 A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia. Pitt andDickenson, Richmond.Shea, William L.1983 The Virginia Militia in the Seventeenth Century. Louisiana State UniversityPress, 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 ofWilliamsburg, May 5, l862, As Seen by a Confederate Soldier (R.A.Shotwell). William and Mary Quarterly 13(2nd series): 26-27.364

Smith, Elizabeth Pagen.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 HistoricalSites, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.Sosin, Jack M.1965 The British Indian Department and Dunmore’s War. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 74: 34-50.Stephenson, Mary1959 Report on Block M. Manuscript on file, Research Department, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.1963 Notes on the Negro School in Williamsburg: 1760-1774. Manuscript onfile, Research Department, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg Virginia.Story, Thomas1747 The Journal of Thomas Story, 1698-1705. Isaac Thomas,Newcastle-on-Tyne, England.Sweet, William1955 Virginia Methodism: A History. Whittet and Shepperson, Richmond.Tate, Thad W.1962 The Coming of the Revolution in Virginia: Britain’s Challenge toVirginia’s Ruling Class, 1763-1776. William and Mary Quarterly 19(3rdseries): 323-343.Townes, A. Jane1977 The Effect of Emancipation of Large Landholdings, Nelson andGoochland Counties, Virginia. Journal of Southern History 45: 403-412.Trexler, Harison A.1950 The Davis Administration and the Richmond Press, 1861-1865. Journal ofSouthern History 16: 177-195.Turner, Charles W.1946 The Virginia Central Railroad at War, 1861-1865. Journal of SouthernHistory 12: 510-533.Tyler, Lyon G.1907 Williamsburg, the Old Colonial Capital. Whittet and Shepperson, Richmond.Upton, Dell1979 Toward a Performance Theory of Vernacular Architecture. Folklore Forum12(2): 173-196.365

Van Schreeven, William J. (compiler)1973 Revolutionary Virginia, the Road to Independence. Virginia IndependenceBicentennial Commission. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville,Virginia.Vandiver, F. E.1943 Notes on an Engagement at Green Springs. William and Mary Quarterly23(2nd series): 160-161.Vauban, Sebastien Leprestie de1968 A Manual of Siegecraft and Fortification (1740). University of MichiganPress, Ann Arbor.Virginia Academy of Science1950 The James River Basin: Past, Present, and Future. Dietz Press, Richmond.Virginia Gazettec.1898 A Directory and Handbook of the City of Williamsburg and the County ofJames City, Virginia. The Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg.Virginia, State Board of Public Welfare1926 Back from “Over the Hill”: The Disappearance of the County Almshousein Virginia. Richmond.Wallace, Lee A.1969 The First Regiment of Virginia Volunteers, 1846-1848. Virginia Magazineof History and Biography 77: 46-77.1974 The Petersburg Volunteers, 1812-1813. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 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 Vincent1967 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 Historyand 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 Board1984 Pride in the Past. Special Newsletter on the Hundredth Anniversary ofPublic Schools. On file, Williamsburg-James City County School Board.Williamsburg Lions Club1984 The First Fifty Years, 1934-1984: A Report to the Community.Manuscript on file, Williamsburg Regional Library, Williamsburg, Virginia.Zwelling, Shomer1985 Quest for a Cure: The Public Hospital in Williamsburg, Virginia. ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.367

368

Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological ReportsTowaroward a ResourceProtection Process:James City County,York County,City of Poquoson,City of Williamsburilliamsburg3: TVOLUME3: TABLESOF CULULTURALRESOURCESAND MANAGEMENTPLANSEdited by Marley R. Brown III and Kathleen J. BragdonThird EditionOffice of Archaeological ExcavationDepartment of ArchaeologyColonial Williamsburg FoundationPO Box CWilliamsburg, Virginia 23187Marley R. Brown IIIPrincipal InvestigatorOctober 1986Third edition issued November 2001

TOWARD A RESOURCE PROTECTIONPROCESS: JAMES CITY COUNTY,YORK COUNTY, CITY OF POQUOSON,AND CITY OF WILLIAMSBURGVOLUME 3: TABLES OF CULTURAL RESOURCESAND MANAGEMENT PLANSThird EditionNovember 2001Office of Archaeological ExcavationThe Department of ArchaeologyThe Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

DISCLAIMERThe activity that is the subject of this report has been financed in part with federalfunds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. However, thecontents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Departmentof the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constituteendorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior.i

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITIONThe first edition of this report, completed in October 1985, was submitted to theVirginia Division of Historic Landmarks in fulfillment of a Survey and Planning Subgrant. Copies were also distributed to the planning departments of JamesCity County York County, the City of Poquoson, and the City oe Williamsburg, as wellas to appropriate libraries, institutions, and individuals.Because the original report was submitted in three volumes totalling over 1200 pges, itwas felt that a reorganization was necessary before it was distributed more widely. The secondedition was published in 1986 in a smaller typeface for wider distribution.This third edition, published in 2001, is designed for better readability and conversioninto digital formats. It has been divided into four separate volumes. Volumes 1 and 2 providethe introduction to the project and the “study unit narratives” that describe the background andcriteria 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 theevaluation, as well as (now outdated) management plans for each jurisdiction. Volume 4 containssupplementary 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, hasnot 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 producedby Meredith C. Moodey (now Meredith Poole) of the Department of Archaeological Researchof the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. All comprehensive site records andnotes are on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.iii

PROJECT MEMBERSProject Director:Contributing Authors:Research Director andReport Coordinator:Consultants:Project Managers:Cartography:Drafting:Interns:Other Contributors:Marley R. Brown IIIKathleen J. BragdonGregory J. BrownLinda K. DerryThomas F. Higgins IIIRobert R. Hunter, Jr.Craig LukezicLisa RoysePatricia SamfordAnn Morgan SmartKathleen J. BragdonKevin KellySam MargolinJames WhittenburgLinda K. DerryAndrew C. EdwardsHannah GibbsVirginia CaldwellNatalie LarsonLouisa WallerEmerson BakerPatricia KandleChester KulesaMelanie LiddleJohn Sprinkle, Jr.Christine StyrnaJeff HollandLeslie McFadenCassandra NewbyDavid T. RobertsAlan StrangeKathrine WalkerJ. Thomas Wrenv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Volume 3)PageDisclaimer.................................................................................................................... iPreface to the Third Edition....................................................................................... iiiProject Members ......................................................................................................... vList of Plates .............................................................................................................. ixList of Tables ............................................................................................................. ixList of Figures............................................................................................................. xList of Maps ................................................................................................................ xSection 7. Comprehensive Tables of Known Cultural Resources .............................. 1Section 8. Management Plans................................................................................... 63Management Plans: Introduction (KATHLEEN J. BRAGDON) ..............................................65Management Plan: James City County (KATHLEEN J. BRAGDON) ...................................77Management Plan: York County (ANN MORGAN SMART) .................................................91Management Plan: City of Poquoson (LISA ROYSE AND KATHLEEN J. BRAGDON) ......... 117Management Plan: City of Williamsburg (GREGORY J. BROWN) ................................. 131Management Plans: Bibliography .................................................................. 157vii

viii

LIST OF PLATESPlatePage8.1 MacDowell’s Place, Route 601 ............................................................ 818.2 Commercial Buildings on Route 60 ..................................................... 878.3 Cloverdale on Route 606 ...................................................................... 878.4 Lombardy Farm on Old Stage Road ..................................................... 908.5 Kiskiack (Henry Lee House) .............................................................. 1148.6 Emmaus Baptist Church ..................................................................... 1278.7 Bungalow, Lower End of Poquoson Avenue ...................................... 1278.8 Messick Point, Poquoson.................................................................... 1298.9 Merchants Square ............................................................................... 154LIST OF TABLESTablePage7.1 Cultural Resources in James City County .............................................. 57.2 Cultural Resources in York County ...................................................... 257.3 Cultural Resources in City of Poquoson .............................................. 457.4 Cultural Resources in City of Williamsburg......................................... 498.1 National Register Properties ................................................................. 718.2 Intensity of Investigation of James City County Sites andStructures .............................................................................................. 808.3 Condition of James City County Sites and Structures.......................... 808.4 Intensity of Investigation of York County Resources........................... 988.5 Condition of Resources in York County ............................................... 988.6 Future Residential Development in York County............................... 1038.7 Intensity of Investigation of Poquoson Sites and Structures .............. 1198.8 Condition of Poquoson Sites and Structures ...................................... 1198.9 Intensity of Investigation of Williamsburg’s Resources ..................... 1388.10 Condition of Williamsburg’s Cultural Resources ............................... 1398.11 Land Use in Williamsburg in 1980 ..................................................... 142ix

LIST OF FIGURESFigurePage8.1 Sensitivity Zones for Prehistoric Resources ......................................... 868.2 Sensitivity Zones for Prehistoric Resources ......................................... 938.3 Sensitivity Zones for Prehistoric Resources ....................................... 1268.4 Structures/Features Associated with Middle Plantation ..................... 151LIST OF MAPSMapPage7.1 Comprehensive Map of Inventoried Cultural Resources ..................... 617.2 Comprehensive Map of Unnumbered Properties ................................. 628.1 General Geographical Features ............................................................ 838.2 General Geographical Features ............................................................ 938.3 General Environmental Zones of the James/York Peninsula ............. 1228.4 General Geographical Features .......................................................... 1408.5 General Environmental Zones of the James/York Peninsula ............. 141x

Section 7.Comprehensive Tables ofKnown Cultural Resources

KEY TO TABLES OF CULTURAL RESOURCES(TABLES 7.1- 7.4)Note:* = Not recorded on Comprehensive Maps of CulturalResources (Maps 7.1 and 7.2).Site No.:JC = James City County.YO = York County (including City of Poquoson).WB = City of Williamsburg.CW = Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Block/Area (subdivisionof site WB-30).47 = VHLC Survey Number, James City County (only for siteswithout JC #s).99 = VHLC Survey Number, York County [including City ofPoquoson] (only for sites without YO #s).137 = VHLC Survey Number, City of Williamsburg (only forsites without WB #s).Study Units (See applicable narrative[s]):U = Unnumbered site or structure identified as historicallyimportant (arbitrary number assigned for identificationpurposes).H = Historic study units (Study Units IX-XXIII).PH = Prehistoric or protohistoric study units (Study Units I-VIII).Resource Type:AS = Archaeological site.SS = Standing structure.SB = Standing building.DS = Destroyed structure.DB = Destroyed building.Level of Investigation:I = Phase I archaeological survey (site identification) or preliminaryarchitectural survey (description and photograph), orequivalent.II = Phase II archaeological survey (site testing) or equivalent.Quad:III = Phase III archaeological survey (excavation and mitigation) orequivalent.MR = Map-referenced site (usually not field checked).DR = Site known from documentary research (usually not fieldchecked).Inf = Site identified by informant (usually not field checked).01 = Walkers.02 = Toano.03 = Gressitt.04 = Brandon.05 = Norge.06 = Williamsburg.07 = Clay Bank.08 = Surry.09 = Hog Island.10 = Yorktown.11 = Poquoson West.12 = Poquoson East.13 = Mulberry Island.14 = Newport News North.15 = Hampton.3

KEY TO TABLES OF CULTURAL RESOURCES(TABLES 7.1- 7.4)Condition (Based on site records or survey forms):Cult. = CultivatedDest. = DestroyedExc. = ExcavatedP.destroyed (p.dest.) = Partially destroyedP.exc.= Partially excavatedP.preserved (p.pres.) = Partially preservedPres. = PreservedProt. = ProtectedRest. = RestoredRecon. = ReconstructedThr. = Threatened4

TABLE 7.1CULTURAL RESOURCES IN JAMES CITY COUNTYSite Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC 1 None III AS III 08 Unknown Unknown ——JC 2 None III AS I 01 Unknown P.preserved ——JC 3 None III/H? AS I 01 Unknown P.preserved ——JC 4 Helmet Site IX?/X?/XXIII AS III 09 Trash pits Excavated? 47-89JC 5 None PH? AS I 01 Unknown Unknown ——JC 6 None PH? AS I 01 Unknown Unknown ——JC 7 Lightfoot Site II/XI? AS II 05 Unknown P.preserved 47-3JC 8 Joseph Pettit Site XI AS III 05 Trash pit Excavated ——JC 9 Green Spring Plantation X/XI/XXIII AS III 05 Plantation Excavated 47-6JC 10 Longhill Road Site XII/XXI AS I 05 Domestic/ Unknown 47-72cemeteryJC 11 None II AS II 05 Unknown Unknown ——J C 12 None PH? AS I 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC 13 None PH? AS I 05 Unknown P.destroyed ——JC 14 Shipyard Landing PH?/XXIII AS I 05 ?/shipyard P.destroyed 47-78JC 15 Shipyard Landing II/H?/XXIII AS I 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC 16 Wright’s Island ? AS I? 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC 17 None ? AS I? 01 Unknown Unknown ——JC 18 None PH? AS I 01 Unknown P.destroyed ——JC 19 None II/III/IV/H? AS I? 01 Unknown Unknown ——JC 20 Martin’s Place XII AS I 02 Domestic Destroyed ——JC 21 None PH? AS I 05 Unknown P.destroyed ——JC 22 None ? AS I? 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC 23 None PH? AS I 05 Unknown P.destroyed ——JC 24 None XI AS I? 08 Unknown Cultivated ——JC 25 None PH? AS I 08 Unknown Unknown ——JC 26 None III AS I 08 Unknown Threatened ——5

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC 27 College Creek III AS III? 09 Unknown Excavated ——JC 28 Indian Village II/III AS I 09 Unknown Preserved ——JC 29 None III AS I 09 Unknown P.destroyed ——JC 30 None PH?/XXIII AS I 09 Earthworks/ Preserved ——shell middenJC 31 None III AS ? 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC 32 Utopia Cottage X/XI/XVI AS III 09 Domestic Excavated/pres. ——JC 33 Pettus Plantation X/XVI AS III 09 Plantation Excavated 47-81JC 34 Bray Plantation XI/XVII SB III 09 Plantation Excavated 47-80JC 35 Littletown Quarter X/XI/XVII AS III 09 Slave quarter Excavated 47-90JC 36 Johnston’s Mill XI? AS I 09 Mill Unknown 47-30JC 37 Kingsmill Plantation XI/XII/XVII SB III 09 Plantation Excavated 47-10JC 38 Harrop Well X/XI AS III 09 Well Exc./eroded ——JC 39 Kingsmill Quarter X/XI/XVII AS III 09 Domestic/slave Excavated ——quarterJC 40 Burwell’s Landing V/VI/XI/XXIII AS III 09 Plantation? Excavated 47-32JC 41 The Maine (GL-12, -13) III/V/IX/X/ AS III 08 Ossuary/dom./ Exc./p.pres. 47-11XXIII cemeteryJC 42 Pasbehay Tenement III/X AS III 08 ?/domestic Excavated ——(GL-12)JC 43 Drummond Site X/XI AS III 08 Plantation Excavated ——(GL-20, -21)JC 44 Hampton Key XI?/XII/XVII AS III 09 Slave quarter Excavated ——JC 45 Tutter’s Neck XI/XVII AS III 09 Domestic? Excavated 47-33JC 46 Coleman’s (Powell’s) XI/XII/XIII/ AS I 09 Mill Unknown 47-71Mill XIV?JC 47 York River State Park PH? AS I 03 Unknown Destroyed ——JC 48 Martin’s Hundred XI/XXI AS I 10 Cemetery Unknown ——GraveyardJC 49 Dow Badische Barrel X? AS III 10 Barrel well Exc./eroded ——Well6

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC 50 Chickahominy Shipyard XI/XXIII AS I 04 Shipwreck Threatened ——WreckJC 51 None II/III/XII? AS I 01 Int. exploit. camp Cult./p.dest. ——JC 52 North Quarter XI/XVII AS III 09 Slave quarter Excavated ——JC 53 None PH? AS I 09 ? P.preserved ——JC 54 Archer’s Hope Site X?/XI? AS I 09 Domestic/ Cultivated ——agricultural?JC 55 Archer’s Hope Site PH?/X? AS I 09 ?/domestic/ Cultivated ——agricultural?JC 56 SEE TABLE 7.4 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC 57 SEE TABLE 7.4 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC 58 SEE TABLE 7.4 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC 59 SEE TABLE 7.2 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC 60 SEE TABLE 7.2 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC 61 Shellfield House XII?/XIII SB I? 03 Domestic? Unknown 47-88JC 62 Structure Site XI?/XII? AS I 09 Domestic? Unknown ——JC 63 Bland Plantation XI SS I 09 Plantation Threatened 47-67JC 64 Bland Plantation XI SS I 09 Plantation Threatened 47-67JC 65 Maupin House XI AS I 09 Domestic Unknown 47-63JC 66 Burnt Ordinary XI AS I 02 Domestic Unknown 47-91JC 67 Slater Site XI AS I 06 Domestic Unknown ——JC 68 None XI AS I 09 Domestic Unknown ——JC 69 None XII? AS I 09 Domestic Unknown ——JC 70 York Park Site III AS I 03 Riverine bluff P.destroyed ——extract. campJC 71 Croaker Landing Site III AS I 03 Riverine bluff P.destroyed ——extract. campJC 72 SEE TABLE 7.2 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC 73 Leonard Site II AS I 03 Riverine knoll Threatened ——siteJC 74 York Cliff Site III AS I 03 Riverine bluff Preserved ——7

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveysiteJC 75 Crossman Site III AS I 03 Riverine int. Preserved ——stream bluffJC 76 Aperson Site XI/XII AS I 06 Domestic Cultivated ——JC 77 Stone House XI SB I 02 Domestic Unknown 47-36JC 78 Owens-Illinois Property XII?/XIII? AS I 02 Domestic Thr./cult. ——JC 79 Lane House XI?/XII? AS I 06 Domestic Unknown ——JC 80 Walsh House XI SB I 05 Domestic Unknown 47-20JC 81 Wilder Site XII AS I 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC 82 SEE TABLE 7.4 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC 83 GL-11 XII? AS III 08 Brick clamp Cultivated ——JC 84 GL-14 XI?/XII? AS III 08 Unknown Cultivated ——JC 85 Marable Site X?/XI AS III 08 Domestic Cultivated ——(GL-16, -17)JC 86 GL-18 XI AS III 08 Brick clamp Cultivated ——JC 87 GL-19 XI AS III 08 Brick clamp Cultivated ——JC 88 GL-22 XI AS III 08 Unknown Cultivated ——JC 89 GL-23 XI? AS III 08 Brick clamp Cultivated ——JC 90 Sherwood-Wilkenson X?/XI/XII AS III 08 Domestic? Cultivated ——Site (GL-24)JC 91 GL-26 XI/XII/XIII/ AS III 08 Unknown Cultivated ——XIVJC 92 GL-28 XI AS III 08 Domestic Unknown ——JC 93 GL-29 X? AS III 08 Unknown Cultivated? ——JC 94 Ollister Site (GL-30) X?/XI AS III 08 Domestic? Unknown ——JC 95 William Loyd Site X?/XI AS III 08 Domestic? Destroyed? ——(GL-31)JC 96 GL-32 X/XI AS III 08 Unknown Threatened? ——JC 97 GL-33 X? AS III 08 Brick kiln Unknown ——JC 98 GL-34 XI? AS III 08 Domestic? Unknown ——8

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC 99 Thomas Easter Site XI AS III 05 Domestic? Unknown ——(GL-35)JC100 GL-36 XI? AS III 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC101 Gilliam (Workman- XI AS III 08 Domestic? Cultivated ——Humbler) Site [GL-37,-37A, -37B, -40, -40A]JC102 Main Church Site XI?/XXI AS III 08 Ecclesiastical Cultivated ——-27, -38, -39)JC103 Hobson Site (GL-41) X?/XI/XII/XIII AS III 08 Domestic? Unknown ——JC104 Tallent Site (GL-42) X?/XI AS III 08 Domestic? Destroyed? ——JC105 Hunt Site (GL-43) XI? AS III 08 Domestic? Cult./dest.? ——JC106 Parkway Site (GL-44) XI AS I 08 Unknown Unknown ——JC107 None XI AS I 08 Boundary marker Unknown ——JC108 None XI AS I 08 Boundary marker Unknown ——JC109 Carter’s Grove XI SB III 09/ Plantation Protected 47-1Plantation 10JC110 Carter’s Grove XI/XVII AS III 09 Tannery? Excavated ——Tannery (?)JC111 Carter’s Grove Brick XI AS III 09 Brick clamps Excavated ——ClampsJC112 Carter’s Grove XI AS III 10 Domestic Excavated ——JC113 Carter’s Grove, Site B X? AS III 10 Unknown Excavated ——JC114 Carter’s Grove, Site D X? AS III 10 Unknown Excavated ——JC115 Wolstenholme Towne IX/XXI/XXIII AS III 09 Fortified Excavated ——(Carter’s Grove, villageSite C)JC116 Carter’s Grove, Site A X/XXI AS III 10 Unknown Excavated ——JC117 Carter’s Grove, Site E X AS III 09 Unknown Excavated ——JC118 Carter’s Grove IV AS I 09 Shell midden P.destroyed ——JC119 Carter’s Grove IV/V/VI AS II 09 Ossuary P.destroyed ——9

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC120 Carter’s Grove, Site H IX AS III 09 Fortified Excavated ——villageJC121 York River State Park XII?/XIII? AS I 03 Domestic Eroded/prot. ——JC122 York River State Park XII?/XIII? AS I 03 Trash pit Eroded ——JC123 Powhatan Farm XI SB I 05 Plantation? Destroyed 47-16JC124 Hickory Neck Church XI/XXI/XXII SB II 02 Ecclesiastical Good 47-8JC125 Grove Creek II/III AS I 09 Unknown P.destroyed ——JC126 None XXIII AS I 05 Earthworks Unknown ——JC127 Longhill Road Site III/XII AS I 06 Dom./pottery P.destroyed ——scatterJC128 None XII AS I 05 Domestic Cleared ——JC129* Governor’s Land #1 XII AS I 08 Domestic Unknown ——(GL-1)JC130 Carter’s Grove Shell III AS I 09 Shell midden Threatened ——MiddenJC131 None IV AS I 09 Unknown Threatened ——JC132 NO RECORD ————— — — — —————— ————— ——JC133 None ? AS I 09 Shipwreck? Unknown ——JC134 Hyman Site III/IV/XIII? AS I 08 Unknown Unknown ——JC135 None III/XII/XXIII AS I 05 Camp/domestic/ Cult./p.dest. ——militaryJC136 None III/XII/XXIII AS I 05 Camp/domestic/ Cult./p.dest. ——militaryJC137 Skiffes Creek II/III AS I 10 Multicomponent Threatened ——Reservoir #1 campsJC138 None XI/XII/XIII AS I 10 Domestic Unknown ——JC139 Poplar Grove XI SB I 10 Plantation Unknown 47-15JC140 None PH? AS I 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC141 “Barn” PH?/XII? AS I? 05 ?/agricultural Unknown ——JC142 None PH? AS I 04 Shell midden Unknown ——10

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC143 None PH? AS I 04 Shell midden Unknown ——JC144 Black Point PH? AS I 09 Unknown Threatened ——JC145 SEE TABLE 7.4 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC146 SEE TABLE 7.4 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC147 Busch Properties 2 (BP2)II/III AS I 09 Camp Destroyed ——JC148 Busch Properties 3 (BP3)II AS I 09 Unknown Destroyed ——JC149 Busch Properties 4 (BP4)II AS I 09 Camp Destroyed ——JC150 Busch Properties 6 (BP6)II AS I 09 Camp Destroyed ——JC151 Busch Properties 7 (BP7)III AS I 09 Camp/shell Destroyed ——middenJC152 T-1 PH? AS I 09 Unknown Destroyed ——JC153 T-5 III AS I 09 Camp Destroyed ——JC154 T-7 II AS I 09 Camp Destroyed ——JC155 T-8 II AS I 09 Unknown Destroyed ——JC156 T-14 II AS I 09 Unknown Destroyed ——JC157 None XI/XII/XIII/ AS I? 08 Unknown Unknown ——XIVJC158 None III AS III 09 Unknown Destroyed ——JC159 None PH? AS I 08 Unknown Unknown ——JC160 Governor’s Land #10 PH?/XI AS I 08 Hunting Cult./thr. ——(GL-10) station/dom.JC161 Governor’s Land #6 II AS I 08 Lithic red. Threatened ——(GL-6) stationJC162 C.L. Richardson Site XII/XIII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC163 Rodgers Site #2 XII/XIII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC164 Rodgers Site #1 XII/XIII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC165 None XI/XII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC166 None XI/XII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC167 None XI/XII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC168 None XI/XII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——11

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC169 None XI/XII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC170 None XI/XII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC171 Moody’s Wharf XI/XII/XIII AS MR 03 Domestic/ Unknown ——commercial?JC172 None XI/XII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC173 Mount Folly XII SB I 03 Domestic Destroyed 47-28JC174 Mrs. P. Richardson Site XII/XIII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC175 Chapman Site XII/XIII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC176 Minor Site XII/XIII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC177 None XI/XII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC178 Mrs. Richardson Site XII/XIII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC179 S. Richardson Site XII/XIII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC180 Garrett Site XII/XIII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC181 Rompfield Negro Site XII/XIII/XVIII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC182 Lawson Site XII/XIII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC183 A. Richardson Site XII/XIII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC184 Archer Piggott Site XII/XIII AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown ——JC185 Riverview XII SB MR 03 Domestic Good 47-29JC186 Shellfield Plantation XI/XII/XIII/ AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown ——XXIIIJC187 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown ——JC188 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——JC189 Ewell Plantation XII/XIII AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown 47-5JC190 Forlan Site XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC191 James City Church XXI AS I 05 Ecclesiastical Unknown ——JC192 Moss Site XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic? Unknown ——JC193 Six Mile (Allen’s) XI/XII/XIII AS MR 05 Tavern Destroyed? ——OrdinaryJC194 None XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic? Unknown ——JC195 None XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic? Unknown ——12

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC196 Garrett Site XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC197 Bush’s Mill XII/XIII AS MR 05 Mill Unknown ——JC198 Joseph Mickitt Site XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC199 Chickahominy Church XXI SB MR 05 Ecclesiastical Unknown ——JC200 None XII/XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC201 Shop Site XII/XIII AS MR 05 Industrial? Unknown ——JC202 Moore House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC203 Mary Copeland House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC204 Johnson House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC205 Taylor House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC206 Mrs. Warner’s House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC207 Dr. Binn’s House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic/ Unknown ——office?JC208 Vaiden House XII/XIII AS I 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC209 Bush House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC210 Gordon House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC211 None XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic? Unknown ——JC212 None XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic? Unknown ——JC213 “Negro House” XII/XIII/XVIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC214 U.M. Spencer House XII/XIII SB I 05 Domestic Poor ——JC215 Hicks House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC216 W. Spencer House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC217 J. Crenshaw House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC218 John Coke House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC219 None XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic? Unknown ——JC220 None XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic? Unknown ——JC221 W.L. Spencer House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC222 “Negro House” XII/XIII/XVIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC223 None XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic? Unknown ——JC224 J. Nettles House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——13

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC225 George Minor House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC226 N. Browning House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC227 None XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic? Unknown ——JC228 James River (Browning) XII/XIII AS MR 05 Mills Unknown ——MillsJC229 Austin House XII SB I 05 Domestic Unknown 47-59JC230 K. Richardson House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC231 B. Waddill House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC232 Pinewoods XII/XIII SB I 05 Domestic Good 47-14(R. Warburton House)JC233 Richardson House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC234 “Negro House” XII/XIII/XVIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC235 None XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC236 Simpson House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC237 None XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic? Unknown ——JC238 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——JC239 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——JC240 Richardson House XII/XIII AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown ——JC241 Taylor Saw Mill XII/XIII AS MR 05 Sawmill Unknown ——JC242 None XI AS MR 09 Unknown Unknown ——JC243 SEE TABLE 7.2 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC244 Battery XI/XXIII AS MR 09 Battery Unknown ——JC245 Battery XI/XXIII AS MR 09 Battery Unknown ——JC246 None XI AS MR 09 Unknown Unknown ——JC247 None XI/XXIII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——JC248 Sallie Hockaday House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC249 Oliver Hockaday House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC250 None XII/XIII AS MR 02 Unknown Unknown ——JC251 None XII AS I 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC252 Mitchell Mill XII/XIII AS MR 02 Mill Unknown ——14

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC253 John Richardson House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC254 Whitaker House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC255 Garrett House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC256 William Meanley House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC257 William Meanley Site XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC258 A. Hankins House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC259 E. Sorrel House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC260 None XII AS I 02 Domestic Poor ——JC261 Taylor House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC262 Martha James House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC263 I. Branch House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC264 Olive Branch Christian XXI SB I 02 Ecclesiastical Good 47-26ChurchJC265 Marston House XII/XIII SB I 02 Domestic Unknown 47-12JC266 None XII/XIII AS MR 02 Unknown Unknown ——JC267 John Timberlake House XII AS I 02 Domestic Poor ——(MacDowell’s Place)JC268 Boswell House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC269 Slater House XIII SB I 02 Domestic Poor 47-19(Hockaday Place)JC270 Stuart Place XIII SB I 02 Domestic Fair 47-39JC271 Timberlake House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC272 Ashland Farm XII SB I 02 Domestic Fair 47-23JC273 O. Hudson House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC274 Dr. Ashlock Site XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic/ Unknown ——office?JC275 Jack Ashlock House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC276 P. Ashlock House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC277 Taylor House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC278 Taylor House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——15

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC279 None XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic? Unknown ——JC280 Dr. Jenning’s House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic/ Unknown ——office?JC281 White Hall Tavern XII SB I 02 Tavern Unknown 47-41JC282 LaGrange XII SB I 02 Domestic Unknown 47-31JC283 Walter Enos House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC284 Mrs. Yates House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC285 None XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic? Unknown ——JC286 George Hankins House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC287 Waverly Farm XII SB I 02 Domestic Good 47-56JC288 William Bagly House XII/XIII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC289 Martin House XII/XIII SB I 02 Domestic Good 47-13JC290 Lombardy Farm XII SB I 02 Domestic Fair 47-25JC291 Windsor Castle XI SB I 02 Domestic Excellent 47-21JC292 Cowles House XII DB I 02 Domestic Destroyed 47-61JC293 Edwards Mill XII/XIII AS MR 02 Mill Unknown ——JC294 Wenger House XII/XIII?/ SB I 02 Domestic/ Fair 47-54(Clover Dale) XIV? agricultural?JC295 Lutheran Parish House XIII/XXI SB I 02 Ecclesiastical Good 47-77JC296 C. Slater House XII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC297 Boswell House XII AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown ——JC298 GL-21 XI?/XIV AS I? 08 Cellar/surface Cultivated/thr. ——scatterJC299 SEE TABLE 7.2 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC300 SEE TABLE 7.2 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC301 SEE TABLE 7.4 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC302 SEE TABLE 7.4 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC303 SEE TABLE 7.4 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC304 None PH?/X? AS I 08 Unknown Cult./p.dest. ——JC305 None XIII AS MR 04 Unknown Unknown ——16

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC306 None XIII AS MR 04 Unknown Unknown ——JC307 GL-2 H? AS I 08 Unknown Cultivated ——JC308 GL-4 PH?/XII? AS I 08 Lithic red. Cult./p.dest. ——base camp?JC309 GL-5 PH?/H? AS I 05 Unknown Cult./p.dest. ——JC310 GL-7 PH? AS I 05 Surface scatter Cult./p.dest. ——JC311 GL-8 PH?/H? AS I 08 Surf. scatter/? Cult./p.dest. ——JC312 GL-9 PH? AS I 08 Surface scatter Cult./p.dest. ——JC313 GL-11 XI? AS I 08 Domestic? Cult./eroded ——JC314 GL-12 PH?/H? AS I 08 Artifact Cult./p.dest. ——scatterJC315* GL-13 PH? AS I 08 Hunting Cult./p.dest. ——stationJC316 Piney Grove (GL-14) H? AS I 08 Domestic? Cult./eroded ——JC317 GL-15 PH? AS I 08 ?/lithic red. Cult./dest. ——stationJC318 GL-16 XI?/XII?/XIII? AS I 08 Sawmill/ferry/ Eroded ——wharfJC319 GL-17 PH?/H? AS I 08 Hunting stat./ Cult./p.dest. ——trash pitJC320 GL-18 PH? AS I 08 Lithic Eroded/p.dest. ——scatterJC321 GL-19 XII? AS I 08 Domestic Unknown ——JC322 GL-20 XIII?/XIV? AS I 08 Domestic Construction ——JC323 GL-23 XIII?/XIV? AS I 08 Domestic Construction ——JC324 GL-24 XIII?/XIV? AS I 08 Domestic/ Construction ——agriculturalJC325 GL-25 XIII?/XIV? AS I 08 Industrial Construction ——JC326 None XI?/XII?/XIII? AS I 05 Domestic Unknown ——17

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC327 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC328 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC329 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC330 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC331 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC332 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC333 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC334 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC335 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC336 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC337 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC338 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC339 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC340 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC341 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC342 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC343 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC344 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown -----JC345 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC346 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC347 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC348 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC349 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC350 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC351 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC352 None XIII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——JC353 GL-26 PH?/X AS I 08 Camp/domestic? Cultivated ——JC354 GL-27 XII?/XIII? AS I 08 Domestic Cultivated ——JC355 GL-28 PH?/XI?/XII? AS I 08 Camp/domestic? Cult./p.dest. ——JC356 GL-29 PH?/XI?/XII? AS I 08 Camp/domestic? Cult./p.dest. ——JC357 GL-30 II/XI AS I 08 Camp/domestic Cult./p.dest. ——18

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC358 GL-31 XI? AS I 08 Domestic Cultivated ——JC359 Rt. 199 Ext. A-3 XI/XII AS I 06 Mill dam Good ——JC360 Rt. 199 Ext. A-4 II AS I 06 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC361 Rt. 199 Ext. A-5 XII/XIII AS I 06 Domestic Disturbed ——JC362 Rt. 199 Ext. A-7 III AS I 05 Complex Threatened ——activity siteJC363 Rt. 199 Ext. A-8 II/III AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC364 Rt. 199 Ext. A-9 II/III AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC365 Rt. 199 Ext. A-11 PH? AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC366 Rt. 199 Ext. A-12 PH? AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC367 SEE TABLE 7.4 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——JC368 Rt. 199 Ext. A-15 XII? AS I 05 Domestic Threatened ——JC369 Rt. 199 Ext. A-16 III AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC370 Rt. 199 Ext. A-18 H? AS I 05 Domestic Threatened ——JC371 Betsy Green House XIII AS I 05 Domestic Logged ——(Rt. 199 Ext. D-2)JC372 Rt. 199 Ext. D-3 III AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC373 Rt. 199 Ext. D-4 II/III AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC374 Rt. 199 Ext. D-5 PH? AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC375 Rt. 199 Ext. D-6 PH? AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity site19

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC376 Rt. 199 Ext. D-7 III AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC377 Rt. 199 Ext. D-8 III AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC378 Rt. 199 Ext. D-9 PH? AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC379 Rt. 199 Ext. D-10 III AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC380 Rt. 199 Ext. D-11 PH? AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC381 Rt. 199 Ext. D-13 III AS I 05 Limited P.destroyed ——activity siteJC382 Rt. 199 Ext. D-14 III AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC383 Rt. 199 Ext. D-15 III AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC384 Rt. 199 Ext. D-16 IV AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC385 Rt. 199 Ext. D-17 PH? AS I 05 Limited Threatened ——activity siteJC386 Rt. 199 Ext. D-18 III/IV AS I 05 Complex Threatened ——activity siteJC387 None III AS I 03 Camp site Undisturbed ——JC388 None XIII/XIV AS I 03 Steam sawmill Undisturbed ——JC389* Culpepper Channel H AS I 05 Non-military Unknown ——earthworkJC390* Ford’s Colony 1 III AS I 05 Complex Threatened ——activity siteJC391* James City County III AS I 02 Limited P.disturbed ——(Upper County) Park 1 activity site20

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC392* James City County III AS I 02 Limited Undisturbed ——(Upper County) Park 2 activity siteJC393* James City County XII?/XIII? AS I 02 Earthen dam Undisturbed ——(Upper County) Park 3JC394* None XIII AS I 05 Forestry-related Dist./thr. ——47- 4 Powhatan Creek XI SB I 08 Domestic Unknown ——47- 7 Harris House XI?/XII? SB I 05 Domestic? Poor ——47- 9 Jamestown Island IX/X/XXIII AS III 08 Town Protected ——47-17 Skiff’s Creek House XII DB I 10 Domestic Ruins ——47-22 Colonel William Allen’s XII SB I 05 Domestic Fair ——House47-27 Warrenton XI SB I 05 Domestic Good ——47-37 None XII? SB I 02 Domestic Poor ——47-43 Amblers on the James XI? SB I 08 Domestic Unknown ——47-44 None XII? SB I 02 Domestic Poor ——47-46 Colonel George James XI SB I 02 Domestic Unknown ——Place47-53 Our Savior’s Lutheran XIII/XXI SB I 05 Ecclesiastical Excellent ——Church47-55 None XII SB I 02 Domestic Unknown ——47-57 Binn’s Place XII DB I 05 Domestic Destroyed ——47-58 Drinking Spring XI? AS I 05 Domestic Destroyed ——47-60 Store XIII SB I 02 Commercial Fair ——47-62 Store XIII SB I 02 Commercial Fair ——47-64 Diascund Railroad XIII DB I 02 Railroad Destroyed ——Station station47-68 Ewell Railroad Station XIII SB I 06 Railroad Good ——station47-69 Lane Farm XII SB I 06 Domestic Poor ——47-70 Major Barn XIV SB I 02 Agricultural Unknown ——21

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition Survey47-73 Vaiden House XII SB I 05 Domestic Excellent ——47-74 Jockey’s Neck Farm XII SB I 09 Domestic Unknown ——47-76 James River Church XII/XXI SB I 05 Ecclesiastical Excellent ——47-79 Bick House XII SB I 05 Domestic Excellent ——47-87 Durfey’s Mill XI? DS I 09 Mill Destroyed ——U- 1 Challis Site XI AS I ? Industrial Unknown ——U- 2 Breezeland XII SB I 05 Domestic Good ——U- 3 Chickahominy Church XI/XXI AS I 05 Ecc./cemetery Destroyed ——SiteU- 4* Felix Hotel Site XIII/XIV AS I 02 Commercial Unknown ——U- 5 Foster House XII/XXII SB I 05 Domestic Good ——U- 6* Gatewood Kitchen and XIII AS I 02 Domestic P.destroyed ——HouseU- 7 Green Shingle Site XII/XXII AS I 02 Domestic Destroyed ——U- 8 Henley-Hubbard House XII/XIII AS I 05 Domestic Unknown ——SiteU- 9 Hill Pleasant Site XII AS I 05 Dom./cemetery Destroyed ——U- 10 Holly Springs XII SB I 02 Domestic Unknown ——U- 11 Merry Oaks Site XI?/XII AS I 02 Domestic Unknown ——U- 12 Methodist Chapel Site XII?/XXI AS I 05 Ecc./cemetery Destroyed ——U- 13* Sunnyside Site XII?/XIII? DB I 02 Domestic Destroyed ——U- 14* Taylor’s Garage Site XIV AS I 02 Commercial Destroyed ——U- 15* Toano High School Site XIV/XXII AS I 02 School Destroyed ——U- 16* Toano Truck Package XIII/XIV AS I 02 Commercial Destroyed ——Company SiteU- 17* Warren House XII SB I 02 Domestic Unknown ——U- 18* Wayside Inn Site XIV AS I 02 Inn Destroyed ——U- 19* Wilkinson and Geddy XIV AS I 02 Commercial Destroyed ——Store Site22

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyU- 20 Archer’s Hope IX AS DR 09 Settlement Unknown ——U- 21 Argall’s Gift IX AS DR 09 Settlement Unknown ——U- 22 Coles (Barrett’s) Ferry XI/XII AS I 05 Ferry Unknown ——U- 23 Crawley House Site XI AS DR 06 Domestic Destroyed? ——U- 24 Glebe Land IX? AS I 09 Ecclesiastical Unknown ——U- 25 New Magazine Site XI?/XXIII AS I 06 Military Destroyed? ——U- 26 Saw Mill Site XII?/XIII? AS I 05 Military Destroyed? ——U- 27 Rich Neck Plantation XI? AS I 06 Plantation Unknown ——SiteU- 28 Spratley House Site XI AS I 09 Domestic Unknown ——U- 29 Tappahost XII/XIII AS I 02 Settlement Unknown ——U- 30 Cowlesville XIII AS I ? Domestic Unknown ——U- 31* Redwood Ordinary XII AS I ? Tavern Unknown ——U-135* Webber Liggan Walls V/VI AS I 01 Village Unknown ——(Appocant?)U-136* Diascund Creek Site V/VI AS I 01 Village Unknown ——(Askakep?)U-137* Chickahominy Haven V/VI AS I 04 Village Unknown ——Site (Werawahon?)U-138* Head of Hog Neck CreekV/VI AS I 05 Village Unknown ——(Ozencik?)U-139* E.J. Hofmeyer Site V/VI AS I 05 Village Unknown ——U-140* Richmond Farm Site V/VI AS I 01 Village Unknown ——(Moysonec?)U-141* Brick Yard, Sims Marina V/VI AS I 04 Village Unknown ——(Oranieck?)23

TABLE 7.2CULTURAL RESOURCES IN YORK COUNTYSite Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO 1* None III AS I 15 Unknown Threatened ——YO 2 Indian Fields III/IV/V/VI AS I? 07 Village? Unknown ——(Chiskiack)YO 3 None PH? AS I 11 Shell midden P.destroyed ——YO 4 None PH? AS I? 15 Unknown Destroyed ——YO 5 York Point II AS I 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO 6 None XIV? AS I 10 Earthen mounds Land fill ——YO 7 Bryan Manor Plantation XI/XXI SB I 06 Plantation/ Fair 99-5cemeteryYO 8 None PH? AS I 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO 9 Julius G. Hopson House II/XI? AS I? 14 Unknown Cult./p.dest. ——(Halfway House)YO 10 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO 11 None II/III/IV AS I 11 Unknown P.destroyed ——YO 12 Cornwallis Cave XI/XXIII AS I 10 Shipwreck Threatened ——ShipwreckYO 13 Yorktown Windmill XI AS I 10 Windmill Undisturbed? ——YO 14 Edward Thomas Site XI/XII/XXI AS I 06 Quaker dom. Unknown ——YO 15 Burkes Corner XI/XII/XXI AS III 06 Quaker dom. Excavated 99-55YO 16 Skimino Meetinghouse XI/XII/XIII/ AS II 06 Quaker ecc. Unknown ——XXIYO 17 Yorke Village X/XI/XII/XXI AS III 11 Ecc./cemetery/ Unknown ——domesticYO 18 Quaker Cemetery XXI AS Inf? 06 Quaker cemetery Destroyed ——YO 19 None XII/XIII AS I 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO 20 None XII/XIII AS I 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO 21 None XI/XII/XIII AS I 06 Domestic? Unknown ——25

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO 22 None ? AS I 06 Shell midden/? Unknown ——YO 23 None XII/XIII AS I 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO 24 None XI AS I 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO 25 None ? AS I 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO 26 None PH? AS I 06 Shell midden/? Unknown ——YO 27 None PH? AS I 06 Shell midden? Unknown ——YO 28 None XI AS I 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO 29 None PH? AS I 06 Shell Unknown ——concen./?YO 30 None XI AS I 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO 31 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO 32 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO 33 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO 34 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO 35 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO 36 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO 37 None XII/XIII/XXIII AS I 06 Redoubt Unknown ——YO 38 None XI AS I 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO 39 None XII/XIII AS I 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO 40 None XII/XIII/XXIII AS I 06 Gun emplacement Unknown ——YO 41 None XI AS I 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO 42 None XII/XIII/XXIII AS I 06 Earthwork Unknown ——YO 43 None XI AS I 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO 44 None XI AS I 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO 45 None XI AS I 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO 46 None XII/XIII AS I 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO 47 Confederate W’msburg XII/XXIII AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown ——Defenses Fort 6YO 48* Austin Site XII AS Inf 06 Domestic? Destroyed ——26

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO 49 Confederate W’msburg XII/XXIII AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown ——Defenses Fort 7YO 50 Confederate W’msburg XII/XXIII AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown ——Defenses Fort 8YO 51 Confederate W’msburg XII/XXIII AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown ——Defenses Fort 9YO 52 Confederate W’msburg XII/XXIII AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown ——Defenses Fort 10YO 53 Confederate W’msburg XII/XXIII AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown ——Defenses Fort 11YO 54 Confederate W’msburg XII/XXIII AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown ——Defenses Fort 14YO 55 Braxton House XII AS I 06 Domestic Good 99-52YO 56 Custis Plantation XI AS I 06 Plantation Unknown 99-62YO 57 House Site XI AS I 06 Domestic Destroyed ——YO 58 “Mr. Bill” House XI AS I 06 Domestic Unknown 99-53YO 59 New Quarter Site XI/XVII AS I 06 Domestic Undisturbed? 99-63YO 60 Bruton Parish Poor XI/XII/XXII AS I 06 Poor house Undisturbed? 99-70House SiteYO 61 Piggott’s (Fenton) Mill XI/XII/XIII SS I 06 Mill Poor 99-66YO 62 Whitaker’s House XI AS I 06 Domestic Unknown 99-49YO 63 Blair’s Quarter Site XI/XVII AS III? 06 Domestic Unknown ——YO 64 Bellfield Plantation XI/XII/XXI AS I 07 Plantation/ Unknown 99-2cemeteryYO 65 Travis House Site XI AS I 07 Domestic Destroyed? 99-54YO 66 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO 67 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO 68 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO 69 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO 70 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——27

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO 71 Back Creek Location #1 XXIII AS I 11 Earthworks Unknown ——YO 72 Back Creek Location #2 XII AS I 11 Unknown Threatened ——YO 73 Back Creek Location #3 XII/XIII? AS I 11 Unknown Threatened ——YO 74 Back Creek Location #4 XII AS I 11 Domestic Threatened ——YO 75 Back Creek Location #5 XII/XIII? AS I 11 Domestic Threatened ——YO 76 Drewry House XI? AS I? 11 Domestic Cultivated ——YO 77 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO 78 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO 79 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO 80 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO 81 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO 82 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO 83 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — ---———— ————— ——YO 84 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — ———— ————— ——YO 85 None XI/XXIII AS I 10 Shipwreck Threatened ——YO 86 None XI/XXIII AS I 10 Shipwreck Poor ——YO 87 NOT ASSIGNED ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO 88 None XI/XXIII AS III 10 Shipwreck Unknown ——YO 89 None XI/XXIII AS I 10 Shipwreck Threatened ——YO 90 NOT ASSIGNED ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO 91 Harwoods Mill XI/XII AS I 11 Domestic Undisturbed? ——Reservoir Location #1YO 92 Harwoods Mill XXIII AS I 11 Earthworks Disturbed ——ReservoirLocation #2YO 93 Harwoods Mill III AS I 11 Camp site P.destroyed ——Reservoir Location #3YO 94 None XI/XXIII AS I 10 Shipwreck Threatened ——YO 95 Old House Site XI/XII AS Inf 10 Domestic Unknown ——YO 96 Golf Course Site PH? AS I 07 Shell midden P.destroyed ——28

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO 97 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO 98 Kirby Site XI AS I? 14 Domestic Threatened ——YO 99* Nelson House XI SB III 10 Domestic P.exc./rest. 99-17YO100* Smith House XI SB III 10 Domestic P.exc./rest. 99-37YO101* Ballard House XI/XXIII SB III 10 Domestic/ P.exc./rest. 99-39batteryYO102 William Rogers Pottery XI AS III 10 Industrial P.excavated ——FactoryYO103 None III/XI?/XII? AS I? 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO104 None H? AS I? 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO105 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO106 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO107 American Redoubt XI/XXIII AS I 11 Earthworks Excavated ——YO108 None XXIII AS I 11 Earthworks Unknown ——YO109 Black Cemetery XIX/XXI AS I 06 Cemetery Unknown ——YO110 None XI/XII AS I 06 Quaker indust./ Unknown ——domesticYO111 NOT ASSIGNED ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO112 None XI AS I 06 Domestic/ Unknown ——commercialYO113 Queens Creek Site III AS I 07/06 Unknown P.destroyed ——YO114 Davis Point Site IV AS III 06 Camp Destroyed ——YO115 None XI AS I 10 Domestic Protected ——YO116 Wynn’s Mill (Lee Mill) XXIII AS I 10 Earthworks Protected ——Fortification LineYO117 Widow Drewry House III/XI AS I 11 ?/domestic Cult./p.dest. ——YO118 Taylor One PH?/XI/XII AS I 11 Unknown Cult./p.dest. ——YO119 None PH?/XII AS I 11 Multicomponent/ Cult./p.dest. ——domestic29

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO120 None III/XII AS I 11 Multicomponent/ Cultivated ——?YO121 None PH?/XII AS I 07 Unknown Protected ——YO122 Cheatham Annex F XIII AS I 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO123 Harwoods Mill 11A III/XI AS I 11 Multicomponent/? P.destroyed ——YO124 Harwoods Mill 11A III/XI AS I 11 Multicomponent/? P.destroyed ——YO125 Harwoods Mill B III AS I 11 Unknown P.destroyed ——YO126 Harwoods Mill B PH?/XI AS I 11 Multicomponent/? Cult./p.dest. ——YO127 None II AS I 11 Unknown P.destroyed ——YO128 None II AS I 11 Unknown P.destroyed ——YO129 None Unknown AS I 11 Ice house? Unknown ——YO130 None Unknown AS I 11 Ice cellar? Unknown ——YO131 None Unknown AS I 11 Ice house or Unknown ——cellar?YO132 None Unknown AS I 11 Domestic? Protected ——YO133 None Unknown AS I 11 Domestic Protected ——YO134 Harwoods Mill O XII? AS I 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO135 Harwoods Mill D XII AS I 11 Unknown Protected ——YO136 Harwoods Mill C XII AS I 11 Unknown Protected ——YO137 None III AS I 11 Unknown Preserved ——YO138 Harwoods Mill F XII? AS I 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO139 Harwoods Mill B XII AS I 11 Unknown Cultivated ——YO140 Harwoods Mill G H? AS I 11 Domestic? Protected ——YO141 Newport News E XII AS I 10 Unknown Cult./prot. ——YO142 Harwoods Mill A PH?/H? AS I 11 Unknown P.destroyed ——YO143 None XII? AS I 06 Domestic Lumbered? ——YO144 None PH?/XI AS I 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO145 None H? AS I 11 Unknown Cult./p.dest. ——YO146 None H? AS I 06 Unknown Threatened ——30

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO147 None H? AS I 06 Unknown Threatened ——YO148 None PH? AS I 06 Shell midden Unknown ——YO149 None PH? AS I 07 Unknown Unknown ——YO150 None PH? AS I 07 Unknown Unknown ——YO151 None PH? AS I 07 Unknown Unknown ——YO152 Sandy Point Site II AS I 07 Unknown Unknown ——YO153 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO154 None ? AS I 11 Shell midden Unknown ——YO155 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO156 Plumtree Island II/III/H? AS Inf 12/15 Unknown Unknown ——YO157 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO158 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO159 None III AS I 14 Unknown Unknown ——YO160* None XI AS Inf 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO161 None II AS I 11 Domestic? Threatened ——YO162 None XI?/XII? AS Inf 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO163 None H? AS Inf 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO164 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO165 SEE TABLE 7.3 ———— — — — —————— ————— ——YO166 None II AS I 07 Shell midden Unknown ——YO167 Dandy or Dandy Beach III AS I 11 Unknown Threatened ——SiteYO168 None II AS I 11 Shell midden P.destroyed ——YO169 None III/XXIII? AS Inf 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO170 Harwoods Mill Farm II/III/XI?/ AS I 11 Camp/domestic/ P.destroyed ——XII?/XIII?/ military campXIV?/XXIIIYO171 Brick Kiln Creek II AS I 14 Unknown P.preserved ——YO172 None II AS I 12 Unknown Unknown ——31

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO173 None PH? AS I 12 Lithic scatter Threatened ——YO174 None PH? AS I 12 Unknown Threatened ——YO175 None PH? AS I 12 Lithic scatter P.destroyed ——YO176 None PH? AS I 12 Lithic scatter P.destroyed ——YO177 None PH? AS I 12 Lithic scatter P.destroyed ——YO178 None PH? AS I 11 Lithic scatter Threatened ——YO179 None XI AS I 11 Lithic scatter P.destroyed ——YO180 None III AS I 11 Unknown Eroded ——YO181 None II/III AS I 11 Lithic scatter/ Threatened ——hearthYO182 None XI AS I 11 Artifact Eroded/thr. ——scatterYO183 None XI AS I 11 Unknown Eroded ——YO184 None XIII? AS I 11 Unknown Threatened ——YO185 None XII? AS I 06 Unknown Threatened ——YO186 None PH? AS I 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO187 None III AS I 11 Lithic scatter Threatened ——YO188 None PH? AS I 06 Artifact Threatened ——scatterYO189 None PH? AS I 06 Shell scatter Preserved ——YO190 None III AS I 06 Shell scatter Threatened ——YO191 None III/XII? AS I 06 Artifact Threatened ——scatterYO192 None PH?/XII? AS I 06 Multicomponent/? Eroded/thr. ——YO193 None PH?/XII? AS I 06 Multicomponent/? Eroded/thr. ——YO194 None III/XII? AS I 06 Multicomponent/? Eroded ——YO195 None II/III/XII? AS I 06 Unknown Eroded/p.dest. ——YO196 None III AS I 11 Multicomponent/? Eroded/thr. ——YO197 None PH? AS I 11 Lithic scatter Threatened ——32

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO198 None PH? AS I 11 Quarry/lithic Threatened ——prep. areaYO199 None II/III AS I 11 Lithic/ceramic Threatened ——scatterYO200 None PH? AS I 11 Flake concen. Threatened ——YO201 None PH? AS I 11 Lithic scatter Threatened ——YO202 None III AS I 11 Lithic concen. Preserved ——YO203 None III AS I 11 Unknown Preserved ——YO204 None III AS I 11 Artifact P.destroyed ——scatterYO205 Skimino Hills XI AS II 06 Domestic? Destroyed? ——YO206 None PH?/XI? AS I 11 Artifact Eroded/thr. ——scatterYO207 None PH? AS I 06 Shell scatter Preserved ——YO208 None XI? AS I 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO209 None III/XII? AS I 11 Artifact Eroded/thr. ——scatterYO210 None II AS I 11 Lithic scatter P.destroyed ——YO211 None PH? AS I 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO212* None XI/XII AS I 10 Domestic Eroded ——YO213 None III AS I 06 Artifact P.destroyed ——scatterYO214 None III AS I 06 Artifact P.destroyed ——scatterYO215 None III AS I 06 Artifact P.destroyed ——scatterYO216 None PH? AS I 06 Artifact P.destroyed ——scatterYO217 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic/ Unknown ——33

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO218 British Encampments XI/XXIII AS III 10 Military Excavated ——encampmentsYO219 Grand French Battery XI/XXIII AS III 10 Battery/ Excavated ——earthworksYO220 Mid-Second Siege XI/XXIII AS III 10 Earthworks Excavated ——ParallelYO221 15Y XII/XXIII AS III 11 Domestic/ Excavated ——earthworksYO222 None XXIII AS I 10 Shipwreck Unknown ——YO223 17Y XIII AS I? 11 Domestic/? Excavated? ——YO224 Oriana Road Dam II AS I 11 Unknown P.destroyed ——YO225 None II/III AS I 11 Camp Preserved ——YO226 None II AS I 11 Hunting camp P.destroyed ——YO227 None XXIII AS I 11 Earthworks Good ——YO228 None PH? AS I 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO229 None III AS I 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO230 None PH? AS I 11 Unknown P.destroyed ——YO231 None XXIII AS I 11 Earthworks Fair to good ——YO232 None PH? AS I 11 Unknown P.destroyed ——YO233 None XXIII AS I 11 Earthworks Fair to good ——YO234 None XII/XIII/XIV AS I 11 Artifact Unknown ——scatterYO235 HM 1 XI?/XII AS I 11 Domestic? Unknown ——YO236 HM 7 XII AS I 11 Quarry? Unknown ——YO237 None II/III AS I 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO238 HM 13 XI AS I 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO239 HM 16 III/XI/XII? AS I 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO240 HM 20 XIII? AS I 11 Bridge/roadway Unknown ——34

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO241 HM 21 XI? AS I 11 Domestic? Unknown ——YO242 Skimino Mill XI/XII AS Inf 06 Grist mill/ Destroyed ——sawmillYO243* None XI? AS Inf 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO244 None XXI AS I 10 Cemetery Eroded ——YO245 Colonial Yorktown XI/XXIII AS I 10 Wharf Threatened? ——WharfYO246 Plantation Complex XI/XII AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown ——YO247 St. Simone’s Warpost XI/XXIII AS MR 06 Military post Unknown ——YO248* None X AS I 10 Domestic? Unknown ——YO249 Courthouse Yard XI AS I 10 Midden Disturbed ——YO250 None H? AS I 10 Unknown Eroded ——YO251 Yorktown Beach Site III/XXIII? AS I 10 Beach lithic P.destroyed ——siteYO252 William Franklin House XI/XII AS MR 11 Domestic Unknown ——YO253 Calthrop “Manner House” XI/XII AS MR 11Domestic Unknown ——YO254* None III AS I 10 Unknown P.destroyed ——YO255 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO256 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO257 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO258 None XI/XII/XXI AS MR 06 Domestic/ Destroyed? ——cemeteryYO259 None XI/XII/XXI AS MR 06 Quaker ecc.? Unknown ——YO260 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO261 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO262 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO263 Evans “Cherry Hall” XII/XIII SB I 06 Domestic Good 99-3YO264 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO265 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——35

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO266 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO267 Roberson Negro Site XII/XIII/XVIII AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown ——YO268 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO269 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO270 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO271 Dr. Waller’s House XII/XIII AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown ——YO272 Bigler’s Wharf Vicinity XI/XII/XIII AS MR 06 Commercial? Unknown ——YO273 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO274 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO275 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO276 None XI/XII/XXI AS MR 06 Quaker dom.? Unknown ——YO277 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO278 W. Bowden Site XII/XIII AS MR 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO279 W. Bowden Site XII/XIII AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown ——YO280 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO281 Pickett House XII/XIII AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown ——YO282 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown ——YO283 Capitol Site XII/XIII AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown ——YO284 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO285 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO286 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO287 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO288 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO289 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO290 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO291 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO292 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Plantation? Unknown ——YO293 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO294 Porto Bello XI/XII AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown ——YO295 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——36

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO296 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO297 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO298* None XI/XII AS MR 06 Plantation? Unknown ——YO299 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO300 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown ——YO301* H. Powers Site XII/XIII AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown ——YO302 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Plantation? Unknown ——YO303 Brassingham Landing XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic?/ Unknown ——agricultural?YO304 Brassingham Landing XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic?/ Unknown ——agricultural?YO305 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic?/ Unknown ——agricultural?YO306 Foace’s Quarter XI/XII/XVII AS MR 06 Domestic?/ Unknown ——agricultural?YO307 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO308 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic? Unknown ——YO309 Custis (Waller’s) Mill XI/XII AS MR 06 Grist mill Unknown ——YO310 James Armfield XII AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown ——YO311 None XXI AS MR 06 Ecclesiastical Unknown ——YO312 None XI/XII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——YO313 None XI/XII AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown ——YO314 None XI/XII AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown ——YO315 None XI/XII AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown ——YO316 None XI/XII/XVII AS MR 07 Slave quarter? Unknown ——YO317 None XI/XII AS MR 07 Plantation Unknown ——YO318 None XI/XII AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown ——YO319 None XI/XII AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown ——YO320 Ringfield Plantation XI/XII SB I 07 Plantation Unknown 99-18YO321 None XI/XII AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown ——37

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO322 None XI/XII/XVII AS MR 07 Slave quarter? Unknown ——YO323 None XI/XII AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown ——YO324 None XI/XII/XVII AS MR 07 Domestic?/ Unknown ——slave quarter?YO325 None XI/XII AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown ——YO326 None XI/XII/XVII AS MR 07 Domestic?/ Unknown ——slave quarter?YO327 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown ——YO328 None XI AS I? 06 Shell midden Unknown ——YO329 None XI AS I 06 ?/domestic Unknown ——YO330 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO331 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO332 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO333 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO334 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO335 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO336 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO337 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO338 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO339 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO340 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO341 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO342 Nelson House XI/XII AS MR 10 Domestic Unknown ——YO343 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO344 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO345 Quaker Cemetery XXI AS Inf 06 Quaker cemetery Destroyed ——YO346 None XI/XII AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO347 None XI/XII AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO348 None XI/XII AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown ——38

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO349 None XI/XII AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO350 Revolutionary War XI/XXIII AS MR 11 Battery Unknown ——BatteryYO351 None XI/XII AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO352 None XI/XII AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO353 French Hospital XI/XXIII AS MR 10 Military hosp. Unknown ——YO354 American Hospital XI/XXIII AS MR 10 Military hosp. Unknown ——YO355 British Redoubt XI/XXIII AS MR 10 Earthworks Unknown ——YO356 American Redoubt XI/XXIII AS MR 10 Earthworks Unknown ——YO357 British Redoubt XI/XXIII AS MR 10 Earthworks Unknown ——YO358 American Artillery Park XI/XXIII AS MR 10 Battery Unknown ——YO359 General Rochambeau’s XI/XXIII AS MR 10 Military h.q. Unknown ——HeadquartersYO360 Adjuctant General’s XI/XXI/XXIII AS MR 10 Military h.q. Unknown ——HeadquartersYO361 French Headquarters XI/XXI/XXIII AS MR 10 Military h.q./ Unknown ——and Cemetery cemeteryYO362 Washington’s H.Q. XI/XXIII AS MR 10 Military h.q./ Unknown ——and Cemetery cemeteryYO363 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO364 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO365 Military Camp XI/XXIII AS MR 10 Military Unknown ——encampmentYO366 Potter Site XI/XII AS MR 10 Domestic Unknown ——YO367 None XI AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO368 British Redoubt XI/XXIII AS MR 10 Earthworks Unknown ——YO369 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO370 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO371 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO372 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——39

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO373 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO374 None XI/XII AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO375* None PH? AS I 10 Unknown Unknown ——YO376 SSE L-1 XI?/XII? AS II 06 Unknown Threatened ——YO377 SSE M-1 XI?/XII?/XXI AS II 06 Unknown Threatened ——YO378 SSE P-1 XI AS II 06 Domestic? Threatened ——YO379 SSE L-2 II AS I 06 Artifact Unknown ——scatterYO380 Benthall Farm II/III/XI AS Inf 10 Domestic? Cult./p.dest. ——YO381 None II/III AS I 10 Unknown P.destroyed ——YO382 Von Steuben’s II/III/XXIII AS I 10 ?/military Cult./p.dest. ——Headquarters headquartersYO383 None II/III AS I 10 Unknown P.destroyed ——YO384 None XI AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO385 Burwell’s Mill XI/XII AS II 06 Water mill Unknown ——YO386 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO387 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO388 None XI/XXIII AS MR 06 Battery Unknown ——YO389 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO390 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO391 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO392 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO393 Surrender Field Site II/III/XI/ AS I 10 ?/battlefield P.destroyed ——XXIIIYO394 Burwell’s Mill Brick XI AS II 06 Brick kiln Logged/eroded ——Kiln #1YO395 Burwell’s Mill Brick XI AS II 06 Brick kiln Logged/eroded ——Kiln #2YO396 Burwell’s Mill Civil XII/XXIII AS II 06 Earthworks Eroded? ——War Earthwork40

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO397 Burwell’s Mill Indust. XI? AS II 06 Industrial? Unknown ——Feature ComplexYO398 None XII AS I? 06 Domestic/ Undisturbed? ——commercial?YO399 None III AS I 10 Unknown P.destroyed ——YO400 None III AS I 10 Unknown P.destroyed ——YO401* None XI AS I 10 Domestic Cultivated ——YO402* Rt. 199 Ext. D-19 III AS I 06 Unknown Unknown ——YO403* None II/III AS I 11 Base camp Disturbed ——YO404* Yorktown Shipwreck XII AS I 10 Shipwreck Preserved? ——JC 59 Confederate W’msburg XII/XXIII AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown 47-50Defenses Fort 4JC 60 Confederate W’msburg XII/XXIII AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown 47-51Defenses Fort 5JC 72 713/1 ? AS I 06 Unknown Unknown ——JC243 None XI AS MR 09 Unknown Unknown ——JC299 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——JC300 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——99- 4* Customs House XI SB I 10 Storehouse/ Excellent ——meetinghouse99- 6* Waterview XII SB I 11 Domestic Excellent ——99- 8* None XI AS I 10 Domestic? Unknown ——99- 9* None XI AS I 10 Domestic? Unknown ——99-10* Grace Episcopal Church XI/XXI SB I 10 Ecclesiastical Excellent ——99-11 Grafton Christian XII?/XXI SB I 11 Ecclesiastical Unknown ——Church99-12 Kiskiack XI/XXIII SB I 10 Domestic Good ——99-13* Somerwell House XI SB I 10 Domestic Excellent ——99-14 Marl Bank XI SB I 11 Domestic Good ——99-15* Post Office XI SB I 10 Medical shop Excellent ——41

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition Survey99-16 Moore House XI SB I 11 Domestic Excellent ——99-19* Session House XI SB I 10 Domestic Excellent ——99-21* Swan Tavern XII SB I 10 Tavern Excellent ——99-22* Dudley Digges House XI SB I 10 Domestic Excellent ——99-23* Wharf Buildings XI SB I 10 Commercial Unknown ——99-24 Virginia Farm Group XI SB I 11 Domestic Unknown ——99-27* Thomas Pate House XI SB I 10 Domestic Excellent ——99-28* York County Courthouse XI? SB I 10 Public Unknown ——99-34* DeNeufville Cottage XI? SB I 10 Domestic? Excellent ——99-46* Tue Marshes Light XIII DS I 11 Lighthouse Replaced ——99-47* York Spit Light XIII DS I 11 Lighthouse Replaced ——U- 32 Bigler House XII SB I ? Domestic Unknown ——U- 33 Rosedale XII SB I ? Domestic Unknown ——U- 34 Thorpland XII SB I ? Domestic Unknown ——U- 35 Ballentine House XI AS I ? Domestic Unknown ——U- 36 Harwood Mills H? AS I ? Mill Unknown ——U- 72* Bethel Baptist Church XIII/XIV/XXI SB I ? Ecclesiastical Good ——U- 91* York Poor House XII/XXII AS MR ? Public Unknown ——U- 92* Presson House XI DB I ? Domestic Destroyed ——U- 93* Levin Smith House XIII? DB I ? Domestic Destroyed ——U- 94* Thomas Mills House XIII? DB I ? Domestic Destroyed ——U- 95* Thomas Wesley Morton XII? DB I ? Domestic Destroyed ——HouseU- 96* Benjamin Hudgins XII? DB I ? Domestic Destroyed ——HouseU- 97* Rosedown Halfway H DB I ? Domestic Destroyed ——HouseU- 98* Calhier’s House XII?/XIII? DB I ? Domestic Destroyed ——U- 99* Tom Purly House H DB I ? Domestic Destroyed ——U-104* Spanish Jesuit Mission IX AS DR ? Mission Unknown ——42

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveySiteU-105* Mill Pond School XIII/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-106* Springfield School XIII/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-107* Corner Pine School XIII/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-108* Grafton School XIII/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-109* Poor House Farm SchoolXIII/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-110* Seaford School XIII/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-111* Smithville School XIII/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-112* Yorktown School XIII/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-113* Cary Chapel School XIV/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-114* Bethel School XIV/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-115* Darbytown/Tabb School XIV/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-116* Fish Neck (Dare) School XIV/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-117* Oak Grove School XIV/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-118* Seaford (Lewisville) XIV/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——SchoolU-119* Tampico (Hornsbyville) XIV/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——SchoolU-120* York County Training XIV/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——SchoolU-121* Dare-Grafton School XIV/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-122* Goodwin’s Neck School XIV/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-123* Magruder School XIV/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-124* Seaford School XIV/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——U-125* Yorktown School XIV/XXII DB DR ? School Unknown ——43

TABLE 7.3CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE CITY OF POQUOSONSite Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyYO 10 None X?/XI/XII AS Inf 11 Unknown Cultivated ——YO 66 None X? AS I? 11 Unknown Cultivated ——YO 67 River Creek (Roberts X AS I 11 Domestic Destroyed? ——Landing Village)YO 68 Bennett’s Farm X? AS I 11 Domestic? Destroyed ——YO 69 Bennett’s Farm XI AS I 11 Domestic? Destroyed ——YO 70 Bennett’s Farm X?/XI AS I 11 Domestic? Cultivated/thr. ——YO 77 None XI? AS Inf 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO 78 None X? AS I? 11 Unknown Destroyed ——YO 79 None X? AS I? 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO 80 None XI? AS I? 12 Unknown Unknown ——YO 81 None XI? AS I? 15 Unknown Unknown ——YO 82 None III AS I 15 Shell midden Unknown ——YO 83 None X? AS I? 14 Unknown Cultivated ——YO 84 Oxford Tidemill Stone X? AS I 14 Mill Unknown ——YO 97 None X?/XI/XII? AS I? 11 Domestic Destroyed? ——YO105 Messick Point III AS I 15 Unknown P.destroyed ——YO106 Roberts Creek Site XI/XII AS II 11 Domestic Cultivated? ——YO153 None III AS I 11 Unknown Unknown ——YO155 None ? AS I 15 Shell midden Unknown ——YO157 Whalebone Island H? AS I 12 Unknown Threatened ——YO158 None III AS I 12 Unknown Unknown ——YO164 None III AS I 12 Unknown Unknown ——YO165 None II AS I 12 Unknown Unknown ——U- 61 Messick’s Point XI/XII/XIII SS I 14 Landing? Unknown ——U- 62 Messick Theater XIII/XIV SB I 14 Theater Good ——U- 63 Lodge Hall XIII/XIV/XXII SB I 14 Public Good ——45

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyU- 64 Amory’s Store XIII/XIV DB I 11 Commercial Threatened ——U- 65 Amory’s Wharf XIII/XIV SS I 14 Wharf Unknown ——U- 66 Emmaus Baptist Church XIII/XIV/XXI SB I 11 Ecclesiastical Good ——U- 67 Trinity Methodist XIII/XIV/XXI SB I 14 Ecclesiastical Good ——ChurchU- 68 Sheffield’s Store XIII/XIV SB I 14 Commercial Good ——U- 69* Barrel Factory XIII/XIV SB I ? Industrial Good ——U- 70* Robert’s Landing XIII/XIV AS I ? Landing Unknown ——U- 71* Hunt’s Neck Landing XIII/XIV AS I 11 Landing Unknown ——U- 73* Tabernacle Methodist XIII/XIV/XXI SB I ? Ecclesiastical Good ——ChurchU- 74* Tinkersheires Neck X/XI AS Inf ? Landing Unknown ——U- 75* Great Marsh X/XI AS Inf ? Landing Unknown ——U- 76* Lawson House XIII SB I ? Domestic Good ——U- 77* Wornom House XIII DB I ? Domestic Destroyed ——U- 78* Hopkins House XIII SB I ? Domestic Poor ——U- 79* Major Stephen Moore XIII DB I ? Domestic Destroyed ——HouseU- 80* Frank Edwards Horse XIII DB I ? Stable Destroyed ——StableU- 81* Solomon Evans House XIII SB I ? Domestic Good ——U- 82* James Smith Hopkins, XIII SB I ? Domestic Good ——Jr. HouseU- 83* John Lemuel Moore XIII DB I ? Domestic Destroyed ——HouseU- 84* John Huggett House XIII DB I ? Domestic Destroyed ——U- 85* John Gibbs Wornom XII/XIII SB I ? Domestic Good ——House and OutbuildingsU- 86* Bill Phillips Horse H? SB I ? Stable Good ——46

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyStable Carriage HouseU- 87* James Moore House H? SB I ? Domestic Unknown ——U- 88* Everard Robinson House XI SB I ? Domestic Unknown ——U- 89* None XI DB I ? Domestic Destroyed ——U- 90* Windmill Site H? DS I ? Windmill Moved ——47

TABLE 7.4CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE CITY OF WILLIAMSBURGSite Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyWB1 None H? AS I 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB2 Wren Building ExtensionH?/XXII AS I 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB3 College Landing XI/XII/XVII/ AS II 06 Landing/ Stable 137-57XXI warehousesWB4 Palisade of 1634 X/XXIII AS I 06 Palisade Unknown ——WB5 Capitol Landing XI/XXIII AS I 06 Landing/ P.destroyed 137-56(Queen Mary’s Port) warehousesWB6 None H? AS I 06 Domestic? Cult./dest.? ——WB7 None XII?/XIII? AS I 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB8 President’s House Yard XI/XXII AS I 06 Domestic? Unknown ——WB9 None XI?/XII? AS I 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB10 Brafferton Cistern XII/XXII AS I 06 Cistern Unknown ——WB11 Palisade of 1634 X/XXIII AS MR 06 Palisade Unknown ——WB12 Peacock Hill # 1 XI/XII/XIII? SB I? 06 Domestic Unknown ——WB13 Adair Site XI AS I? 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB14 None XI AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB15 None XI AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB16 Ludwell’s Mill XI AS MR 06 Mill assoc.? Unknown ——WB17 Ludwell’s Mill XI AS MR 06 Grist mill Unknown ——WB18 None XI AS MR 06 Domestic? Unknown ——WB19 None XI AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB20* None XI AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB21* None XI AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB22 None XI AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB23 None XI AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB24 None XI AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB25 None XI AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——49

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyWB26 None XI AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB27 SSE A-1 XI/XII? AS II 06 Artifact Threatened ——scatterWB28 SSE B-1 XI/XII? AS II 06 Domestic? Threatened ——WB29 SSE E-1 XIII?/XIV AS II 06 Domestic Threatened ——WB30 Colonial Williamsburg XI AS III 06 Town Protected ——Historic AreaCW-1A* Bassett Hall XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. ——CW-1B* Benjamin Waller House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. ——CW-1C* Powell House XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-2A* James Semple House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-33CW-2B* Dana Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-2C* Moody Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-2D* Ewing House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-23CW-2E* Graves House XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-2F* Lot East of Graves Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-2G* Lot East of Graves Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-2H* Chiswell-Bucktrout XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. 137-9HouseCW-2I* Orrell House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-27CW-2J* Dana Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-2K* Bracken-Carter House XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-2L* Morris-Messick Lots XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-2N* St. John’s House XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-2P* Hubard Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-3A* Allen-Byrd (Lightfoot) XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. ——HouseCW-3B* Lot West of Allen-Byrd XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated -----HouseCW-3C* Corner of Francis & XI? AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated ——50

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyEngland StreetsCW-4* Custis Kitchen XII/XVIII SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. ——CW-4A* Nicholas-Tyler House XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-4C* Public Hospital XI/XII/XIII/ DB III 06 Hospital P.exc./recon. ——XXIICW-5* Griffin House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. ——CW-7A* Christiana Campbell’s XI DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon. ——TavernCW-7B* George Jackson House XI SB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./rest. 137-20& Shop industrialCW-7B* David Morton House XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-7B* Isham Goddin House & XI DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon. ——Shop industrialCW-7C* Elizabeth Carlos House XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-7D* Powell-Waller House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. ——CW-7F* Nicolson House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-25CW-8A* Ayscough House XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-8B* Carter-Moir Lot XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-8C* Capitol XI DB III 06 Public P.exc./recon. 137-8CW-8D* Lot East of Capitol XI AS III 06 Public? P.excavated ——CW-8E* Blue Bell Tavern XI DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon. ——CW-8F* Savage Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavated ——CW-8G* Christian Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavated ——CW-8H* L.W. Lane Property XI AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavated ——CW-9A* Macon Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavated ——CW-9B* King’s Arms Tavern XI DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon. ——CW-9C* Tarpley’s Store XI DB III 06 Commercial P.exc./recon. ——CW-9E* King’s Arms Barber XI DB III 06 Commercial P.exc./recon. ——ShopCW-9F* Alexander Purdie House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. ——51

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyCW-9H South End of Colonial XI AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated ——&D* Lots 22 & 23CW-9J* Nelson-Galt House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-24CW-9K* Palmer House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-28CW-9L* Marot’s Ordinary XI SB III 06 Tavern P.exc./rest. ——CW-9M* John Coke Office XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-9N* Wetherburn’s Tavern XI SB III 06 Tavern P.exc./rest. 137-4CW-9P* Charlton House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. ——CW-10A James Anderson House XI SB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./rest. ——E&G* & Forges industrialCW-10B* Brick House Tavern XI DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon. ——CW-10C* Mary Stith Shop XI DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon. ——commercialCW-10D*Lewis House XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-10F* Dr. Barraud Lot XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-1CW-10G*Lot East of Shewmake XI AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavated ——HouseCW-11A*Nightingale (Lightfoot) XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. ——HouseCW-11B Lot East of Masonic XI AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavated ——&C* LodgeCW-11D*Peter Hay House XI DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon. ——industrial?CW-11E* George Reid House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-26CW-12A*Market Square Tavern XI SB III 06 Tavern P.exc./rest. ——CW-12A Powder Magazine XI/XXIII SB III 06 Military P.exc./rest. 137-22&B*CW-13A*Custis-Maupin House XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-13B*Greenhow-Repiton XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——House52

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyCW-13D*Taliaferro-Cole House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-35CW-13E* Norton-Cole House XII AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavated ——CW-13F* Greenhow-Repiton BrickXI/XXII DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon. 137-18Office (Debtor’s public?Prison)CW-13F* Hartwell-Perry Ordinary XI DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon. 137-43CW-13G*John Greenhow Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavated ——CW-13I* Corner of Duke of XI AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated ——Gloucester & KingStreetsCW-13J* Peter Scott House XI AS III 06 Domestic/ P.excavated ——commercial?CW-14A*First Baptist Church XVIII/XXI AS III 06 Ecc./cemetery P.excavated ——CW-14A*Douglas Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-14B* Bryan Lot XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-14C* Blaikley-Durfey Lot XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-14D*Moir Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-14E* John Lockley House XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-14G*Travis House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-40CW-15* 1930s Firehouse XIV AS III 06 Public P.excavated ——CW-15A Post Office XI AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated ——&B*CW-16A*Wren Building XI/XXII/XXIII SB III 06 School P.exc./rest. 137-13CW-16B* President’s House XI/XXII SB III 06 School P.exc./rest. 137-14CW-16C* Brafferton Hall VIII/XI/XXII SB III 06 School P.exc./rest. 137-12CW-17A*Craig Shop XI DB III 06 Commercial P.exc./recon. ——CW-17A*Carter Shop XI DB III 06 Commercial P.exc./recon. ——CW-17B* Raleigh Tavern XI SB III 06 Tavern P.exc./rest. ——CW-17C* Burdette’s Ordinary XI DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon. ——CW-17C R ed Lion Inn XI SB III 06 Tavern P.exc./rest. ——53

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition Survey&H*CW-17D*Prentis Store XI SB III 06 Commercial P.exc./rest. 137-29CW-17E* Public Records Office XI SB III 06 Public P.exc./rest. 137-31CW-17F* Margaret Hunter Shop XI SB III 06 Commercial P.exc./rest. 137-19CW-17G*Alexander Craig House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. ——CW-17G*Joseph Scivener Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-17H*Pierce Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-17I* Russell House XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-17J* Nicolson Shop XI SB III 06 Commercial P.exc./rest. ——CW-18A Ludwell-Paradise House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-21&B*CW-18C* P rentis Store XI SB III 06 Commercial P.exc./rest. 137-29CW-18D*Pitt-Dixon House XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-18E* Teterel Shop XI AS III 06 Commercial P.excavated ——CW-18G*Waters-Coleman House XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——CW-18H*Printing Office XI DB III 06 Commercial P.exc./recon. ——CW-18I* Red Lion Inn XI DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon. ——CW-19A James Geddy House XI SB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./rest. ——&B* industrialCW-19C* Courthouse of 1770 XI SB III 06 Public P.exc./rest. 137-15CW-19D*Chowning’s Tavern XI DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon. ——(Annex Site)CW-20A*Governor’s Palace XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. 137-17CW-21A*George Wythe House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-58CW-21B* Bruton Parish Church XI/XXI SB III 06 Ecc./cemetery P.exc./rest. 137-7CW-22A*Casey Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavated ——CW-22B* Archibald Blair House XI SB III 06 Domestic? P.exc./rest. ——CW-22C* Minor Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-23A*Goodwin Building Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-27A*Coke-Garrett House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-1154

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyCW-27B*Public Gaol XI/XXII SB III 06 Public P.exc./rest. 137-30CW-27C*Wales House XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-28A*Peter Ludwell’s XI DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon. ——TenementCW-28B Peyton Randolph House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-32G&H*CW-28C Robertson’s Windmill XI DS III 06 Windmill P.exc./recon. ——&E*CW-28C* Corner of Scotland & XI AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated ——England StreetsCW-28D*Anthony Hay House XI DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon. ——& Shop industrialCW-28D*Tayloe House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. ——CW-28E* Peyton Randolph XI AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavated ——PropertyCW-28F* Ravenscroft Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavated ——CW-28I* Corner of Scotland & XI AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated ——England StreetsCW-29A*Levingston House XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-29A St. George Tucker HouseXII SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. ——&B*CW-29B* St. George Tucker XII SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. ——KitchenCW-29C* Archibald Blair House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-2CW-29E* Brush-Everard House XI/XVII SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. 137-6CW-29F* Brush-Everard Dam XI AS III 06 Dam P.excavated ——CW-29G*First Theatre Site XI AS III 06 Playhouse P.excavated ——CW-29H*Archibald Blair Stable XI AS III 06 Stable P.excavated ——CW-30* Green Hill Lot XII? AS III 06 Cemetery P.excavated ——CW-30A*Robert Carter House XI SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest. ——55

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyCW-30B*Elkanah Deane House & XI DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon. ——Forge industrialCW-30C* Carter/Deane Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-34A*Corner of Scotland & XI AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated ——England StreetsCW-42* Abby Aldrich XI AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated ——Rockefeller Folk ArtCenter LotCW-42A*Tazewell Hall XI/XII DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./moved 137-45CW-44A*Jane Cary House XI DB III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-44B* Tazewell Hall XI/XII DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./moved 137-45CW-44D*Galt Cottage XI DB III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-45* Powell-Hallam House XI DB III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-45* Galt Cottage XI DB III 06 Domestic P.excavated ——CW-46A*First National Bank Lot XI AS III 06 Domestic? P.excavated ——WB31 SSE E-2 XI?/XII? AS II 06 Artifact Threatened ——scatterWB32 NO RECORD ————— — — — —————— ————— ——WB33 SSE F-1 XIII?/XIV AS II 06 Commercial/ Threatened ——industrialWB34 SSE H-1 XIII/XIV AS II 06 Agricultural Threatened ——WB35 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB36 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB37 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB38 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB39 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB40 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB41 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB42 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——WB43 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——56

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyJC56 Confederate W’msburg XII/XXIII AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown 47-47Defenses Fort 1JC57 Confederate W’msburg XII/XXIII AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown 47-48Defenses Fort 2JC58 Confederate W’msburg XII/XXIII AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown 47-49Defenses Fort 3JC82 Skipwith House XII? AS I 06 Domestic Unknown ——JC145 None X AS I 06 Domestic Lumbered ——JC146 None PH? AS I 06 Unknown P.destroyed ——JC301 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——JC302 None XI/XXIII AS MR 06 Battery Unknown ——JC303 None XI/XII AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown ——JC367 Rt. 199 Ext. A-13 III AS I 05 Complex Threatened ——activity site137-5* Rev. Bracken House XI SB I 06 Domestic Restored ——137-10* Providence Hall XI SS I 06 Domestic/ Excellent ——commercial137-34* Spencer’s Hotel XII DB I 06 Commercial Destroyed ——(Chowning’s TavernSite)137-36* William Timson House XI SB I 06 Domestic Unknown ——137-38* Geddy-Baker, Inman XI SB I 06 Domestic Excellent ——Office137-39* Bowden-Armistead XII SB I 06 Domestic Excellent ——House137-41 * Bell Farm XIII SB I 06 Domestic Excellent ——137-42 * Bell Mead XI?/XII? SB I 06 Domestic Excellent ——137-44* Roberts House XIII SB I 06 Domestic Excellent ——137-46 Wheatland XI?/XII? DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed ——137-51* None H? AS I 06 Ice house?/ Destroyed ——57

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition Surveywell?137-53* Rabon House XI?/XII? DB I 06 Domestic Unknown ——137-54* Sun Oil Service Station XIV DB I 06 Commercial Destroyed ——137-55* None XII?/XXI DB I 06 Cemetery Destroyed? ——U-37* Dunmore’s Ice House XIII/XIV DB I 06 Industrial Destroyed ——U-38* Parks’ Paper Mill XI/XIII/XIV DS I 06 Industrial Destroyed ——U-39* Mattey School XIII/XIV/XXII DB I 06 School Destroyed ——U-40* Methodist Church XIII/XIV/XXI DB I 06 Ecclesiastical Destroyed ——U-41* Railroad XIII/XIV DS I 06 Railroad Destroyed ——U-42* Williamsburg Baptist XIII/XIV/XXI DB I 06 Ecclesiastical Destroyed ——ChurchU-43* Pender’s Store XIII/XIV DB I 06 Commercial Destroyed ——U-44* The Peachy Block XIII/XIV DB I 06 Unknown Destroyed ——U-45* Knitting Mill XIII/XIV DB I 06 Industrial Destroyed ——U-46* Mahone’s Store XIII/XIV DB I 06 Commercial Destroyed ——U-47* Penniman Munitions XIV/ DB I 06 Military Destroyed ——Plant XIIIU-48* Colonial Inn XIII/XIV DB I 06 Inn Destroyed ——U-49* Neel’s House XIII/XIV DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed ——U-50* Miss Gibbie’s School XIII/XIV/ DB I 06 School Destroyed ——XIIIU-51* Stuart House XIII/XIV DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed ——U-52* Phebe’s House XIII/XIV DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed ——U-53* Mrs. Will’s House XIII/XIV DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed ——U-54* James City County XX/XXII DB I 06 School Destroyed ——Training SchoolU-55* Bruton Heights School XX/XXII SB I 06 School Good ——U-56* Mount Ararat XX/XXI SB I 06 Ecclesiastical Excellent ——U-57* Odd Fellows Lounge XIX/XXII DB I 06 School/public Destroyed ——U-57a* Birthright Cemetery XIX/XXI AS I 06 Cemetery Unknown ——58

Site Res. Lev VHLCNo. Name Study Units Type Inv Quad Function Condition SurveyU-58* Samuel Harris Cheap XIX/XXII DB I 06 Commercial Destroyed ——StoreU-59 Unmarked Cemetery XIX/XXI AS I 06 Cemetery Unknown ——U-60 * The Quarter XII/XVIII SB I 06 Domestic Excellent ——U-100* Masonic Lodge XIV/XXII SB I 06 Public Good ——U-101* Pasteur-Galt Apothecary XI SB I 06 Commercial Reconstructed ——U-102* John Crump House XI SB I 06 Domestic Reconstructed ——U-103* McKenzie Apothecary XI SB I 06 Commercial Reconstructed ——U-126* Miss Hallam’s XI/XXII DB DR 06 School Unknown ——School for FemalesU-127* “Negro School” XI/XVII/XXII DB DR 06 School Unknown ——U-128* Williamsburg Female XII/XXII DB DR 06 School Unknown ——SchoolU-129* Nicholson School XIII/XXII DB DR 06 School Unknown ——U-130* Williamsburg High XIV/XXII DB DR 06 School Unknown ——SchoolU-131* Matthew Whaley XIV/XXII SB DR 06 School Unknown ——SchoolU-132* Williamsburg Female XIV/XXII DB DR 06 School Unknown ——SeminaryU-133* William and Mary XIV/XXII DB DR 06 School Unknown ——AcademyU-134* Cedar Grove Cemetery XII/XIV AS DR 06 Cemetery Unknown ——59

Map 7.1. Comprehensive Map of Inventoried Cultural Resources.61

Map 7.2. Comprehensive Map of Unnumbered Properties.62

Section 8.Management Plans

INTRODUCTION TO THE MANAGEMENT PLANSCultural Resource Management: Historical BackgroundCultural resource management has existed under various guises in Virginia since1854, when Ann Pamela Cunningham began her groundbreaking efforts to preserve and restore Mount Vernon, the home of George Washington. The Tidewaterregion witnessed the next significant watermark in the preservation movementwith the founding of the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities(A.P.V.A.) and the Catherine Coleman Memorial Society, a charitable organization thathelped to fund the restoration of the Bruton Parish Church and Graveyard.These early organizations focused their attention on significant historic structuressuch as the Jamestown Church and the Powder Magazine in Williamsburg, as well as onencouraging interest in the area’s past by promoting historical celebrations such as theJamestown Tercentenary Celebration in 1907.The historic preservation momentum in the Tidewater continued with the establishmentof the Colonial Williamsburg Restoration in 1926, and the founding of ColonialNational Historical Park, encompassing both Yorktown and Jamestown. These organizations,both federally-sponsored and privately funded, brought national attentionto the colonial past, and to the scholarly, popular, and economic value of historic preservation.Such efforts, although noteworthy, were nonetheless isolated, affecting only a relativelyfew historic and archaeological properties. Continued development in the Tidewater,sparked in part, ironically, by the success of the Restorations, led to the destructionof a number of significant historic sites and structures. State efforts to mitigate thisdestruction began with the founding of the Virginia Historic Landmarks Register, andthe naming of a number of “Scenic Highways and Virginia Byways,” while federalrecognition of the problem resulted in the 1966 legislation establishing the NationalRegister of Historic Places. Further legislation, developed as part of the National EnvironmentalQuality Act of l969, served to protect federally-owned properties, or thoseaffected by projects using federal funds.Cultural resource management becomes even more important as development pressuresincrease. Cultural resources, unlike many environmental resources, are non-renewable,and planning for their protection must be a matter of concern to both scholarsand the public in general. The Tidewater bears the especially weighty responsibility ofprotecting a number of properties, both archaeological and architectural, which are ofnational, and even international significance.Cultural Resource Management: The Present EffortAwareness of these significant resources on the James-York Peninsula, combined withthe recognition that development pressure has intensified in the past few years, led theVirginia Division of Historic Landmarks to support the creation of local-level preservationplans for four peninsula jurisdictions, James City and York Counties and the cities65

of Williamsburg and Poquoson. Funding of this project has ushered in a new and challengingphase of cultural resource management in the Tidewater.Using a planning model commonly known as the Resource Protection PlanningProcess, or “RP3”, a group of professionals, including archaeologists, historians, architecturalhistorians, folklorists, and concerned area residents, worked together to producea two-volume preservation plan for the above jurisdictions. This plan identifiesthe important themes which comprise the historical development of the James-YorkPeninsula and surrounding region and describes the kinds of properties and sites associatedwith these themes. For each theme or study unit, operating plans were developedwhich describe what steps need to be taken to accurately identify the sites and propertiesremaining within the planning area, and what should be done to acquire the informationneeded to reliably assess their significance. These plans also recommend measuresfor preserving or recording properties and sites whose location and historical valueare already well-established.The purpose of this section is to outline a process whereby the technical informationcontained in the study unit narratives and operating plans found in Sections 1-6 ofthe larger planning study can be used to actually manage properties and sites that havebeen or may be determined significant to the history of the region, to the Commonwealthof Virginia, or to the nation. Thus, the planning document offers the most up-todateinformation available about what exists now and provides a framework for decidingwhat is important. The management plans for each jurisdiction take the recommendationscontained in the operating plans developed for properties associated with eachhistorical theme and integrate them into a series of actions that can or should be taken inthe very near future or over the next few years.It should be stressed that these recommendations are based on what is now knownabout the sites and properties associated with each historical theme identified in theplanning study. They also reflect what is presently known of development plans nowactively being considered by the planning departments and planning commissions ofeach affected jurisdiction. In order to be successfully implemented, they must be consideredpart of an on-going process of organizing and sharing reliable and detailed informationabout the location and significance of sites and properties within each affectedjurisdiction. Such information, made available as early as possible in the planningcycle for individual projects, will permit appropriate and feasible decisions regardingthe treatment of these resources by those county and city officials charged with thatresponsibility.In order to encourage this process, it has been proposed that a regional informationcenter be established at the College of William and Mary, with financial support fromthe agencies and organizations making use of it. Working closely with staff of the VirginiaDivision of Historic Landmarks, it will be the responsibility of this center to assembleand distribute information about properties and sites located within particularproject areas, and provide assessments of their significance in light of the historicalthemes identified in the planning document. To the extent that it is feasible, the informationcenter would also pursue recommendations made in the operating and managementplans that require technical assistance from resource professionals. As part ofinternships and class work, as well as thesis research, students and faculty can begin toaddress many of the goals outlined in the preservation plan.66

The most efficient strategy for disseminating information about historical propertieswould involve the systematic and timely review of individual development projectsproposed for each jurisdiction, in cooperation with county and city planning departments.For a yearly fixed fee, planning departments would receive a service consistingof an analysis of the apparent historical and archaeological sensitivity of each projectthey have submitted for review. In this way, the location and significance of individualhistoric properties potentially affected by development activities can be described asearly as possible in the decision-making cycle, and viable options for treatment can beidentified.Preliminary steps have been taken to set up the regional information system infacilities provided by the College. These will include office space, storage space for themaps and site records created as part of the preservation planning study, and access tomain-frame and micro-computers. The latter will be employed to maintain and up-datethe computerized site and property forms created as part of the data organization phaseof the planning study. The regional center will be supervised by a committee whosemembers will include professional historians, archaeologists, architectural historians,and planners from the College of William and Mary, the Colonial WIlliamsburg Foundation,the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks, and local jurisdictions. Projectreview and the revision and updating of site and property files, locational maps, andother supporting documents will be undertaken by student interns under the direction ofa full or part-time staff member.It will be the responsibility of the information center to present recommendationsto its users. Decisions based on these recommendations will, of course, be the responsibilityof the jurisdictions and agencies involved in particular projects. Disagreementand conflict over what options, if any, should be chosen in a particular case will notdisappear, but the process of reviewing relevant information about cultural resourceswell in advance of final decision-making will surely help to reduce the potential forsuch conflict. This process will also permit the frequent revision and refinement of theexisting plan; a plan which represents the beginning of cultural resource managementfor this area, not its end-product.Cultural Resource Management in the Study Area: Quality ofthe Data BaseThe Virginia Peninsula is unique and fortunate in the quantity and quality of historicaland archaeological research which has been devoted to it, particularly that which focuseson architecture and material culture in the historic period. The products of thisresearch, which encompasses the work of the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks’Virginia Research Center for Archaeology (V.R.C.A.), the National Park Service, TheColonial Williamsburg Foundation’s Departments of Archaeology (now the Offices ofArchaeological Interpretation and Archaeological Excavation), Research, and ArchitecturalResearch, the College of William and Mary, and the Institute for Early AmericanHistory and Culture, provide a vast resource for scholars of many disciplines. Integratingthis research with the equally vast scholarship concerning the history and cultureof Tidewater Virginia in an effort to create meaningful cultural resource managementplans is not easy, however, due to a number of factors.67

Time and budget constraints have prevented archaeologists and architectural historiansworking on the Virginia Peninsula from completing systematic surveys. For thesame reasons, record-keeping has been uneven. Gaps in the data base are also a reflectionof the research interests of those working on the Peninsula, who in general exhibita decided bias in favor of 17th- and 18th-century Anglo-American history.Documentary resources, in general the bulwark of historic archaeological research,are uneven in the study area as well. James City County, a “burnt” county, has little inthe way of deeds or probate records predating the Civil War. This is partially compensatedfor by the good quality of the 17th-century patent records. A valuable 18th-centurysource is the Virginia Gazette. James City County is also unusually well-representedin early cartographic sources. Fortunately, as well, 17th- and 18th- century probaterecords and deeds do survive for York County, and are currently undergoing painstakinganalysis as part of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation’s York County Project.It is hoped that this research, as well as that being conducted by the VRCA and theVDHL, will ultimately provide detailed information on property types and site locationswithin the study region, that can be used to refine and amplify cultural resourceprotection plans.Existing Provisions for Cultural Resource Management withinthe Study AreaAlthough no ordinances or official procedures have been developed within the studyarea that deal specifically with cultural resource management, a number of existingzoning regulations and Comprehensive Plan designations can be of use in managingand preserving historic sites and structures.Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Residential AreasAll jurisdictions within the study area maintain as part of present land-use practices,and project the continued existence of, lands zoned for agricultural, forestry, and ruralresidential use. These zones, characterized by scattered farmsteads, minimal commercialand industrial activity, and extended woodland areas, have lower-density projecteddevelopment, and are thus potentially suitable for policies designed to protect and preservesites and structures.WetlandsThese areas, also common to all jurisdictions within the study area, include marshes,flood hazard areas, critical plant and wildlife habitats, and stream banks, which aresubject to strict use regulations. Since many prehistoric archaeological sites are foundin or near just such locations, these regulations might serve to encompass the protectionof sites as well.68

Registered Historic SitesAll jurisdictions within the study area with the exception of Poquoson, contain siteswhich are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. These sites, although notinvulnerable to development pressure, are protected by a number of federal regulations.Greenbelts“Greenbelts” generally refer to buffer strips along roads. These protect the scenic qualitiesof those roads, and protect nearby uses from the impacts of traffic. Historic roadways,and those lined with significant structures, as well as those which allow scenic views,are all potential candidates for greenbelt status. Greenbelt designations can potentiallyprotect structures and scenic views through easements, setbacks, and building restrictions.Parks and Public or Semi-Public Open SpacesThese are large, undeveloped spaces owned by the public, which have been set aside foreducational, recreational, and conservation purposes. Sites and structures which fallwithin the boundaries of these public spaces are or can be protected by local policy.Open-Space RequirementsMost jurisdictions within the study area have as a goal the preservation of a certainpercentage of “open-space” within their boundaries. Even in areas of intense development,a minimum of 30% of open space per lot is often achieved. This restriction can beof potential use in protecting or preserving sites, if invoked early in the planning process,before structure siting is finalized.Concerned ConstituenciesA number of local organizations are concerned with the protection of cultural resources,and the preservation of the cultural landscape. These include:• The Williamsburg Historical Society• The Williamsburg Local Records Association• The Archaeological Society of Virginia: Greater Williamsburg Chapter• The Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, Jamestown• The James City County Historical Commission• The Coalition for Quality Growth• The proposed York County Historical Commission• The York Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution• The Poquoson Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution• The Williamsburg Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution• The Civil War Round Table• The Poquoson Historical Committee69

• The Daughters of the Confederacy, United, Williamsburg Chapter• The Preservation Alliance of VirginiaIn addition to these groups are several organizations whose activities occasionallyfocus on preservation activities, especially the Williamsburg-area garden clubs and theLion’s Club. All such organizations are potential sources for volunteer activities, fundraising,and information exchange, necessary to a comprehensive cultural resource managementplan.Current Treatment OptionsGiven the nature of present local ordinances and requirements, a limited number oftreatment options for cultural resources are possible. These include the preservation or“banking” of archaeological sites by leaving them undisturbed in open-space, greenbelt,conservation, or park areas. Sites can also be “banked” by burying them under parkinglots, landscaped areas, etc.Buildings and sites can be protected by easements, setbacks, zoning regulations,federal or state regulations for registered historic sites, and by acquisition with publicfunds. Ideally, significant structures should be preserved in place. If in-place preservationis not possible, the second most preferable option is relocation of the structure forpreservation elsewhere.The least preferable treatment option for significant structures and sites is mererecording before destruction. This option is both most costly and least effective in anoverall preservation plan. If sites and structures cannot be saved, however, efforts shouldbe made to conduct the most detailed study possible to prevent complete or partialinformation loss.Tools for Cultural Resource ManagementPotential tools for cultural resource management in the study area include a number offederal and state programs, a summary of which is taken from Herd and David (1981):Local Comprehensive Plans and Historic District OrdinancesVirginia legislation requires that each jurisdiction create a Comprehensive Plan, whichmay include provisions for cultural resource management, and historic district ordinancesare also permitted by state legislation.National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)This is a list of recognized historic properties compiled by the U.S. Department of theInterior. Advantages to listed properties include tax benefits and protection from disturbanceby federally-funded projects. Properties can only be listed with the consent ofthe owner. The National Register encourages the protection of historic properties bydocumenting their significance, making owners of historic properties eligible for grantsin-aidfor preservation projects, and encourages the rehabilitation of historic properties70

through tax incentives. Some 28 properties in the four jurisdictions are currently listedon the Register (Table 8.1).TABLE 8.1.PROPERTIES ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACESJAMES CITY COUNTY:Site No. Property DateJC 110 Carter’s Grove Plantation 1969JC 14 Chickahominy Shipyard Archaeological Site 1979——— Colonial National Historical Park 1966——— Governor’s Land Archaeological District 1973JC 9 Green Spring Plantation 1978JC 124 Hickory Neck Church 197347- 9 Jamestown National Historical Site 1966JC 37 Kingsmill Plantation 1972JC 232 Pinewoods 1971JC 123 Powhatan 1970JC 77 Stone House Site 1973JC 45 Tutter’s Neck Site 1969?YORK COUNTY:Site No. Property DateYO 60 Bruton Parish Poorhouse Archaeological Site 1982YO 7 Bryan Manor Plantation 1978——— Colonial National Historical Park 1966YO 17William Gooch Tomb and Yorke VillageArchaeological Site 197499-10 Grace Church 197099-12 Kiskiack (Lee House) 1969YO 294 Porto Bello 1973——— Yorktown Historic District 1973?——— Yorktown Shipwrecks 1973CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:Site No. Property DateCW-21B Bruton Parish Church 1973?WB 3 College Landing 1978?WB 5 Capitol Landing 1978CW-28BG&H Peyton Randolph House 1973?CW-2A James Semple House 1973?WB 30 Williamsburg Historic District 1969?CW-16A Christopher Wren Building 1966CW-21A George Wythe House 1973?71

Easement AcquisitionThese restrictive deeds and partial property interests in perpetuity are legal documentsdrafted by the organization that has agreed to hold the easement and enforce its provisions,in cooperation with the land owner to protect properties and their surroundingfrom disturbance or unseemly use. Easements are accepted by the VDHL, the VirginiaOutdoors Foundation, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.Tax IncentivesThe Federal Tax Reform Act of 1976 allows tax benefits for improvements to propertieson the NRHP or which are located within approved local historic districts, and are usedfor commercial or income-producing purposes.Transferable Development RightsSome states grant local governments the authority to develop programs to sell developmentrights, separately from other land-ownership rights, allowing owners of restrictedlands to purchase development rights in other areas of the jurisdiction where developmentis permitted.Section 106: Compliance with Federal RegulationsEach year there are a certain number of development projects proposed for the planningarea which fall under the review provisions of section 106 of the Historic PreservationAct of 1966. This review process, spelled out in regulations developed by the President’sAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR Part 800 (1984)), comes into playwhenever a development project takes advantage of federal grants, loan guarantees, ortechnical assistance, or is required to obtain permits from federal agencies. In theseinstances, the federal agency involved is obligated to consider the effects of the projecton properties presently listed on or potentially eligible to be listed on the National Registerof Historic Places. Local review of these projects is the responsibility of the VirginiaDivision of Historic Landmarks. Should review of projects indicate that suchproperties may be affected, surveys will be recommended and should be conducted inorder to determine whether any National Register eligible properties exist in the affectedarea. Although enforcing compliance is the responsibility of the VDHL, localjurisdictions can and should participate in the process by ensuring that state officials areaware of all projects which fall under 106 review. A useful guide to this review process,prepared under the auspices of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and availablefrom them is titled Working with Section 106: Guidelines for the Review Processestablished by 36 CFR Part 800 (1984).A great deal of other published literature is available concerning preservation planningand cultural resource management. A number of publications can be obtainedthrough the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks. The recently-published All AboutOld Buildings: The Whole Preservation Catalog, edited by Diane Maddex (1985), is auseful summary of sources for and examples of preservation action in the United States.72

Local ConstraintsDuring the last twenty years, this study region has experienced a rapid rate of growth.Part of this growth has been directly influenced by the comparable development of bothNewport News and Hampton, a spill-over effect. This is demonstrable by the largenumber of commuting residents. In York County, two-thirds of the county’s work-forceworks outside the county and in James City County, and about half commute to jobsoutside the county (York County l983; James City County l981).Another aspect of this growth can be attributed to the industrial development of thetwo counties. The first major manufacturing company in James City County was theDow Chemical Company in 1958 (now Badische Corporation), followed by Anheuser-Busch, Inc., the Ball Metal Container Group (in 1972), and most recently Owens-Illinois,Inc. at Toano (in 1980). In York County, the last twenty years have seen the establishmentof a large number of new firms, such as the Amoco Oil Company and DareInstruments Corporation. The seafood industry has kept pace with the increasing growth,and one important local industry is the W. Haywood Forrest Seafood Company, Inc. ofPoquoson.Tourism continues to be an important economic factor in both counties. The touristindustry has flourished in the last two decades. Currently historic sites such asJamestown, Yorktown, and Historic Williamsburg receive over a million visitors a year,while such attractions as the Williamsburg Pottery Factory and Busch Gardens haveeven higher visitation rates. The services required to support such an influx of peopleinto the region has stimulated a tremendous growth in such related industries, thus creatinga demand for a larger local population.As a result of all these factors, the population of these two counties has doubledfrom about 40,000 to almost 78,000 residents in the last twenty years. There has been a50% increase in housing in the last ten years alone, with planned communities such asCrofton and Kingsmill and multi-family units, including apartment complexes andtownhouses. Both Williamsburg and Poquoson have been rapidly growing, withWilliamsburg annexing additional land several times over the last twenty years andPoquoson achieving independent city status in 1975.Planning projections for both counties and cities predict continued growth at thesame rate as the last two decades. This would double again the population and encouragea relative increase in industrial development in the next twenty years.Constraints against successful cultural resource management in the study area fallunder a number of headings. Present zoning regulations are not sufficient, in mostcases, in protect clusters of sites and historic neighborhoods, or to preserve historiclandscapes. Perhaps more seriously, while support is given to the notion of culturalresource management, these considerations are currently overridden by the furious paceof development, as well as a strong local value in favor of unrestricted use of privateland.Moreover, communication between the state and federal preservation agencies andlocal planning departments is not well developed. There also appears to be a lack ofcoordinated action by local preservation groups. Federal and state programs applicableto sites and districts within the study area are underutilized. Efforts to save sites and73

structures, and to regulate the pace of development, have been largely piecemeal andineffective as a result.Threats to Cultural Resources within the Study AreaThe major threats to cultural resources within the study area are residential development,commercial and industrial development, site erosion and neglect, looting, andpublic indifference. The four jurisdictions within the study area predict that the greatestgrowth in the next two decades will be residential. This poses serious threats both toindividual sites and structures, and to historic districts, historic landscapes, and scenicareas as well. Lack of information concerning the inventory of archaeological sites andhistoric buildings in many parts of the study area, and the absence of local ordinances toprotect those resources impacted by private development, make the destruction of anumber of important sites and structures inevitable.A rise in commercial and light industrial development in the area is also predictedin the next twenty years. While these are also potential threats to cultural resources,local restrictions on them make the possibility of protecting impacted sites and structuresgreater than that in privately funded smaller-scale development.Riverine and shoreline archaeological sites have been lost, and continue to be destroyedat an alarming rate, as the shoreline is eroded. It is estimated, for example, that500 feet of bank along the James River at Wolstenholme Towne have eroded away sincethe settlement of that community in 1611. At the same time, a number of known sitesand historic structures are lost through neglect, negligence, and the secondary effects ofdeep-plowing, road improvements, and landscaping.Looting of archaeological sites and abandoned buildings, and the unregulated excavationof sites by collectors, is also a major threat to cultural resources in the studyarea. The practice of collecting over plowed fields, and the more recent advent of prospectingwith metal detectors, has led to the disappearance of evidence that could helpplanners to avoid sites, and scholars to understand their nature and distribution. Artifactscollected in the absence of careful recording techniques are largely useless forresearch or educational purposes, and unrestricted collecting of this type is a great lossto professionals and to the public as well.Perhaps the most serious threat to cultural resources in the area, however, is lack ofpublic knowledge about their value and condition, and the widespread sense that thedestruction of sites and standing structures, as well as that of the traditional qualities oflocal landscape, are inevitable and unavoidable. The problem of inadequate informationis compounded by an equally widespread resistance to restrictive zoning as a violationof individual property rights. Until a coherent effort is made by local planningofficials, state and federal agencies, and preservation groups to reach the public andenlist their aid in helping to preserve, protect, and learn from local cultural resources,the fate of these sites, structures, and landscapes, as well as the intangible aspects oflocal history and folklife, is uncertain.74

Recommendations for Regional Resource ManagementPlanningEfforts to improve cultural resource management in the study area should be both stateandlocally-sponsored. At the state level, the following actions are recommended:(1) Improvement of state site forms and architectural survey forms, and developmentof more rigid standards for their completion.(2) Development of consistent methods of communicating with local planning departmentsabout legislation and programs available for cultural resource management.(3) Establishment of a number of regional information centers, where informationabout upcoming development can be collected from localities and processed,and steps to mitigate its effects on sites and structures can be negotiated in atimely manner. Such an information center is proposed for this study area, tobe housed at the College of William and Mary. The center would serve as aclearinghouse for data about sites and structures, and would provide informationfor use in planning decisions. Funding for the center could be shared bythe jurisdictions within the Regional Planning District, and the State (for furtherdiscussion about the proposed Information Center, see Section 1).(4) Initiation of a number of surveys, both architectural and archaeological, to evaluatethe property types associated with nationally-significant resources withinthe study area, including 17th-century sites and protohistoric sites, as well aswell as regionally important properties such as 18th-century non-domestic structures,early 19th-century industrial sites, and late 19th-century structures.(5) Establishment of a position for a state folklorist.(6) Computerization of state archaeological and architectural site forms.(7) Designation a member of the VDHL staff to respond to emergency requests forassistance in saving a structure or site, or at the very least to assist in recordingit before destruction. If such a designation is not feasible, it is recommendedthat the VDHL coordinate a consortium of architectural historians who can becalled on in emergency situations to record buildings in different parts of thestate.At the Regional Planning District Level several things should be done:(1) Contribution of funding to initiate surveys to determine the nature and extentof archaeological and architectural resources.(2) Contribution of funding to a local information center, where data about upcomingdevelopment can be evaluated, and steps taken to protect sites andstructures as part of the planning process (see above).(3) Establishment of regional guidelines for preservation of large-scale culturalresources, and for the protection of historic and cultural landscapes from impact.75

(4) Hiring of a regional archaeologist to manage cultural resources. Such a positioncould be funded through grants, and pooling of regional planning resources,and well as through savings in federally-funded mitigation.(5) Establishment of a regional folklore/folklife program.(6) Establishment of local historic overlay districts.(7) Development of public education programs to inform residents about the importanceof cultural resources and what they can do to help protect them.The cost of such programs and surveys could be shared by all local jurisdictions,with the staff and offices of the Regional Planning District serving as the center.At the local level a number of steps should be taken as well:(1) Establishment and support of county and city Historical Commissions.(2) Planning of a workshop, which can be state-funded through the Virginia Divisionof Historic Landmarks, for local planning officials and staff to consultwith preservation planners concerning options for resource management planning.(3) Hiring of planners with preservation planning experience.(4) Work to develop historic preservation zoning and to establish historic districtsto protect cultural resources.(5) Development of local education programs through the secondary schools andpublic library to teach students about historic resources and their protection.The recent establishment of Historical Commissions in James City County, YorkCounty, and Poquoson is evidence of the growing awareness among Tidewater residentsthat the responsibility for protecting the area’s historic heritage can no longer beleft to large private foundations and the federal and state government alone. In themanagement plans that follow, specific recommendations are made for each jurisdictionfor immediate and long-term resource treatment. These plans, like the document asa whole, are first steps— the process is an ongoing one, that requires continuous involvementby all those interested in preserving and interpreting the past.76

JAMES CITY COUNTY: MANAGEMENT PLANBrief History of James City CountyJames City County, the original boundaries of which were established in 1634, wasoccupied many thousands of years earlier by the ancestors of the present-day VirginiaAlgonquins. The earliest occupants of the region, who ranged its forests between 8000B.C and 6500 B.C., were migratory hunters, sought the game and lithic raw materials inwhich the area abounded, and established thousands of camps and hunting stations alongrivers and streams for that purpose.Descendants of these hunters, and perhaps others from the south and west, settledpermanently in the Lower Tidewater by 2000 B.C., adapting themselves to local conditions,and developing a balanced economic and social life which served them well formany centuries. By the 16th century A.D., new environmental conditions, the introductionof agriculture, and perhaps the influence of European traders, fishermen and explorers,led to the development of one of the most complex social/political organizationsin Native North America, the Powhatan Chiefdom, which stretched from the AtlanticCoast as far as the Fall Line near Richmond, south to the Chowan River and theDismal Swamp, and north to the Potomac, including all the territory of James CityCounty.It was the Powhatan, led by a paramount chief of the same name, who met theJamestown settlers in 1607. The strength and political sophistication of the Powhatangreatly influenced early decision-making among the Virginia Company officials, andthe first Powhatan uprising of 1622 was undoubtedly a factor in the dissolution of theCompany in 1624.The increasing strength and size of the English colony, the devastating effects ofEuropean-imported diseases, and conflict within the Chiefdom all contributed to theeventual defeat of the Powhatan, who were ultimately confined to four, and later two,reservations outside the boundaries of James City County. Their influence, however,continued to be felt in the affairs of the County, and evidence of their presence survivesto the present day.Ten years after the dissolution of the Virginia Company, the colony was dividedinto eight geographic units known as shires, and later, counties, of which James CityCounty was one. These counties had jurisdiction over cases of common law, equity,and probate of estates. While the destruction of James City County’s colonial recordsduring the Civil War makes it difficult to determine the details of the early history of thecounty, enough is known about the history of surrounding counties to outline the broadchanges that took place.Legislative, economic, and social activities of the colony continued to center aroundJamestown, although settlement spread outward as new “Hundreds” and plantationswere established. After the burning of the State House at Jamestown in 1698, however,the colonial capital was moved to Middle Plantation, later to become the city ofWilliamsburg, near the newly-built College of William and Mary. Although the countyseat remained at Jamestown for some years after that date, it too was eventually movedto Williamsburg in 1716.77

For the next eighty years, the destiny of the county was tied to that of the colonialcapital of Williamsburg, which was incorporated as a city in 1722. Political, economic,and cultural movements significant throughout the American Colonies were witnessedin James City County in the 18th century. Recovering from the hardships of the RevolutionaryWar, James City County entered a new period of economic growth in the early19th century, in spite of the movement of the state capital to Richmond in 1780.The prosperous decades immediately preceding the Civil War were followed bythirty years of relative isolation and economic decline in James City County, althoughagriculture and small-scale industry continued to provide a living for an increasingpopulation, both black and white. The 1890s saw an end to this isolation, for the buildingof the C & O Railroad, the arrival of new immigrant populations, particularly theScandinavians, and the founding of nearby industries such as the Newport News Shipyard,provided new employment opportunities and opened up new markets for agriculturalproducts and manufactured goods.The quickening pace of growth in James City County was given further impetusby the establishment of a number of military-related industries and military bases in theregion, which brought both new residents, and new economic opportunities. An equallyimportant economic and cultural development was the founding of the ColonialWilliamsburg Restoration, and the establishment of the Colonial National HistoricalPark at Jamestown and Yorktown. These innovative restorations were the basis for theenormous regional tourist industry, which supports directly and indirectly a large percentageof the county’s residents today.Since World War II, James City County has attracted additional industries, and hascontinued to grow as a result of continued military development of the area, and of thetourist related industries. New residents are also attracted to the county’s unique historic,cultural, and recreational features, and parts of James City County have developedsubstantial vacation and retirement communities.Cultural ResourcesMajor Categories of ResourcesMajor categories of historical resources for studying James City County history includedocumentary sources, archaeological data, standing structures and buildings, and perhapsmost importantly, human resources for folklore, oral history studies, and localhistorical information.Documentary SourcesThe most frequently used category of documentary sources for historical research arepublic or legislative records, including land-patent records, statutes, deeds, and probaterecords. James City County’s pre-Civil War records were destroyed in 1861, but theVirginia Gazette, published throughout the 18th century, provides a wealth of information,and 17th-century patent records for the county are also extremely informative.Church registers such as those for Bruton Parish, and the Quaker Meetings, also provideinformation about vital statistics and other aspects of community history.78

Private papers, letters, journals, day books and ledgers, kept by many individualsand families, can be useful in studying the history of James City County. Collections ofsuch papers are housed at the Swem Memorial Library of the College of William andMary, the Virginia State Library, and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library.Also included in this category are the memoirs and letters of soldiers and commandersof the various military regiments active in James City County during the RevolutionaryWar and the Civil War. Travelers’ accounts, such as those by the Quaker Thomas Storyin the early 18th century and the naturalist William Bartram in the late 18th century,give a detailed picture of past life in the county.Archaeological and Architectural SourcesThere are 370 archaeological sites and standing structures currently recorded on statefiles at the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks (the VDHL), and its subsidiary, theVirginia Research Center for Archaeology. Additionally there are at least 63 archaeologicalsites and structures not presently on official records, but of local importance. Ofthese sites and structures, several are currently listed on the National Register of HistoricPlaces. James City County has two registered Historic Districts (see Map 7.1 forthe comprehensive site map for James City County, and Table 7.1 for the comprehensivesite list).The highest concentration of recorded sites in James City County is in the southeasternend, with secondary concentrations along Route 60, although many of these aremap-predicted sites, and have not been “field checked.”Of these sites, 25% are prehistoric, and 75% are historic sites or standing structures.Studies show that these figures represent research bias and patterns of development(in the case of those sites located along Route 60) rather than the original distributionand density of such sites.Of recorded archaeological and architectural resources, 34% are map-predicted,and 52% are known only through Phase I, or limited, survey (see Table 8.2). Six majorarchaeological surveys have been conducted in James City County, but these have focusedon limited geographic areas, and no county-wide archaeological survey has yetbeen done.Standing buildings and structures and other man-made features in James City Countyhave never been systematically surveyed and most of the information concerning theseresources has not been updated since the original surveys were done 25 and 15 yearsago. A 1977 Cultural Resource Inventory prepared by the County’s Department ofPlanning and Development located a number of additional structures and buildings, butthese have not been recorded on state files, and few were measured, photographed, oraccurately mapped. Of the sites and structures listed on state or local inventories forJames City County (see Table 7.1), only 4.5% are known to be in good condition, and alarge percentage are threatened (34%) or in unknown condition (50%) (see Table 8.3and Plate 8.1).Published reports and completed analysis of archaeological and architectural resourceswithin the county include the recent study by William Kelso of sites at Kingsmill(1984), the Chickahominy Survey (McCary and Barka 1977), and Ivor Noël Hume’srecently published Martin’s Hundred (1982). A number of unpublished manuscripts79

TABLE 8.2.INTENSITY OF INVESTIGATION OF JCC SITES AND STRUCTURESLevel a Number of Sites Percentage of TotalI 226 52%II 4 1%III 55 13%Inf. 0 0%MR/DR 148 4%TOTAL 433 100%aI=walkover survey, limited testing; II= extensive testing; III= extensive excavation, mapping, drawing, etc.;Inf= known only through informant testimony; MR/DR= known only through map research or documentaryresearch.TABLE 8.3.CONDITION OF JCC SITES AND STRUCTURESCondition Number of Sites Percentage of TotalExcellent-Good 1 4.5%Threatened 14 34.0%Destroyed 25 6.0%Excavated 24 5.5%Unknown 216 50.0%TOTAL 433 100.0%reporting archaeological excavations in James City County are available at the VirginiaResearch Center for Archaeology at the Yorktown Victory Center, and in the Headquartersfor the Colonial National Historical Park at Yorktown.Intangible ResourcesVirginia as a whole has been the focus of a number of folklore surveys and studies. Thewestern part of the state, in particular, is well known for its rich folk traditions in dance,music, and story-telling. Regions nearer to the study area, such as parts of Charles CityCounty, as well as the City of Newport News, have also been studied by folklorists,whose work indicates the potential which the Peninsula has for folklore and folklifestudies.The James City County 350th Anniversary Committee sponsored an oral historyproject, in which a number of county residents were interviewed for their memories ofearlier life in the County. Not yet analyzed, this corpus is of enormous potential valueto future folklore studies in the area.80

Plate 8.1. McDowell’s Place, Route 601.Other areas of county folklife which deserve further research are folk crafts, musicand dance, and foodways. Agricultural, manufacturing, and fishing tools and equipmentare also potential sources of study.Preliminary analysis of these data was the first step of the present project, as laidout in the guidelines for Resource Protection Planning. Results of the analysis are describedin the study unit narratives and operating plans which comprise Sections 2 through6 of this report. Study Units I-IV summarize the prehistory of Tidewater Virginia— theperiod of occupation by Native Americans, the first residents of the region. This period,extending from 8000 B.C. to 1560 A.D. witnessed many changes in Indian technologyand culture, as they gradually moved from a hunting adaptation to an increasing dependenceon agriculture and maritime resources.Study Units V-VIII describe the history of native peoples in eastern Virginia from1560 to the present, with an emphasis on the Protohistoric period. This period, whichdates from 1560 to 1607, is the time in which the ancestors of the present-day VirginiaAlgonquians had developed a highly complex socio-political organization known asthe Powhatan Chiefdom, which ruled the area at the time of first European exploration.The descriptions of the Powhatan written by the early explorers are the basis for thewritten history of these Indians, who had no previous tradition of literacy. The subsequenthistory of the Virginia Algonquian after the settlement of Virginia by Europeanswas one of great displacement, such that by the end of the 17th century, most of the81

emaining Indians had been removed from the study area, but their contributions toTidewater history and society remained significant.Study Units IX-XIV summarize the history of Euro-American occupation of theregion, beginning with the earliest period of exploration and the founding of Jamestown.The study units describe changes in society as a result of population growth, and innovationsin farming economy as well as the development of a stable governmental structure.Later study units describe the 18th-, 19th-, and 20th-century history of the Tidewater,including the development of the colonial capital at Williamsburg, the impact onthe region of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and the economic renaissance of the20th century. Topics included in this section are the development of the tobacco economy,the slave system, the economic decline of the region after the Civil War, the growth ofthe transportation system, and the Colonial Revival and preservation movement so importantto this area.Study Units XV-XX are devoted to the history of Afro-Americans in the regionfrom the 17th century to the present, with special emphasis on the institution of slavery,emancipation and reconstruction, and modern political and social developments.The final section, Study Units XXI-XXIII, is different from those that precede it incontent and focus. The three study units are thematic rather than temporal, and analyzeaspects of Tidewater society and culture which span the last three and a half centuries ofits history. Belief systems, especially religious beliefs and practices, have been integralto Tidewater Euro-American and Afro-American society and culture since the earliestsettlements, as they were to the Native Americans before them. Study Unit XXII, whichsummarizes the history of public welfare institutions such as schools, hospitals andrelief agencies, demonstrates the continuing importance of such institutions to regionalhistory. The last study unit, XXIII, is a brief history of the military engagements, personnel,and installations that have had such a dramatic impact on the region, both economicallyand socially.Resources associated with each of these study units still survive in the region,although many are threatened by development pressures and neglect. What follows isintended to outline the context in which these resources can be managed, and to provideguidelines for that process.Community ProfileEnvironmentJames City County is situated in the central portion of the James-York Peninsula, and isbounded on the west by the Chickahominy River and its tributaries, on the north andeast by York County, and on the south by the James River (see Map 8.1).Geologically, James City County is part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, a zone composedof sediments dating to the Cretaceous Era (140 million years ago). Topographically,it is largely flat, although it is cut by a number of deep ravines, as well as severalsmall streams and tributaries of the larger rivers. A large percentage of lands in thecounty are wooded or semi-wooded agricultural lands. Wetlands in James City Countyinclude areas adjacent to the Chickahominy and James Rivers, and a number of theirtributaries.82

Map 8.1.Current Demographic ConditionsLike other areas on the Peninsula, James City County has experienced relatively rapidpopulation growth since the 1970s, growth increases reaching 28% in the last decade.The areas within the county which have seen the greatest increase in population havebeen in the “Crescent” surrounding the City of Williamsburg, with secondary areasdeveloping further west along Route 60, especially in Lightfoot and Toano.Population is expected to increase to 33,400 by 1990, according to local projections,and to 38,800 by the year 2000. The current population of James City County isapproximately 28,096.Current Land UseAs of 1981, distribution of land by type of use in James City County was as follows(James City County 1981: 1):Commercial2,270 acresIndustrial 420 acresResidential 6,540 acresPublic Owned10,300 acresOther75,200 acresTOTAL94,700 acres83

Projected Land UseCommercial and industrial land use is expected to increase in James City County by200% by the year 2000. Residential land use is also expected to increase by 50%.Planning in James City CountyPlanning FrameworkPlanning within the county is the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors and thePlanning Commission. Planning functions are administered by the James City CountyDepartment of Planning and Development, in cooperation with a number of other countyagencies. All planning decisions are made in accordance with state regulations as well.Planning Procedures 1Planning functions within the county have two foci: current planning and long-rangeplanning. Long-range planning assures continual evaluation and reassessment of theCounty’s needs. Updating the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and otherspecial projects fall within the long-range planning purview.The “current planning” function assures that current development proposals meetthe objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other laws or plans.All applications for rezoning, special-use permits, subdivisions, and site plan approvalsare reviewed for compliance with these laws and plans. The review process can includethe staff of the Department of Planning and Development, various state and local agencies,the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. After approval of a developmentproposal has been granted, requests for building permits may be made to theDepartment of Code Compliance.The Role of Cultural Resources in PlanningAccording to the James City County Comprehensive Plan (James City County 1981),the county has as a goal the “encourage[ment] of new development to be harmoniouswith features of the physical environment” and the “protect[ion of] sites of historicalsignificance” (1981: 3). Related objectives include the establishment of greenbelts onhistoric roads, and the improvement of information about historical and archaeologicalsites (James City County 1981: 5).Planning policies deemed appropriate to these goals and objectives include theadoption of an incentive system. In addition, the County encourages communicationwith the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology (now a part of the Virginia Divisionof Historic Landmarks) as part of the planning process (James City County 1981: 6).1This section was written in part by Ms. Kay Robertson, a member of the James City CountyDepartment of Planning and Development.84

Goals and ObjectivesIn order to effectively manage the nationally-, regionally-, and locally-significant culturalresources of the County, and to protect and enhance the cultural and historic landscape,the following objectives should be adopted:(1) To develop ordinances which serve to preserve and protect important culturalresources.(2) To establish better communication with local preservation groups.(3) To establish zoning regulations to protect rural lands from development thatwill impact sites and historic and cultural landscapes. Such zoning is permittedunder section S.15.1-503.2 of the State Code under certain conditions.(4) To establish better communication with state and federal agencies concernedwith preservation for advice and assistance in managing local resources.Recommended Strategies for ImplementationGeneralSeveral options for managing and protecting local resources have been explored in otherregions that may have efficacy at the county level as well. These include:Ordinances. The establishment of local regulations regarding the treatment ofhistoric structures, and local zoning ordinances designed to protect cultural and environmentalresources.Certified Local Government Program. This program, which establishes guidelinesfor Cultural Resource Management, aids in implementing strategies listed above.Revised Local Land Use Plans. A number of jurisdictions within the state havedeveloped land use plans which take into account the presence of cultural resources andarchaeologically sensitive areas. Such plans have included zoning regulations, and thedevelopment of land acquisition policies which focus on the management and protectionof cultural resources.Archaeological Information Center. Participation in the creation and support ofan Archaeological Information Center which will serve as a clearinghouse for informationabout sites in the area, and possibly conduct limited survey and evaluation of landsscheduled for development. The center, which may be jointly funded by jurisdictionswithin the Regional Planning District, will be staffed by college students and local professionals,and will work in cooperation with the planning departments and the VirginiaResearch Center for Archaeology. (For further discussion of the proposed InformationCenter, see Introduction.)Public Information Program. Development of a public education program aimedespecially at elementary and high-school students to introduce them to the importanceof cultural resources and their protection. Encouragement of survey and renovationprojects, additions to curriculum, and other school-related activities.85

Figure 8.1.Specific RecommendationsIn addition to these general objectives and goals, the following specific goals are alsorecommended:Identification Goals• Survey of the 1000 ft. belt along each bank of the James and Chickahominy riversfor prehistoric, protohistoric, and 17th-century sites. Figure 8.1 illustrates the areasmost likely to be sensitive for prehistoric resources (see Study Units III, IV, V,VI, IX, and X).• Field-check of map-researched sites, particularly those from the Gilmer map, forlate 19th-century agricultural and military-related sites and structures (see StudyUnits XII, XIII, and XXIII).• Survey of late 19th- and early 20th-century transportation sites and structures, especiallythose along Route 60 (see Study Units XIII and XIV; Plate 8.2).• Survey of James City County farm complexes. This survey should focus on thosecomplexes that retain integrity of setting, original outbuildings, and original internalstructure. Special emphasis should be placed on those complexes associatedwith the Scandinavian communities in northern James City County (see StudyUnits XIII and XIV; Plate 8.3).• Survey of surviving structures and buildings associated with the Scandinavian community(Study Unit XIII).86

Plate 8.2. Commercial Buildings on Route 60.Plate 8.3. Cloverdale on Route 606.• Survey of family plots and cemeteries. This survey, which could be carried out bystudent groups or the historical society, should include maps, photographs, andlists of names of deceased, and transcriptions of epitaphs.• Survey of York River State Park. This area, located along the banks of the YorkRiver, and transected by a number of creeks and streams, has high potential forprehistoric, protohistoric and 17th-century resources.Evaluation Goals• Intensive survey and Phase II testing of identified protohistoric sites on theChickahominy River. This should also include evaluation of all artifacts recoveredduring the Chickahominy River survey (see Study Units IV, V, and VI).87

• Re-evaluation of the archaeological collections from Green Spring, Jamestown,and Governor’s Land to determine the presence of artifacts related to Afro-Americanpresence (see Study Units XV-XVIII).• Further study of the Quaker community (see Study Unit XXI).• Further study of the Greek community (see Study Unit XIV).Evaluation Goals for Upcoming Development Projects in James CityCountyA number of development projects scheduled to begin within the next year or severalyears will impact areas which are highly sensitive archaeologically. The following arespecific recommendations for these areas:• Midlands Townhouses. The Midlands, located off Strawberry Plains Road behindthe Raleigh Cabinet Shop, is situated in area of good-to-excellent agriculturalsoils, on the Mill Creek tributary. As such, it has high potential for prehistoric sites(see Study Units I-IV). The recently-completed Route 199 survey by the Office ofArchaeological Excavation of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation located severalsites in the area (JC359-366). Given the lack of knowledge about sites locatedon the interior and dating to the Late Archaic and Early to Middle Woodland periods,Phase II survey and testing of sites located within the proposed developmentarea is highly recommended.• First Settlers Landing and Drummonds Field Section Two. This area, adjacentto the Governor’s Land Archaeological District, and near the Green Spring ColonialNational Historical Park, was first settled in the early years of the colony(before 1622), and has high potential for historic sites of national significance (seeStudy Unit IX). Phase I archaeological survey, and Phase II testing of any locatedresources in this area are highly recommended.• First Colony Estates. This development, located at the intersection of John RolfeRoad, John Tyler Road, and Greensprings Road, is situated in the 17th-centuryGovernor’s Land tract. Areas immediately adjacent to this have contained severalnationally significant historic sites dating to the earliest years of colonization.Phase I survey and Phase II testing of located resources in this area are highlyrecommended.• Ford’s Colony Section Three. The proposed development is located in an area ofgood to excellent agricultural soils, and is transected by a number of the tributariesof the Powhatan Creek. The Route 199 survey recently completed by the Office ofArchaeological Excavation of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation located anumber of sites in this area (JC371-384). In view of our lack of knowledge of sitesof the Late Archaic and Early to Middle Woodland periods (see Study Units II andIII), a Phase I survey of the proposed development area, and Phase II testing arehighly recommended. Indeed, the Powhatan Creek drainage is so significantarchaeologically, that the creation of an Archaeological District in the area is alsorecommended.88

• Mirror Lakes. Located north of Rose Lane and Croaker Road, this developmentis situated in an area of good to excellent agricultural soils, and is drained by atributary of Taskinas Creek. As such, it has high potential for prehistoric sites.JC179, a map-predicted historic site, is also located in the development area (seeStudy Units XII and XXIII). A Phase I survey of the area is highly recommended.• Ware Creek Reservoir. The Ware Creek drainage is scheduled for flooding aspart of the creation of a reservoir. Like all creek drainages, it is highly sensitivearchaeologically, particularly for prehistoric sites. As the U.S. Army Corps of Engineerswill be participating in the creation of the Reservoir, the project is subjectto “106” compliance review. The Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, throughthe Commission on Environment, has recommended a Phase I survey for this area,which has not yet been completed.• Skiffe’s Creek Reservoir. The Skiffe’s Creek drainage, at the lower end of JamesCity County, is also scheduled for flooding during the creation of a reservoir. TheArmy Corps of Engineers will also participate in its construction, and the project isthus subject to “106” compliance review. A Phase I survey of the area is highlyrecommended, and may be done jointly with York County, and the City of NewportNews.Other Evaluation GoalsEstablishment of a committee to survey available preservation options and to determinewhich would be appropriate for James City County. Development of a preservationplan including a complete inventory of historic sites and structures in the county, and asummary of preservation goals and objectives, as well as a list of potential fundingsources. Such a plan could be based on the data summarized in this report, after systematicsurvey of resources is completed.Registration GoalsThe following properties and districts should be considered for either single- or districtnomination:• Norge Train Station (Study Units XIII and XIV).• Centerville District (Study Units XVIII, XIX, and XX).• Hot Water Tract (Study Units XVIII, XIX, and XX).• Riverview Plantation (Study Units XII and XIII).• Cherry Hall (Study Units XI and XII).• The mouth of College Creek (Study Units VIII and IX).• James-York confluence (Study Units I-IV and V-VIII).• Old Stage Road (Study Units XI and XII) (see Plate 8.4).• Old Forge Road (Study Units XI and XII).• Geddy House (Study Units XI and XII).• Powhatan Creek drainage (Study Units I-IV).89

Plate 8.4. Lombardy Farm on Old Stage Road.Treatment Goals• Acquisition of additional lands in upper James City County as a public preserve.• Protection of existing rural historic landscapes by revision of land use plans, andadoption of zoning for historic preservation provided for in Section S.15.1-503.2of the State Code.• Assurance of continued protection of National Register properties within JamesCity County.ConclusionThese recommendations, both specific and general, are intended to serve as a guide toresource management within James City County, rather than as a “blueprint” for such aeffort. As more information about cultural resources within the county is accumulated,different needs will arise, and new research, survey and evaluation will be required.The task of managing cultural resources is an ongoing one, which demands continuouscommitment from those interested in the heritage of James City County.90

MANAGEMENT PLAN: YORK COUNTYBrief History of York CountyThe prehistory of York County, like the rest of the Peninsula, is poorly understood and,in general, only bare outlines are known. A general sketch of the prehistory of thePeninsula can be found in Study Unit narratives I-IV.The earliest European settlements, in what is now York County, were made alongthe Charles and Poquoson Rivers somewhere between 1625-1632. By 1634, there weresufficient settlers in the area for it to be organized as one of the original eight shiresunder the name of Charles River. In 1643 the name was changed to York.The original county was much larger than its current boundaries. Counties whichcame at least partly from its original borders, included Gloucester, 1651; New Kent,1654; King William, 1702; Hanover, 1721; and Louisa, 1742.The early settlements in York County were known as Chiskiack, between KingsCreek and Felgate’s Creek; York Old Fields, about three miles below the presentYorktown; and Poquoson, still retaining its original name. The County Court met atvarious times in each of these places, even though it was thought originally to be held atYork Village. It was finally permanently moved to Yorktown, where it still remains.Four parishes dominated the religious life of the county and they had wide powersand responsibilities in the secular realm as well. These parishes were: Chiskiack (Hampton)Parish from Back or Chisman’s Creek to Yorktown Creek; Hampton Parish, fromYorktown Creek to Queens Creek; Marston Parish, which was combined withMiddletown Parish to form Bruton Parish in 1674; and Poquoson Parish, sometimescalled New Poquoson, extending from Back River to Back (Chisman’s) Creek. The lastof these was renamed Charles Parish by the 1680s. Because of their small size York andHampton Parishes were combined in 1706, forming York-Hampton Parish.Yorktown was a major Virginia economic center in the mid-18th century, secondonly to Williamsburg as an “urban center.” Important merchants exported vast quantitiesof quality tobacco and imported European goods for the county as well as much ofthe river basin hinterland.Yorktown, of course, was also the scene of the final battle of the RevolutionaryWar and the subsequent surrender of Cornwallis and his British Army on October 19,1781. The war left Yorktown debilitated and in 1784 a German traveller reported that“traces of the devastation were still everywhere visible and several families were livingat the time in the ruins of buildings that had been shot to pieces” (Schoepf 1911: 85).The War of 1812 brought British invaders once again and artillery bombardment causeda disastrous fire on the waterfront, which roared partway up the hill into town.The development of York County can also be seen in the general context of thePeninsula. By the end of the 18th century, it had become a major agricultural area.Roads were gradually improved as well as wharves and landings for the transport ofgoods and people. Small grist mills, tobacco manufactories, and sawmills were establishedto process agricultural products. The agricultural system itself evolved throughthe early 19th century to become one of predominantly mixed crop agriculture and91

specialized market garden produce. Steamboats linked York County with Norfolk, Richmond,and Baltimore, and new markets opened for agricultural products.After the Civil War railroads finally linked the Peninsula firmly with the rest of thestate, and as the demand for coal increased, the Newport News area of the county flourished.In 1898, the founding of the Shipbuilding and Drydock Company establishedNewport News as an important industrial city. After World War I, the popularity of theautomobile, improvement of the road system, and other factors aided residential growthin a dispersed pattern from Newport News into York County.In World War I, and again during World War II, the Peninsula assumed an activerole in the nation’s defense. York County was home to the DuPont Munitions Factory,which opened at Penniman in 1916 for the manufacture of artillery shells. Increasedport and ship-building activity in the war effort swelled the population of thePeninsula. Dependence on the military as a major economic base continued after thewar due to private defense contracts and military establishments, several of which arelocated in York County.The development of York County during the last century is largely the result of thegrowth of the local urban centers of Hampton and Newport News as well as the additionof federal military installations at the Naval Weapons Station, Cheatham Annex andCamp Peary. The county now serves as a residential base for many of these employeeswhile it retains a semi-rural character.As York County is virtually divided by a large mass of federally-owned land, it isoften split into two sections called the Upper County and the Lower County. The upperportion shares many services with Williamsburg and James City County, while the lowersection is tied more firmly to Yorktown. Poquoson, formerly the southernmost part ofYork County, became a separate city in 1975 (see Map 8.2 for general geographic featuresof the area).Historical ResourcesMajor Categories of ResourcesYork County has a broad range of cultural resources within its boundaries. Below is abrief summary of the contexts represented by these sites, structures, buildings, and landscapes,discussed in greater detail in the preceding study unit narratives and operatingplans. Recommendations are based on these sections and are cross- referenced to them.The prehistory of the area is described in Study Units I-IV. In general, only sketchyoutlines of the prehistory of the Peninsula are known and any new information gained issignificant. Prehistoric resources may range from a single Paleo-Indian point to a LateWoodland village with domestic and agricultural remains. Because of the presence ofvarious food sources, remains of prehistoric life are most likely found near water, includinglocations along the York River, its major tributaries, and on the margins ofinland streams. Wetlands and swamps similarly are sensitive areas for sites of prehistoricactivity (see Figure 8.2).Study Units V-VIII provide discussion of the Native Americans in the late 16thand 17th centuries, during the period of European settlement of the Tidewater. Thisgroup of peoples, known collectively as the Powhatan, were effectively eliminated by92

Map 8.2.Figure 8.2.93

disease and warfare by the late 17th century. Yet Native Americans contributed in manyways to the formation of York County society. This region is important because it isone of the few places in the United States where late 16th- and 17th-century interactionbetween Indians and non-Indians occurred.Cultural resources associated with this period included villages, such as the highlysignificant Chiskiack site, with an estimated population of 165 in 1610, and single dwellingsites. Other types of activities are similarly represented in massive and single burialsor temples. Later remnants of the Indian presence include trading posts, dwellings,and work places of Indian servants. All of these resources are important to the understandingof Native American life and the impact of European colonization on nativepeople.Study Units IX-XIV chronicle the history of the area’s European-American occupation.York County’s past, as summarized at the beginning of this plan, illustrates themany important ways that this jurisdiction has contributed to national, regional, andlocal development.Study Unit IX discusses the early European attempts at exploration and colonization.Even though there is no evidence of Virginia Company period settlement in YorkCounty, the physical remains of exploration attempts may be located. These includelandfalls or ship-repair stations. In addition, one of the most important sites from thisperiod, the Jesuit Mission, was probably located between Kings and Queens Creeks onthe York River. It is expected that this site now lies within the boundaries of moderndayCamp Peary.The later 17th century, a period of national significance, is described in StudyUnit X. During this period settlement became more dispersed, and York County containsmany resources from this period. James City County sites, such as Martin’s Hundredand Kingsmill, have been rigorously studied, but no intensive investigation ofsimilar sites has been carried out in York County. The William Gooch Tomb and YorkeVillage site, a National Register site near Yorktown, dates to this period.Study Unit XI details the heyday of this region in terms of its importance to thepolitical, social, and economic life of the colonies. From 1689 to 1783 the area continuedto stabilize and develop. With the establishment of the colonial capitol atWilliamsburg in 1699, the population of the small town and county swelled, not onlywith those involved in colony business, but with the expansion of trade and services aswell. In addition, Yorktown was one of the most important urban places in the colonyup to the mid-18th century as a depot for the tobacco trade and distribution of Europeangoods. The Sessions House, Dudley Digges House, Custom House, Smith House, NelsonHouse, Ballard House and Somerwell House are examples of important 18th-centurystructures in Yorktown. Many York County National Register sites also date to thisperiod. Because of the overemphasis on large plantations and urban domestic structures,other sites dating to this period, such as small or middling plantations, sites occupiedby tenants, free blacks or slaves, and industrial sites such as mills, are often underrepresentedand badly in need of study.The first decades after the Revolution were generally ones of relative economicand population decline from the earlier boom years, but the area began to stabilize andshow positive growth after 1820. Williamsburg and Yorktown continued in their roles,albeit greatly diminished, as local town centers. Agriculture was the predominant eco-94

nomic base, but small factories began to utilize some of the new machine technology ofthe Industrial Revolution. Little is known of this period, and of the 570 householdslisted in the 1860 York County Census only a handful are documented and still standing.Most of the resources dating to this period have been predicted based on a detailedmap produced by J. F. Gilmer in 1863. Because of the general lack of information aboutthis time period, most properties are potentially significant. Study Unit XII chroniclesthis era.Study Unit XIII examines the regional isolation of this area after the Civil War andthe changes brought about by railroad service and growth of neighboring regions, suchas Newport News and Hampton. In addition, by 1907 the ground had been laid for thenationally significant preservation movement. Agricultural farmsteads were still thepredominant feature in York County. Seaford and Dare expanded in this time periodbased on the booming seafood industry and the presence of steamship landings. Again,little is known about this time period in York County, although there are still countyresidents who can provide excellent documentation through oral history. Resourcesfrom this time period related to transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing are especiallyimportant.The period from 1907 to 1945 was one of increasing modernization and industrialization.One of the most important events for York County was the installation of permanentmilitary bases and the increased wartime production by private industry. Inaddition, the growth of services for the increasing population and the development ofthe tourist trade began to change the mainly agricultural face of York County. Thepurchase of large tracts of land by the federal government forced relocation of severalcommunities, as was true of Magruder with the coming of Camp Peary. The increasinguse of the automobile prompted residential growth in York County and settlement becamewidely “road-ordered.” Few sites or structures from this time period have beenstudied and available information on resources and their context is summarized in StudyUnit XIV.Study Units XV-XX examine the region’s historic development but focus on theAfro-American presence. Because blacks are not well represented in the documentaryrecord, and because their structures were often of impermanent materials likely to disappearfrom the landscape, archaeology takes on a new importance in the study of blackhistory. Archaeological evidence is one of the most important ways to study, in anunbiased fashion, the presence of Afro-American patterns in York County. Domesticsites, work areas, meeting and worship areas, and cemeteries of slaves and free blacksare important. Black communities as focal points for ties of kinship and communityspirit should similarly be preserved.Study Units XXI through XXIII differ from those previous in that they trace centuries-longtrends in the history of the Peninsula, broad themes which concentrate onideas such as religion and public welfare, or the nearly continuous presence of the military.Churches are usually well-protected, although their associated graveyards are notalways granted the same respect. Once stones are removed, cemeteries quickly fadeinto the landscape. Non-church or family graveyards are particularly susceptible. Alongwith churches, public welfare institutions often become symbols of the community’sidentity. Efforts to care for the poor and orphaned, to educate the young, and to control95

criminals were one of the first priorities of the colonial settlements. York County wasno exception and indeed led the way in reforms later adopted by the colony. The BrutonParish Poorhouse Site is a pre-eminent example of such early institutions, and a resourceof great importance. The remains of the York County Poorfarm, a 19th-centurysecular attempt to aid and control the poor, were destroyed in the late 1970s (Morris1983).Schools are perhaps the most common public welfare institutions. The concernfor educating the children of York Parish began early—York Parish had a school before1697. When major legislation was passed in 1869 for public education, York Countyquickly established schools such as that at Seaford and the Corner Pine School on theroad to Dandy. York County has the best documentation in the area of both these earlyand later schools (Morris 1983).The final study unit (XXIII) outlines the military events, institutions, policies, andpersonalities that have directly affected the Peninsula for centuries. York County hasbeen the site of countless military conflicts and activities, too numerous to mentionhere. Not only are the 17th-, 18th-, and 19th-century battlefields important but also thelesser campsites, earthworks, burials, sieges, shipyards and support areas. The YorktownShipwreck Project is of national significance and support should continue for excavationand protection. In addition, the late 19th- and early 20th-century military presenceis important, even though it is not as “old,” for its effects on York County’s developmentand population are striking.Documentary SourcesYork County is blessed with one of the region’s most complete sets of surviving historicalrecords. They have provided the basis for important scholarly research in manyaspects of early American history. For instance, the York County Project, funded by theNational Endowment for the Humanities, and underway in the Research Department ofthe Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, is an attempt to create mass biographies of earlyYork County residents based on these public and private records.A brief catalogue of public records includes: land records, such as patents, leases,deeds, and assignments; probate records, such as wills, commissions of administration,estate inventories and appraisals; and administrators’ accounts. Court orders begin inthe 1630s and stretch nearly unbroken to modern day.Other public records include personal property and land tax lists which begin immediatelyafter the Revolution; census records, to the household level and includingagricultural and manufacturing listings; and other miscellaneous sources.Private records include Bruton Parish and Charles Parish birth and death records,account books for various Yorktown and Williamsburg merchants and the papers ofseveral county families.An extremely underutilized source of history in York County is its oral tradition. Itis often difficult for an “outsider” to compile an oral history, yet local citizens are ofteneager to talk about their experiences and memories of certain areas. This is a virtuallyuntapped source of information about county life and development as well as a referencefor specific sites.96

Archaeological and Architectural SourcesNo systematic architectural survey has been carried out for York County. The YorkCounty Survey (1980) identified 65 prehistoric sites, based on a series of transects ofvarious environmental zones, but no meaningful statements about prehistoric site predictioncan be made with that information. Neither did the survey inventory historicsites or features. A detailed survey is an important first step in the development of adata base for site evaluation.Some 403 York County sites and structures are listed on the state inventory ofcultural resources. Thirty-seven sites were added based on this study. These resourcesare listed in Section 7. They range from intensely studied archaeological sites and historicstructures to scatters of artifacts and undetailed accounts of standing buildings.Table 8.4 details the intensity of survey of these resources. What is immediately apparentis that well over half (57%) of these sites, structures, buildings, and features haveonly been nominally studied, i.e. Level I survey. This type of survey can do little morethan locate and minimally describe these resources. Less than three percent of theseresources have had an intensive Level III survey. In addition, approximately anotherthird of these resources have only been located by their inclusion on an historic map.Table 8.5 presents rough categories that describe the condition of these sites. Itshould be noted, however, that these conditions are based on information that may dateto their discovery, and do not necessarily reflect their current status. Due to the hecticpace of development in York County in the past generation, this is an especially importantpoint. This listing illustrates the small number of sites that are currently protected(3.2%), balanced against an almost equal number that are known to have been destroyed.If the information base was updated and the current condition of the nearly60% with unknown conditions investigated, the actual number of destroyed sites wouldbe much greater.Important Archaeological and Architectural SitesYork County is the home of archaeological and architectural sites of national significance.Many of these are currently on the National Register of Historic Places, eventhough this provides no ultimate guarantee of protection. National Register sites in thisjurisdiction include the Bruton Parish Poorhouse Site, the Bryan Site, Colonial NationalHistorical Park, William Gooch Tomb and Yorke Village, Grace Church, Kiskiack, PortoBello, the Yorktown Historic District and the Yorktown Shipwrecks.Documentary research has provided information on other sites even though theyhave not been located. The Spanish Jesuit Mission is one such very important site andif it could be located would be a highly significant resource for understanding European-Indiancontact. Other domestic, industrial, and commercial sites are predictedfrom cartographic sources, particularly in the Revolutionary and Civil War eras. Importantsites include the York County Poor Farm (destroyed in the late 1970s) and theSkimino Quaker sites.97

TABLE 8.4INTENSITY OF INVESTIGATION OF YORK COUNTY RESOURCESLevel of Survey orSource of Information a Number of Resources Percentage of TotalLevel I Survey 251 57.1%Level II Survey 10 2.4%Level III Survey 13 2.9%Informant/Oral History 12 2.7%Map Reference 132 30.0%Documentary Reference 22 5.0%aFor a discussion of these categories, see Section 7.TABLE 8.5CONDITION OF RESOURCES IN YORK COUNTYCondition Number of Resources Percentage of TotalPreserved/protected 14 3.2%Excellent/good 23 5.3%Partially impacted/destroyed 92 20.9%Threatened 35 7.9%Destroyed 13 3.0%Unknown 263 59.8%Community ProfileEnvironmentPerhaps the most basic component of the development of any region is its configurationof land and water, slope and plain, soil and vegetation. These factors determine anypattern of settlement and any plan for development. York County’s extensive NaturalResource Inventory is a significant source for understanding its topography, soils, geology,flood hazards and wetlands, and forest lands (York County 1983). This excellentwork should be consulted for more detailed information, particularly in the developmentof models of site distribution, agricultural usage, and other land-use planning.York County is generally characterized by a series of distinct flats, pronouncedscarps and rolling plains leading from the Chesapeake Bay to the uplands in the northwestcorner of the county. Four principal inlets penetrate the eastern end of the county,including Wormley Creek, Back Creek, Chisman Creek, and Poquoson River. In addition,Kings Creek, Queens Creek and Skimino Creek in the upper portion of the countyas well as the York River influence settlements and road configurations (see Map 8.2and Figure 8.2).98

Perhaps two of the most dominant features of York County are the floodplains andwetlands. Floodplains store water and provide for fluctuations in stream size duringheavy rains, while vegetation in the wetlands provides for run-offs, helps stabilize theshoreline, filters pollutants from storm water runoffs and minimizes erosion.The extent of development within the floodplains and the preservation of wetlandsare a major factor in respect to aquatic life, shoreline stability, and water quality. YorkCounty has 195 miles of shoreline surrounded by more than 2000 acres of salt marshes.These resources are so important that a special ordinance was passed, protecting theseenvironmental zones, as well as specific sections in the Zoning Ordinance Draft (asupdated in 1984).Current DemographyYork County’s Land Use Plan contains the most recent analyzed data on demographyfrom the 1980 census. The population of York County has grown remarkably from theWorld War II years, increasing some 600% by 1980. This growth rate was generallysignificantly higher than that of most other Tidewater jurisdictions. Of this amount,natural increase represents only 25% of the whole, between 1970 and 1979. The remainderwas a result of in-migration.In 1980, the non-white population accounted for 19.3% of the county’s total population,representing a 1.3 % increase from the previous decade. The median age of YorkCounty residents in 1980 was 28.6 years old, a significant increase over the 1970 medianof 23.8 years.Paralleling national trends, this signifies a general aging of the population as birthratesdecline. Some 5.4% of the population is over 65. These changes, reflective of theimpact of the post-war baby boom, will have ramifications in the housing industry,school system, recreational facilities, and commercial development of the county.In any description of county demographics an important distinction is made betweenon-base and off-base population. The on-base military population accounted for21.2% of the country’s total population in 1980.In 1980 York County’s population density, based on gross acreage, was the secondlowest in the Peninsula (0.51 per acre). However, when the large amount of reserved(unavailable) land is factored out, the net density per acre is much higher (0.66 peracre).While the county’s population increased by 27.7% between 1970 and 1980, thenumber of housing units grew by 49.5%. This difference is accounted for by trendstowards smaller families, more single person households, and the building of more apartmentunits.Current Land UseSeveral characteristics are immediately apparent in the patterns of land use in YorkCounty. First, major portions of the county are federally-owned and this has had apivotal role in the development of county land. Additionally, the second major land useis residential, particularly single family dwellings. Commercial and industrial developmentis minimal.99

Federal landholdings make up nearly 40 percent of the county’s land area. Includedin this classification are the Bethel Manor military housing complex, theU.S. Coast Guard Reserve Training Center, the Naval Fuel Depot, Colonial NationalHistorical Park, the Naval Weapons Station, Cheatham Annex, and Camp Peary.The substantial increase in York County’s population has for a large part been botha result and a cause of increasing residential development. Seventy-three new subdivisions,containing 10 or more lots, were built between 1959 and 1981, resulting in a totalof 6725 newly developed lots. Residential land use accounts for approximately 19.7percent of all York land and the majority of these are single family homes. Most ofthese sub-divisions are small, with the largest being Queen’s Lake with 551 lots.Commercial activities take up 1.7 percent of York County’s land base. Most ofthese have developed in a linear strip fashion down major transportation corridors, includingRoute 17 in the lower county and Route 60 and 143 in the upper county. Inaddition, a large part of the County’s commercial development is related to tourism,particularly in the upper county. In this area some $23 million was spent in 1980 ontourist-related goods and services.Industry represents 2.9 percent of the net county land area, the great majority beingutilized by the AMOCO oil refinery and the VEPCO Generating Plant. Light industryhas increased and is encouraged by the Industrial Development Authority, particularlyin industrial parks. Currently Green, Bethel, and Ashe Industrial Parks are found inYork County.Public buildings and uses made up 2.3 percent of the net land area. Included in thisare county, state and federally owned office buildings (such as post offices). Semipublicbuildings and uses are mainly churches, but a large portion of this category ismade up by a Girl Scout camp near Skimino.The nearly 73 percent of York County net land remaining is open space. This isdivided into three categories: parks and conservation areas (19.0%), agriculture (5.7%),and “vacant” or undeveloped, unrestricted land (48.0%). These unrestricted “open lands”,as well as those contained in the federal landholdings, do much to preserve the ruralcharacter of York County. The task of county planning is thus how to best manage themajority of York County’s land, currently in undeveloped open space.Considering York County’s reputation as a rural, agriculturally-oriented county, asurprisingly small percentage of county acreage is actually commercially productiveagricultural land. This type of land use accounts for an estimated 2374 acres or 5.7percent of the net land area of the county. Most of this acreage is located in the Lightfootand Skimino areas, even though other operations are spread throughout the county. If arural ambience is to be preserved, it is imperative that this remaining farmland be judiciouslyand creatively managed.Projected Population PressureAccording to population predictions, York County will continue its significant growthrates from in-migratory population, reaching 68,120 by the year 2000. This will representan approximately two and one-half fold increase in the 30 years from 1970.As the population on county military bases is expected to remain stable, it is thenumber of non-base households in York County that will increase, moving from ap-100

proximately 35,000 to nearly 50,000 households in 1990. This represents an approximately45 percent increase in the current decade.This signals the continuing growth of York County as a residential area and a needto provide services and retail establishments to support this population. The criticalfactor will be the development of a process to control this growth within the open spacesof York County without the sacrifice of both the county’s quality of life and its culturalheritage.Projected Land UseYork County’s desirability as a residential area will continue to strongly influence therate of development. Two scenarios of development are presented in the York CountyLand Use Plan. One is based on current York development and is comprised of 75%low density development (single family detached homes) and 25% high density development(multiple family homes; apartments, townhouses, mobile homes). The secondpredictive model is based on Peninsula-wide growth and a more even (55/45) mix betweenlow- and high-density land use is expected.If an estimate is based on current York County residential patterns, 3951 acres oflow density and 272 acres of high density residential development will be needed. Ifbased on Peninsula-wide models, 2897 acres of low density and 490 acres of high densitydevelopment will be necessary to meet county demand.As most of the commercial and retail needs of the county are met by Hampton,Newport News, and Williamsburg, commercial development should be slight. Small“neighborhood” shopping centers could be supported, however. Office and professionalparks will also be encouraged.Tourist-related commercial facilities will continue to grow around Williamsburgwith a potential for at least two additional major resort hotel-convention centers.Whitaker’s Mill Tourist Destination Center, a $200 million complex, is currently plannedfor Route 199, including a resort hotel, family hotel, campground, inn, executive conferencecenter, commercial park, and amusement park.By the year 2000, projected demand for retail, commercial, and office developmentwill be 107 acres in the Upper County and 181 acres in the Lower County. Thereis no prediction for industrial growth in the Land Use Plan. This is mainly because it isdifficult to predict that type of growth which is not directly related to population pressure.However, the county’s Industrial Development Authority has become increasinglyactive in their role of attracting industry to the county, and has sought certificationunder Virginia’s Community Certification Program. Participation in this program willincrease state and national advertising of York County for potential industrial development.Plans for a $2 million industrial park in the Lightfoot area were recently announced.These long term trends of predicted land use are already seen in the demands ofcurrent development efforts. Based on the York County Development Summary ofOctober 1984, updated in August 1985, 34 single properties are either under constructionor in the various stages of the planning process in York County. Most of thesesingle unit developments or additions are quite small parcels, involving areas less thanfive acres. Exceptions to this are the K-Mart Shopping Center on By-Pass Road near101

Williamsburg and an addition to the George Washington Inn on the west side of Route143.Quite extensive development, however, is planned in residential sub-divisions inYork County. According to the York County Development Summary, 35 sub-divisionsare either underway or in the stages of the planning process. These residential areaswill encompass over 1100 acres. Table 8.6 charts a rough distribution of this futuredevelopment, if approved, in York County. As can be seen, over 40% of this residentialexpansion is planned for the Tabb area. If priority for survey is based on developmentalpressures, those areas with the greatest short-term planned expansion should be exploredfirst.Below is a brief discussion of the possible cultural resource potential for thoseresidential communities in the early stages of the planning process and for which constructionhas not yet begun. Included in this discussion is the presence of known sites,structures, or buildings, as recorded in the state inventory of cultural resources. In addition,several factors are considered which can aid in the prediction of sites, based on aparticular area’s potential. As studies have shown that development seems to consistentlyoccur on the finest agricultural soils, particularly from the late prehistoric timesthrough the 17th century, use of modern soil maps can aid in the prediction of land use(Lorena Walsh, pers. comm. 1985). Another factor for the prediction of historical sitesand structures is the proximity to colonial roads, evidence based on a series of 18th- and19th-century maps. Particularly important for the prediction of potential for prehistoricsites are certain environmental factors, especially distance to water, and thus the ecologicalzones of food procurement.This planning summary does not have sufficient detail to provide exact developmenttract boundaries. In addition, as land information is based on the U.S. GeologicalSurvey Quadrangle Maps (7.5 minute series) last updated in 1979, discussion of theseproperties may not be up to date. Thus, discussion of resource prediction must be somewhatgeneral in scope.Royal Grant, Section 2 (Williamsburg Area)The plan for the second section of the Royal Grant subdivision has been submitted.Located west of West Queen’s Drive, 35 lots are planned for these 25 acres. The areadoes not seem to have been surveyed and there are no known sites appearing on the statecultural resource inventory. According to the USGS Quad map, an unused road leadingto YO296, an 18th- and 19th-century site, transects the project area. In addition, a roadappearing on the 1781 Desandrouins Map borders the area.Much of the area is prime agricultural land (Emporia series), well-suited to cultivatedcrops, pasture and hay crops. However, slopes of 25 to 45% onthe western portionof this parcel limit such usage. These slopes lead to a small stream located c. 1500feet to the west. These water resources suggest a potential for intermittent prehistoricuse and such sites may be present. Especially high potential is predicted for those terracesimmediately adjacent to this stream, whereas those higher terraces are probablydevoid of prehistoric remains.102

TABLE 8.6FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN YORK COUNTYaPercentage ofCommunity or Area Number of Acres Total DevelopmentUpper Bruton 131.0 11.7Williamsburg b 81.6 + 7.3Lackey 30.0 2.6Seaford 16.2 1.4Edgehill and Marlbank 83.2 7.4Grafton b 305.0 + 27.3Tabb b 473.0 + 42.4TOTAL 1120.0 + 100.0aBased on York County Development Summary, October 1984 (updated August 1985).bIncomplete data for acreage.Potential for significant cultural resources is moderate to high, the upper terraceslikely to contain historic components and the lower stream terraces likely to containprehistoric components.Springfield Terrace, Section 3 (Williamsburg Area)Located west of Queen’s Creek Road and adjacent to Springfield Drive, a third sectionof this development has been proposed. This tract is located near the WilliamsburgBattlefield, and approximately 1500 feet to the east lies YO52, Confederate WilliamsburgDefenses Fort 10. The same distance to the east lies YO63, the Blair’s Quarter site, an18th-century site with Afro-American association.Environmentally, the development site is similar to many other upper county lands.The soil in this parcel is deep and well- drained and well-suited to agricultural usage(Emporia series). Two intermittent streams within the development area suggest a potentialfor prehistoric sites.Potential for significant cultural resources is moderate to high.Marlbank Farms, Section J-C (Edgehill/Marlbank Area)The construction of two sections of the Marlbank Farms sub-division is now underway.The development plan for the third section has been submitted. These 10 lots will belocated to the east of Section J-B off Route 634, near the intersection of Route 693.Both of these roads are included on the 1781 Desandrouins Map and YO352, datingfrom the 18th- to the 19th-century, is in the vicinity of the project area. Historic occupationis likely.Potential for historic resources is high; potential for significant prehistoric resourcesis low.103

Colonial Mobile Home Park Expansion (Grafton Area)This 2.3 acre expansion west of Route 17 near Grafton Christian Church is located onlow-lying land. No survey has been carried out, and no sites are listed in the stateinventory. Even though well-suited to agricultural uses, such as cultivated crops, pastureand hay (mainly Slagle fine sandy loam 0-2% slope), the seasonal water table andthe low strength and slow permeability of the subsoil are limiting factors for communitydevelopment. Upland swamps are in the vicinity.Potential for significant resources is low to moderate.Ripley-Ashe Townhouse, Apartments (Grafton Area)A site plan has been submitted for 440 units on a 44 acre tract on Route 17 and DareRoad. No survey has been carried out in the area and no sites have been located. Largesand and gravel pits are in the area and the soil is characterized as a Bethera-Izagora-Slagle association, deep and poorly drained. Two intermittent streams are within thearea.Potential for significant resources is low to moderate.Quartermarsh, Section 4 (Grafton Area)Located on Showalter Road in an area already developed as residential property, a planfor this segment has been submitted. No survey has been carried out and no sites havebeen located in this area. The soils are Kempsville-Emporia and Slagle fine sandyloams, both good agricultural soils. Although it is not clear from the York DevelopmentSummary, construction is most likely planned for a terrace above intermittentstreams. Because of the confluence of several streams in this lower area, prehistoricoccupation is expected.Potential for significant resources is moderate to high.Shamrock Farms, Section 1 (Tabb Area)West of Shamrock Avenue a development plan has been submitted for 46 lots on 13.79acres. No survey has been done of this area and no sites have been located. No historicroads transect or border the planned development.Environmentally, the site is relatively flat, and small wetlands may be included inthe project area or border to the west/northwest. Brick Kiln Creek lies approximately3000 feet south of the project area’s south boundary. It soil component is mainly Tomotleyfine sandy loam, good agricultural soil where it is drained.Potential for significant resources is low to moderate.Meadowlake Farms PUD, Section 1 (Tabb Area)Forty lots will be carved from a 27 acre tract for this sub-division northeast of Route134. This road was mapped in 1807 on the Madison Map, and depicted on the Boye104

(1825) and Gilmer (1861) maps. However, the majority of the site does not lie on thisroad and historic site potential is generally low.This soil is generally Bethera silt loam, with small areas of Yemasee and Slaglefine sandy loam. This soil is deep, nearly level and poorly drained and usually found inupland flats and in depressions. No water resource is indicated.Potential for significant resources is low to moderate.Woodlake Crossing (Tabb Area)Immediately to the southeast and contiguous in a small area, lies the proposed site ofWoodlake Crossing. This very large tract is composed of 154 acres for which 72 unitsare planned. Several intermittent streams intersect the area. The York County Surveylocated one large prehistoric site (YO59), dating from the Late Archaic to the MiddleWoodland period, on one of these streams to the east across Route 600.The soil, Bethera silt loam, is generally not well suited to agriculture due to poordrain-off. If drained, however, crop cultivation is successful.Due to the prehistoric sites to the east, as well as the large size of the proposeddevelopment, site potential is moderate to high.Shady Banks PUD (Tabb Area)North of Route 134 lies another large planned development. If constructed, Shady Bankswill house 1217 units on 142 acres of land. Its soil is primarily Tomotley fine sandyloam, deep, nearly level and poorly drained. In areas where drained, potential for agriculturalusage is good; however, undrained areas are poorly suited to cultivated cropsand to pasture and hay. A seasonal high water table is the main limitation for communitydevelopment.The area seems to be a low-lying marsh associated with Brick Kiln Creek, whichforms its northern boundary. No survey has been carried out and no sites are located onthe state register of cultural resources.Even though there is little potential for historic resources on this property, prehistoricsite potential is quite high. The environment of this tract is excellent for prehistoricresource usage and habitation.Potential for significant resources is high.Walden PUD (Tabb Area)A concept plan has also been approved for some 321 units of high density housing nextto the Bethel Manor Military Housing Complex. Bordered by the modern Big BethelReservoir, and a small tributary of that body, the tract is relatively flat but elevated. Itssoil composition is mainly Altavista, and belonging to the Tomotley-Altavista-Dragstongroup. These are deep, poorly-drained soils or moderately well-drained soils usuallyfound in low flats and terraces.105

No survey has been carried out in this area, and no sites have been located. However,it should be noted that a survey of the Harwood Mills Reservoir located dozens ofsites in a similar environmental zone.Potential for significant resources is low to moderate.Henry F. Moore Project (Tabb Area)Information provided by York County is too incomplete to fully study this proposeddevelopment. It seems to be located, however, north of Route 171 and east of CalthropNeck Road. An intermittent stream lies to the west of the project area. YO117, theWidow Drewry House, with both prehistoric and 18th-century components, seems to benorthwest of the project area, but as the size and boundaries of the development tract areunknown, may be included in its scope.Its soils are Dragston and Tomotley, poorly drained and unsuited to certain crops.If drained, however, the soil may be appropriate for other agricultural uses and crops.The 1825 Boye map illustrates a road in the vicinity.Potential for significant resources is low to moderate.Lotz Acres (Tabb Area)A development plan has been submitted for the second section of the Lotz Acres Estates.This tract of 39 lots lies on the south side of the Route 171 realignment (YorktownRoad), and to the east of Route 159. The prehistoric site YO159 is in close proximity tothis site, a few hundred feet south of an intermittent stream that may cut through theproposed construction area.The soils of this tract are mainly Tomotley fine sandy loam, deep, nearly-level andpoorly drained. If drained, however, the soil is well-suited to agricultural usage. BigBethel Road, to the west, is located on the Madison Map (1807), and a road to the northis illustrated on both Boye (1825) and Abbott (1861).Potential for significant resources is moderate to high.Edgewood, Sections 1 and 2 (Tabb Area)Preliminary plans have begun for the development of 44 lots on Yorktown Road inTabb. No survey has been carried out in the area and no sites are listed on the stateinventory of cultural resources. No roads are illustrated on historic maps.Environmentally, the tract is well-suited for cultivated crops (Slagle fine sandyloam). There is no direct water source in the area.Site potential is low to moderate.Planning in York CountyDevelopment in York County is governed by various state and local laws and regulations.Land use decisions are guided by the goals, objectives, and implementation strategiesfound in the York County Land Use Plan (York County 1983). This plan, an106

element of the York County Comprehensive Plan, begins by defining the desired futurecharacteristics of the county and outlines a series of strategies for their realization. Theoverall goal of the York County Land Use Plan is toenhance and protect the current “rural” character of the County and ensure thatdevelopment which does occur is in accordance with the rural character and is consistentwith the carrying capacity of the land and existing and planned utility systems,transportation networks, drainage facilities, and community facilities and services (YorkCounty 1983: 2-3).Zoning is an element of the overall planning process, the principal tool in the implementationof policies and future development patterns as elucidated in the Land UsePlan. According to the Zoning Ordinance adopted on January 24, 1957, the purpose ofthe zoning process is “promoting health, safety, order, prosperity, the conservation ofnatural and historical resources, and the general welfare requiring it” (York County 1984b:n.p.) The 1983 Land Use Plan recommends a total revision of the text and map of theexisting Zoning Ordinance (York County 1983: 5-3).A guiding principle in the development of zoning regulations is the concept ofpermanently reserved open space and buffer areas. Through design flexibility, openspace and buffer areas can encourage “site features and terrain for the purposes of recreation,aesthetics, wildlife habitat, protection of environment, and ecologically significantareas, and the preservation of the County’s rural atmosphere” (York County 1983:5-6). These reserved areas could also be utilized for the preservation of cultural resources.ProceduresDevelopment concepts must be examined by the York County Planning Department todetermine if they fit current zoning regulations. If not, application must be made forrezoning. In addition, some land uses, even though fitting the general zoning requirements,are incompatible with adjacent areas and necessitate special use permits. Specialuse permits require a more lengthy process of review, reports to the Planning Commission,public hearings, and other provisions. If a site plan has been approved, buildingplans and specifications must also be approved by the Planning Department and abuilding permit issued.Role of Cultural Resource ProtectionEven though there is currently no ordinance specifically protecting cultural resources,their value is certainly recognized in York County’s Land Use Plan. One of the overallobjectives found in that document is to “preserve and protect cultural, environmental,and historic areas” (York County 1983: 2-4). This overall concern is reflected in variousother sub-themes, especially those concerning the environment.Federally-involved or funded projects are subject to the provisions of Section 106of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act and cultural resources must be consideredduring project design. In addition, certain federal agencies, such as the Army Corpsof Engineers or various branches of the military, have their own protective restrictions.A void is left in the protection of resources in the private sector, and it is here that107

preservation interests have suffered. The institution of local ordinances, creative zoning,easement programs, economic incentives, and local government certification haveproven somewhat successful in other jurisdictions to create a solution to cultural resourcemanagement in the private sector.Goals and ObjectivesThe overall goal for York County is to enhance and preserve York County’s culturalresources within a framework of desired land growth as outlined in the Land Use Plan(York County 1983). This program promotes the preservation of the existing “rural”character of the county balanced by a positive and harmonious economic growth.Objectives to reach this goal include:A. An inventory of current resources to better formulate a plan for creative andpositive management.B. Development of policies which integrate the goals of cultural resource managementwithin the current planning framework and procedures.C. Development of a current and viable exchange between local developers, planners,and those concerned with cultural resource management in the county.D. Formulation of specific ordinances recognizing the necessary treatment of historicresources.E. Formulation of specific policies which allow for timely evaluation of threatenedproperties.F. Heightening of the awareness of county citizens to their rich cultural and historicheritage through public education programs.G. Utilization of existing or encouragement of new constituencies supporting preservationpriorities.H. Integration of public concern into the political process.I. Formation of an active York County Historical Commission. This may perhapsbe based on the current citizen’s group called the York County Historicaland Bicentennial Committee. This organization may be reconstituted to advocateand oversee resource protection as an integral part of the planning process.Recommended Strategies for ImplementationGeneralSeveral specific options are currently available under state and federal law to protectand preserve significant cultural resources. In addition, other jurisdictions have successfullyapplied creative and positive techniques of management facilitating preservationgoals.(1) Historic Ordinances.Under Virginia enabling law, local jurisdictions are required to adopt a ComprehensivePlan. According to the State Code, these plans may include consideration of historic108

properties through the enactment of ordinances. York County has six specific ordinances.They are concerned with erosion and sedimentation, wastewater, zoning, subdivisions,solid waste, and wetlands.This last is an example of the county’s special efforts to protect an important particularenvironmental resource. It specifically lists permitted uses of and activities onwetlands as well as those uses and developments for which a permit must be obtainedthrough an application process. Furthermore, it outlines processes, fees, and factors fordecisions on such applications. Violations through development without a permit aremisdemeanors and every day following a conviction that the development activity continuesis deemed a separate offense. The ordinance also sets up the Wetlands board andprovides for its continuance.Specific ordinance, such as those described in the introduction, for the assessmentof cultural resources is both feasible and highly recommended. One of the objectives ofthe York County Land Use Plan is to “preserve and protect the historic and architecturalcharacter of areas of the County such as Yorktown” (York County 1983: 2-19) and animplementation strategy is to “develop appropriate land development ordinances andregulations which... protect and enhance the historic and architectural character ofYorktown and other similarly significant areas of the county” (York County 1983: 2-20).With these stated concerns an historic ordinance seems an appropriate method forthe county, providing regulations and an advisory board to evaluate requests for developmentof historically significant properties.(2) Certified Local Government.Certified Local Government status provides for the legal entry of local governmentsinto the federal historic preservation process as amended in 1980. Certified local governmentsassume a role in the preservation of historic buildings, structures, objects, andareas, as well as prehistoric and historic sites.The major prerequisites for the certification of York County would be the enactmentof a historic preservation ordinance, and a review board to administer it, as describedabove. Certified local governments are eligible to receive funding from theVirginia Division of Historic Landmarks to help defray the cost of creation and maintenanceof a system for survey and inventory of historic properties.Certified local government status is highly recommended for York County.(3) Land Use Plan Revision.As part of the Comprehensive Plan, York County has developed a Land Use Plan and aDraft Zoning Ordinance. The Land Use Plan states a series of goals, objectives, andimplementation strategies and identifies specific resources within the community deemedto be important. It is strongly suggested that, wherever appropriate, particular care istaken to insert appropriate clauses concerning historic preservation and cultural resourcemanagement.For example, the Land Use Plan constructs a “Land Use Plan Evaluation Checklist:Factors Considered in Making Land Use Plan Designations” with 23 variables.109

Several of these factors are concerned with protection of environmental resources. It isrecommended that a clause be inserted giving official weight to similar preservation ofhistoric properties.County zoning districts may also be readjusted to protect areas of specific historicalimportance. Because of the poor quality of information on York County resources,it is impractical at this point to recommend any specific area as a historic district.However, with further inventory and evaluation of the resources of York County such amethod may prove useful.(4) The Problem of Federal Lands.As almost forty percent of York County land is federally owned, it is highly imperativethat the federal government be brought into the planning process for this jurisdiction.Federally owned land includes the Bethel Manor military housing complex, the U.S.Coast Guard Training Center, the Naval Fuel Depot, Colonial National Historical Park,the Naval Weapons Stations, Cheatham Annex, and Camp Peary.What is clear from this listing is that several branches of the military have responsibilityfor these areas, including the Coast Guard, the Navy, the National Park Service,and the Central Intelligence Agency. Each has their own regulations for land use andvarying cultural resource management requirements within their own jurisdictions. Thuseach individual branch must be brought into the process, and be made aware of thenecessity of compiling an inventory of their historic resources. These inventories couldbe made available to the proposed Information Center at the College of William andMary.Several important sites are known or suspected to lie on military property, includingKiskiack and the Spanish Jesuit Mission. In addition, little or no survey has beencarried out in the large undeveloped portions of these establishments. Developing anopen exchange with these federal agencies and strongly encouraging inventory and evaluationis highly recommended.In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers routinely carries out shoreline bulkheadand other structural projects within York County. Dredging can severely impact submergedresources, and with the rapid rate of shoreline erosion, many land resourcesnow lie below water level.Specific ObjectivesIdentification GoalsThe primary goals for York County are at the identification level. Little survey workhas been done and an inventory of historic resources is far from complete. Below is anUNRANKED list of possible goals to aid in the identification of significant York Countyresources. The best policy, of course, is an extensive, well-funded, and thorough architectural,archaeological, and/or documentary survey, but the following specific tasksare recommended:110

• A systematic survey of the York River shoreline, its major tributaries, and interiorstream margins within a 150 foot corridor. This is especially important for themore undeveloped property under federal control. Such a survey would cover themost likely areas for the identification of prehistoric, protohistoric and NativeAmerican remains, as discussed in Study Unit IV. This survey could be carriedout with co-operative funding from the local military authorities and York County.• A verification of 17th-, 18th-, and early 19th-century map-predicted sites throughfield survey. The maps, including the Berthier, Gilmer, and Desandrouins surveys,provide excellent information about the location and, in some cases, occupants ofmany sites and structures. Until they are field checked, however, it is impossibleto use them as part of an evaluative data base. Verification of the continued presence,either architecturally or archaeologically, of these historic buildings and structurescan be accomplished in several steps.It can be predicted that many of these 18th and 19th century historic sites andstructures will be found along roadways, and that many modern roads evolvedfrom these same transportation routes. Where development has been most intensivealong these roadways, site disturbance is likely. A detailed current land useplan should be consulted to gain information on other areas of development. Anoverlay of map-predicted sites will indicate those with little chance of surviving,and these should be removed from the “pool” of those predicted by historic maps.For those sites which may have been preserved, a field check is recommended.This should consist of either a general architectural survey, noting condition andnumber of standing structures, or a Phase I archaeological surface walkover andsub-surface testing.• Documentary study of historic road locations from the 17th to the 19th centuries toenable a more precise modelling of population and resource distribution and allowpredictions of locations of historic resources. This could be patterned after thestudy carried out by the Virginia Highways and Transportation Research Counciland the School of Architecture at the University of Virginia. In this research, primarysources such as court orders were studied by historians, geographers andarchitectural historians, followed by survey and documentation of formal and vernaculararchitecture associated with the pre-18th century road system (Pawlett andLay 1980: iii).• A documentary study of Native American occupation of York County, includingProtohistoric, contact, and post-contact sites. As shown in Study Units V-VIII,few such sites have been located, and an exhaustive search may provide furtherclues to site location.• An intensive documentary search to gain all possible information about the natureand location of the Spanish Jesuit Mission Site, probably located on Camp Peary.This significant site is described in Study Unit IX. If a specific hypothesis could bereached as to its location a field check to test such possibilities is recommended.The federal authorities are strongly urged to provide assistance in such a venture.• Architectural survey of existing agricultural farm complexes, including dwellingsand outbuildings, to produce an inventory of extant resources within this site category.The necessity for this process is further explained in Study Unit XII. This111

will provide the necessary data for evaluation of “representative” types, and allowa contextual framework to evaluate specific threatened properties. Again, if YorkCounty is concerned with the maintenance of a rural ambience, it will becomeincreasingly important to maintain “green spaces” of agricultural land and to preservethe farm complexes which embody the rural lifestyle.• Study of family cemeteries in York County to document their location, structures,and dates of use. Study Unit XXI discusses this resource type.• Survey of the folklore and oral tradition of watermen and the whole fishing communities,such as Seaford or Dare, whose lives, livelihoods and transportation weretied to the water. This could be carried out by interested church, student or civicgroups. With a basic initial training seminar, these groups could easily documentfriends, family, and neighbors.• Archaeological investigation of small farmer or tenant sites to balance the bias ofarea archaeological research towards large planter/plantation sites. Previous researchis described in Study Units X-XII.• Assessment of the Upper County in the environs of Williamsburg for evidence ofthe role of Williamsburg as a local town center. A part of this could also be theinvestigation of county governmental functions that were carried out by Yorktownversus less specific service functions that both Yorktown and Williamsburg couldhave served for the upper county populations. This is also a stated goal of the YorkCounty Project, being carried out by the Colonial Williamsburg Research Department.• Examination of the Civilian Conservation Corps Camp on Cook Road nearYorktown. CCC workers planted trees and developed the Yorktown battlefield.The work projects of the 1930s had an important role in changing the landscape,carrying out many projects throughout Virginia and the nation. The significance ofsuch public welfare projects is discussed in Study Unit XXII.• Investigation and documentation of early York County schools. As shown in StudyUnit XXII, these one- and two-room schools were found in communities throughoutthe county, and have all but disappeared from the landscape. A vigorous programof oral history could be carried out by interested groups or as a high schoolclass project, recording information from older friends or relatives.Evaluation GoalsA second logical step after the identification of historic resources is an evaluation oftheir significance. This can be based on many factors including age, regional interest,national interest, state of preservation, function (single- or multi-), uniqueness, previousknowledge, public significance, size and density, relationship with famous personsor events, and the duration of occupation.Below are some evaluative techniques for York County. It should be noted, however,that most cannot or should not be carried out without more precise identificationof the historic sites of the county. The following goals for evaluation are recommended:112

• Organization and utilization of the vast documentary resources of York County.As York County is blessed with the most extensive documentary base in the localregion every effort should be made to use this resource. The York County Project,currently being conducted by the Research Department of the Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation with funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities, willprovide an outstanding compilation of early records, and the prosopographic approachwill gather details of individual lives. It is strongly recommended that thisstudy, when completed, become a major source for the evaluation of York Countysites. As a corollary, a gathering, or at least a catalogue, of the documents of themiddle 19th century and later will provide a compendium of data by which tojudge sites and structures from the later period. The proposed Information Centeris a logical agent for such a venture (see the Management Plan Introduction forfurther discussion.)• Study of the predominantly black communities such as Magruder that were displacedby federal land purchase; their scope, nature, size, formation, family oroccupational ties, impact of displacement, dispersal of residents, and other effects.Included in this may be a survey to ascertain what, if any, remains of these communitieson federal installations. Study Unit XX details the importance of such projects.• Archaeological and architectural study of Kiskiack, the Lee House (Plate 8.5),described in Study Unit XI. Recent efforts to move this structure on the NavalWeapons Station failed and the site should now be investigated archaeologically.Preliminary archaeological testing will begin in the fall of 1985 by the Office ofArchaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, partially supportedby the House Fund of the Henry Lee Society. The solicitation of additional support,both logistical and financial, from the Naval Weapons Stations is recommended.• Further evaluation of Chiskiack, the Late Woodland village, to delineate site contentsand boundaries. The significance of this site is detailed in Study Unit V-VI. This site is also located on the Naval Weapons Station. The Navy is urged totake an active interest in this significant historical property and provide for itsexamination and preservation.• More intensive evaluation of Burwell’s (Whitaker’s) Mill Complex to fully documentthe threatened property. This three-acre site contains mill house foundations,a mill dam, races, borrow pits and other features. In addition a brick kiln and claypit was discovered in the area (Hunter 1984). Investigation should precede theplanned development of the Whitaker’s Mill Tourist Destination Center. It is hopedthat these evaluative efforts will occur early enough in the development planningstages to integrate the results of the investigation into the planning of the complex.As the developer, Everette H. Newman III, has expressed a desire to “meet thestandards set by Colonial Williamsburg and Anheuser Busch”, it is possible that hewould fund such a venture. (Betzner 1985).• Analysis of all artifacts from the previously completed Chickahominy River Survey.113

• Evaluation of the potential significance of Seaford and Dare as historical communities,with a view towards their nomination to the National Register as historicdistricts.Registration GoalsPlate 8.5. Kiskiack (the Henry Lee House).Inclusion of a property on the National Register of Historic Places signifies that theproperty has been evaluated against stringent federal standards and deemed to be significantat a national, regional, or local level. Owners of such properties gain certaintax benefits and monetary and non-monetary incentives. Even though the NationalRegister cannot protect a property from private development, inclusion of a property onthe Register implies that preservation is important. The following tasks are recommended:• Nomination to the National Register of the Quaker-related sites of the SkiminoHills Area. Pending identification and evaluation this may be eligible as an historicdistrict.• Nomination to the National Register of any significant mill structures in YorkCounty. Documentary study and archaeological investigation of Burwell’s(Whitaker’s Mill) has been carried out by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation114

and others, and the site is certainly eligible for a nomination. Other mills such asPiggot’s Mill still retain above ground features and may be eligible.• Continued lobbying for the nomination of a large part of Yorktown to the NationalRegister as an historic district.• Nomination to the National Register of Seaford and/or Dare as historic districts,based on an evaluation of their significance.• Nomination to the National Register of the three domestic sites located by SecondStreet Survey (YO376, YO377, YO378) (Hunter et al. 1983)• Nomination of Chiskiack (YO2), the Late Woodland village, to the National Register.• Nomination of a representative York River drainage as an archaeological district.This district should contain representative prehistoric sites from many activitiesand eras.• Nomination of a representative Chesapeake Bay tributary for reasons stated above.This may be a joint effort with the city of Poquoson.Treatment GoalsTreatment may involve preservation in place, relocation, or mitigation of destructiveimpacts by recording, excavation, and analysis. The most elemental treatment is a thoroughstudy of a particular site or structure prior to its destruction.Preliminary treatment goals often involve registration of sites or districts as valuableresources which in turn can provide economic or non-economic incentives forpreservation and mitigation. The most important concept of any treatment strategy is asolid identification of resources, and a well-conceived evaluation of potential. Withthis knowledge, decisions of treatment are not arbitrary but flow easily and logicallyfrom previous action and known potential for significance.Below are some possible treatment strategies:• Enactment of a 150 foot sensitivity zone for the York River shoreline, its majortributaries, and inland drainages. This “sensitivity zone”, described in Study UnitsI-IV, and illustrated in Figure 8.1, should coincide with some areas currently protectedunder the wetlands ordinance of the county.• Careful monitoring of any remaining development in the vicinity of Burke’s Cornerand the surrounding area in Skimino to assess any remaining evidence of theQuaker presence.• Preservation in place of representative agricultural sites from varying periods ofthe county’s history. The evaluation of “representativeness” should be obtainedthrough the identification and evaluation strategies listed above.• Stabilization and curative maintenance of National Register properties. Recentexamination of Kiskiack has discovered an urgent need for stabilization of thestructure. In addition, periodic inspection of other sites, particularly those that arenot under current curation is recommended to prevent or correct other such problems.115

• Reporting of human burials, both prehistoric and historic, to the appropriate authoritiesto receive legal and scientific scrutiny.• Conservation and curation of artifacts from the Chickahominy River Survey.ConclusionCultural resources have a powerful ability to link modern-day experiences to the past.The feelings evoked by a building or object used by someone hundreds of years agobrings an intimacy that cannot be engendered by any textbook description. The successof Colonial Williamsburg attests to the pleasure derived by millions of Americans “touchingand seeing” the past. This experience, however, only represents a small part of theentire heritage of the area. Other cultural resources are rapidly being destroyed, especiallyin the fast pace of development in York County. Effective management of theseresources, such as that proposed in this document, can slow their destruction, and protectthe legacy of the 10,000 years of York County history.This management plan is an attempt to integrate the recommendations offered inthe individual Study Unit Operating Plans into a cohesive series of steps which aretailored to York County’s known resources and planning needs. For the RP3 process ofcultural resource management to effectively work within the framework of desired growthoutlined in the Land Use Plan (York County 1983), policies must be developed to includeits goals and recommendations within the current planning framework andprocedures. The first step must be a formal recognition by York County of its significantresources and the acknowledgement of a desire for their protection as a goal in landuse decisions.The realization of a current and viable exchange between local developers, planners,and those concerned with cultural resource management in the County is alsonecessary. This will allow for the timely evaluation of these projects and provide acommon understanding of goals, objectives and reality.A Regional Information Center at the College of William and Mary has been proposedto facilitate these reviews of individual projects at an early stage of the planningprocess. This will allow informed and feasible decisions as to the treatment of theaffected resources. This Center would carry on the process that this plan has only begun,the creation of a balance between the future growth of York County and the protectionof its important past.116

CITY OF POQUOSON: MANAGEMENT PLANBrief History of the City of PoquosonThe city of Poquoson did not become independent from York County until 1975, but itshistory can be traced back much further. The name “Poquoson” relates to the topographyof the area, and is said to be derived from an Indian word for low, flat land. Thearea was opened for settlement in 1628 by the Council of State at Jamestown. Historiansbelieve the city to be one of the oldest English-speaking settlements in America thatstill bears its original name (City of Poquoson 1985: 6). In 1631, the land on the northside of the Old Poquoson River (Wythe Creek or Brick Kiln Creek) and Back Riverbecame known as New Poquoson and included the area on both sides of the present-dayPoquoson River. In the earliest period of settlement, the area between the New Poquosonand the Old Poquoson and Back River on the south was known as the “lower precinct ofthe New Poquoson.” The lower precinct comprises the present city of Poquoson (Watkins1981: 1). Early land patents in the area were obtained by Thomas Brice for 200 acres in1633 on “Black Walnutt Neck”; Augustine Warner for a 450 acre plantation in 1635called Piney Neck (now known as Pasture Road); Samuel Bennett for 450 acres in 1636on Bennetts’ Creek (now known as Brown’s Neck); William Cloyse for 750 acres in1638 on the New Poquoson River (now known as Hunts’ Neck); Dictoris Christmas for300 acres on the north side of the Old Poquoson River in 1635; and Phettyplace Cloysefor 750 acres on the New Poquoson River. The Great Marsh was originally divided intomany small plantations but was later merged into a massive patent of 1695 acres in1663. The area was again divided into smaller tracts in the early 1800s. (Watkins 1981:1-3; City of Poquoson 1985: 6-9).Poquoson’s location was ideal for shipping, and sites such as the Great Marshalong with Messick Point (originally called Boar Quarter Point) and Tinkersheires Neckwere all very important shipping points for tobacco and other goods as early as 1635(City of Poquoson 1985: 9).After the Revolutionary War, many of the larger colonial plantations in York Countywere divided and sold as smaller farms as the planter class adjusted to the changingeconomic climate. At the same time, the area received an influx of immigrants fromBaltimore and the Eastern Shore who were predominantly Methodists, a denominationwhich is still prevalent in the area today.For the next one hundred years, Poquoson supported a mixed farming and fishingeconomy. As with large sections of York County, this area and its economic conditionhave been much influenced by the military presence. Although no battles were foughthere, the Civil War disrupted the local agricultural economy. During World War I, LangleyField was constructed and became an attractive employment opportunity for residents,drawing them away from the more traditional forms of employment. In recentyears, with the increasing industrialization and militarization of the Peninsula, Poquosonhas become a residential area for people working in Hampton.Until the mid-20th century, farming and water-related land uses were predominantin Poquoson. Residential development was comprised principally of farmsteads scat-117

tered throughout the western part of the “city.” The only heavily settled area was theMessick neighborhood populated primarily by watermen.After 1950, however, suburban development began to occur in Poquoson. Thefirst subdivisions were comparatively small and were located along existing roads.Larger subdivisions were platted in the late 1950s and in the 1960s. A total of 543 newlots were platted between 1957 and 1969. Nearly two thirds of these lots were platted intwo periods: 1959-60 and 1964-65. Subdivisions platted between 1957 and 1969 includedPoquoson Shores and Lambs Point on Hunts Neck, York Haven on Browns Neck,and Whites Terrace and Bannockburn near Odd Road in central Poquoson. The firstsections of Westover Shores, Powhatan Place and Roberts Acres were also recordedbetween 1957 and 1969 (City of Poquoson 1985: 95-100).Historical ResourcesMajor Categories of ResourcesSources for the study of Poquoson history include documentary sources, archaeologicaland architectural site records, published literature, and oral history and folklore sources.Documentary SourcesThere has been very little published about Poquoson, a few brief local history vignettesby Vincent Watkins and several church histories. However, a great deal of raw dataexists in the form of censuses, tax and land records, maps, etc. Since Poquoson was,until 1975, a part of York County, the York County records are available for research.Archaeological and Architectural SourcesVery little documentation is available for Poquoson resources, with the exception of afew archaeological site reports and a private collection of photographs, and some additionalphotographs collected for this project. Only 37 sites and structures have beenofficially recorded for Poquoson. Of these, 86% are known only through Phase I, orlimited survey or testing (see Table 8.7). The condition of the majority (46%), of thesesites and structures is unknown and only 19% are well preserved (see Table 8.8).The following are sites recognized as locally significant and photographed for thisproject:• Messick Point (Study Unit XIV).• Messick Theater (Study Units XIII/XIV).• Lodge Hall (Study Units III/XIV/XXII).• Amory’s Store (Study Units XIII/XIV [destroyed October 1985]).• Amory’s Wharf (Study Units XIII/XIV).• Emmaus Baptist Church (Study Units XIII/XIV/XXI).• Trinity Methodist Church (Study Units XIII/XIV/XXI).• Sheffield’s Store (Study Units XIII/XIV).• Barrel Factory Landing (Study Units XIII/XIV).• Robert’s Landing (Study Units XIII/XIV).118

TABLE 8.7INTENSITY OF INVESTIGATION OF POQUOSONSITES AND STRUCTURESaLevel a Number of Sites Percentage of TotalI 32 86%II 1 3%III 0 0%Inf. 4 11%TOTAL 37 100%I=walkover, limited sub-surface testing, photographs, II= extensive testing, some mapping, III= extensiveexcavation, drawing, photography, Inf= known only by informant testimony.TABLE 8.8CONDITION OF POQUOSON SITES AND STRUCTURESCondition Number of Sites Percentage of TotalExcellent-good 7 19%Threatened 7 19%Destroyed 6 16%Unknown 17 46%TOTAL 37 100%• Home on Hunt’s Neck Landing (Study Units XIII/XIV).• Tabernacle Methodist Church (Study Units XIII/XIV/XXI).These sites were photographed by Hugh Wornom, a local historian:• Lawson House (Study Unit XIII).• Wornom House (Study Unit XIII).• Hopkins House (Study Unit XIII).• Major Stephen Moore House (Study Unit XIII).• Frank Edwards Horse Stable (Study Unit XIII).• Solomon Evans House (Study Unit XIII).• James Smith, Jr. House (Study Unit XIII).• John Lemuel Moore House (Study Unit XIII).• John Huggett House (Study Unit XIII).• John Gibbs Wornom House (Study Units XII/XIII/XIV).• Bill Phillips Horse Stable and Carriage House (Study Units XII/XIII/XIV).• James Moore House.• Everard Robinson House site (Study Units XI/XII/XIII).• House site (Study Units XI/XII/XIII).• Windmill site (Study Unit XIII).• Mill site (Study Unit XIII).119

Oral History SourcesPerhaps Poquoson’s most valuable resource are its unique residents, in particular, thewatermen, whose distinctive way of life has left an indelible impression on Poquoson,both physically and culturally. As the majority of Poquoson wage-earners turn awayfrom the sea toward more lucrative employment with the military and in industry, thefund of folklore and the practitioners of the waterman way of life diminish. Other thana few studies by local journalists, the Poquoson watermen have not received a great dealof scholarly attention, nor have systematic oral history projects been undertaken in thecity. Such studies are badly needed, if the history of city is to be fully documented.Preliminary analysis of these data was the first step of the present project, as laidout in the guidelines for Resource Protection Planning. Results of the analysis are describedin the study unit narratives and operating plans which comprise Sections 2 through6 of this report. Study Units I-IV summarize the prehistory of Tidewater Virginia— theperiod of occupation by Native Americans, the first residents of the region. This period,extending from 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1560 witnessed many changes in Indian technologyand culture, as they gradually moved from a hunting adaptation to an increasing dependenceon agriculture and maritime resources.Study Units V-VIII describe the history of native peoples in eastern Virginia from1560 to the present, with an emphasis on the Protohistoric period. This period, whichdates from 1560 to 1607, is the time in which the ancestors of the present-day VirginiaAlgonquians had developed a highly complex socio-political organization known as thePowhatan Chiefdom, which ruled the area at the time of first European exploration.The descriptions of the Powhatan written by these early explorers are the basis for thewritten history of these Indians, who had no previous tradition of literacy. The subsequenthistory of the Virginia Algonquian after the settlement of Virginia by Europeanswas one of great displacement, such that by the end of the 17th century, most of theremaining Indians had been removed from the study area, but their contributions toTidewater history and society remained significant.Study Units IX-XIV summarize the history of Euro-American occupation of theregion, beginning with the earliest period of exploration and the founding of Jamestown.The study units describe changes in society as a result of population growth, and innovationsin farming economy as well as the development of a stable governmental structure.Later study units describe the 18th-, 19th-, and 20th-century history of the Tidewater,including the development of the colonial capital at Williamsburg, the impact onthe region of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and the economic renaissance of the20th century. Topics included in this section are the development of the tobacco economy,the slave system, the economic decline of the region after the Civil War, the growth ofthe transportation system, and the colonial revival and preservation movement so importantto this area.Study Units XV-XX are devoted to the history of Afro-Americans in the regionfrom the 17th century to the present, with special emphasis on the institution of slavery,emancipation and reconstruction, and modern political and social developments.The final section, Study Units XXI-XXIII, is different from those that precede it incontent and focus. The three study units are thematic rather than temporal, and analyzeaspects of Tidewater society and culture which span the last three and a half centuries of120

its history. Belief systems, especially religious beliefs and practices, have been integralTidewater Euro-American and Afro-American society and culture since the earliest settlements,as they were to the Native Americans before them. Study Unit XXII, whichsummarizes the history of public welfare institutions such as schools, hospitals andrelief agencies, demonstrates the continuing importance of such institutions to regionalhistory. The last study unit, XXIII, is a brief history of the military engagements, personnel,and installations that have had such a dramatic impact on the region, both economicallyand socially.Resources associated with each of these study units still survive in the region,although many are threatened by development pressures and neglect. What follows isintended to outline the context in which these resources can be managed, and to provideguidelines for that process.Community ProfileEnvironmentThe City of Poquoson is located at the eastern tip of the Virginia Peninsula, which isformed by the York River, the James River, and the Chesapeake Bay. The city is boundedby the Poquoson River on the north, by the City of Hampton and by the NorthwestBranch of the Back River on the south, by the Chesapeake Bay on the east and by YorkCounty on the west. State Route 171 (Little Florida Road) and State Route 172 (WytheCreek Road) provide main access to the city (City of Poquoson 1985: 5). A large percentageof Poquoson’s land is classified as wetlands, and some is designated as a wildlifeprotection area. Shoreline areas within the city are susceptible to flooding (see Map8.3).Current Demographic ConditionThe population in Poquoson in 1980 was 8726, an increase of 60.4% over 1970 figures.The major cause of this growth has been through migration into the city rather thannatural increase in population. There has been a significant increase in the number ofchildren and adults in the 30-54 age brackets in the last ten years. Also, educationallevels have risen in the last decade with a dramatic increase in the number of collegeeducatedresidents (City of Poquoson 1985: 37-51).Population PressurePoquoson experiences the same external pressures for growth as York and James CityCounty, mainly the encroachment of lower Peninsula industry and suburbanization. Toavoid large scale development, Poquoson has adopted residential zones which attemptto limit growth.121

Map 8.3.Current Land UseCurrently, there are 9395 acres in Poquoson, including 2315 acres of federal land. In1982, approximately 21 percent of this acreage was developed for residential, commercial,industrial, public/semi-public, or roadway land uses. Undeveloped land accountsfor 17,406 acres, or approximately 79 percent of the City’s total area. Public land use iscomprised of governmental facilities such as parks, schools, the Municipal Building,and the Post Office. Semi-public uses are privately-owned facilities regularly used bythe public. They include the Masonic Hall, churches, and cemeteries. Poquoson has143 acres (1.5%) used for public and semi public purposes. Street right-of-way use is201 acres (2.1%) of Poquoson’s land. Woodland is the second largest land use categoryin Poquoson, accounting for a total of 1598 acres (17.0%). Wetlands occupy more landthan any other land use category in Poquoson. Poquoson has 2083 acres of wetlands(22.2%). There are 1410 acres (15%) of open space land in the city. There are 2315acres of federal land in Poquoson (24.6%). Nearly all of the federal land is wetland.The Plum Tree Island National Wildlife Refuge occupies most of Poquoson’s federalland (City of Poquoson 1985: 95-100).122

Projected Demographic GrowthAccording to the city’s land use plan, “Poquoson’s future growth will be influenced byeconomic development on the Peninsula which will continue at a moderate level. Basedupon the existing zoning densities and the [local] land use plans, Poquoson should havean ultimate future population of 20,280. [This assumes that] the city’s population willstop growing when the supply of residentially zoned land is exhausted” (City of Poquoson1985: 211-214).Projected Land UseThe city has recently “downzoned” all residential areas by one-third from previousplanning documents. This will substantially limit population growth in the city. Theonly other significant change between current land use and projected land use is thedevelopment of an office/research zone in a current woodland area (City of Poquoson1985: 97-213).Planning in the City of Poquoson 2Planning FrameworkThe planning document currently in use was updated in 1985. Through zoning regulations,it regulates the intensity of land use. However, building design and changes arenot regulated.Planning ProceduresThe process for obtaining a permit to build within Poquoson is fairly simple, requiringsubmission of plans for approval. There are no legal conditions, except zoning regulations.However, in the case of subdivisions, environmental assessments are required.The Role of Cultural Resources in PlanningThe only time that cultural resources are explicitly considered in the current planningprocess is when a subdivision is being built. In this case, an environmental assessmentis required. However, the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the City of Poquoson containsgoals and recommended policies related to cultural resource management. In particular,Objective 6 has as its goal “[t]o preserve historical sites in Poquoson.” Policiesassociated with this objective include the identification of sites worthy of historicalpreservation, and the nomination of these sites to the National Register (City of Poquoson1985: 205).Policies and procedures considered appropriate for realizing these objectives includechanges in zoning ordinances to recognize historic districts; changes in site planand subdivision ordinances to protect sites and structures; use of the Capital Improve-2Information in this section was provided by City of Poquoson Planner Nat Karns.123

ment Program to acquire historic properties, or to make improvements to publicly ownedproperties; rewriting of housing and property maintenance codes to prevent the loss ofresources through neglect or abandonment by owners; use of housing or commercialrehabilitation programs such as the Farmers Home Administration funds for rehabilitationof rural properties; and the use of federal- or state-sponsored tax incentives to preserveand rehabilitate historic properties.Goals and ObjectivesIn order to effectively manage the nationally, regionally, and locally significant culturalresources of the City, and to protect and enhance the cultural and historic landscape, thefollowing objectives should be adopted:(1) To develop ordinances which serve to preserve and protect important culturalresources.(2) To establish better communication with local preservation groups.(3) To establish zoning regulations to protect rural lands and other historic sitesand districts from development that will impact sites and historic and culturallandscapes. Such zoning is permitted under section S.15.1-503.2 of the StateCode, under certain conditions.(4) To establish better communication with state and federal agencies concernedwith preservation for advice and assistance in managing local resources.Recommended Strategies for ImplementationGeneralSeveral options for managing and protecting local resources have been explored in otherregions that may have efficacy at the city level as well. These include:Ordinances. The establishment of local regulations regarding the treatment ofhistoric structures, and local zoning ordinances designed to protect cultural and environmentalresources.Certified Local Government Program. This program, which establishes guidelinesfor Cultural Resource Management, aids in implementing strategies listed above.Revised Local Land Use Plan. A number of jurisdictions within the state havedeveloped land use plans which take into account the presence of cultural resources andarchaeologically-sensitive areas. Such plans have included zoning regulations, and thedevelopment of land acquisition policies which focus on the management and protectionof cultural resources.Archaeological Information Center. Participation in the creation and support ofan Archaeological Information Center, which will serve as a clearinghouse for informationabout sites in the area, and possibly conduct limited survey and evaluation of landsscheduled for development. The center, which may be jointly funded by jurisdictionswithin the Regional Planning District, will be staffed by college students and local professionals,and will work in cooperation with the planning departments and the Virginia124

Research Center for Archaeology. (For further discussion of the proposed InformationCenter, see Introduction.)Public Information Program. Development of a public education program aimedespecially at elementary and high-school students to introduce them to the importanceof cultural resources and their protection. Encourage survey and renovation projects,additions to curriculum, and other school-related activities.Identification GoalsA preliminary survey of Poquoson is recommended to discover what historic sites andstructures remain. Included in this survey should be a consideration of underwater archaeologicalsites which may be identified with the help of local watermen. To date, nosystematic survey of architectural and archaeological sites has been conducted in thecity. Although a certain amount of information about Poquoson historic resources hasbeen collected as a result of this study, Poquoson’s new independent status requires amore focused survey than is recommended for any of the other jurisdictions in the projectarea.Specific identification goals include:• A survey of all creeks, drainages, and shoreline areas for prehistoric sites. Figure8.3 illustrates those areas likely to be sensitive for prehistoric resources.• A survey of sites and structures associated with Poquoson’s watermen. This surveyshould also include an oral history component, and an inventory of artifactsand especially watercraft associated with the maritime industry of the area (StudyUnits XIII and XIV).• A survey of the Hunt’s Neck Landing area to discover the location of 17th-centurysettlements and sites (Study Units IX and X).• A survey of agricultural structures and complexes. The survey should focus onthose complexes which retain integrity of setting, internal structure, and originaloutbuildings. This survey is especially important in the study of the mixed farming-fishingeconomy which characterized Poquoson in the 19th and early 20thcentury (Study Units XIII and XIV).• A survey of non-church cemeteries and family plots. This survey could be carriedout by school groups or the local historical society, and should include maps, photographs,and lists of the deceased, along with transcriptions of epitaphs (StudyUnit XXI).• A survey of structures associated with the immigrants from the Eastern Shore. Thesurvey should pay special attention to architectural variations, which indicate differencesfrom local building styles (Study Units XI and XXII).• A survey of Methodist and Christian churches in Poquoson, and any structures orfeatures associated with them. This survey should be done in preparation for thethematic nomination of Methodist churches of the Poquoson and lower York Countyarea to the National Register (Study Unit XXII).125

Figure 8.3.Evaluation GoalsWhile a great deal of preliminary survey work is necessary in Poquoson, a number ofevaluative tasks are also practical at present.• Evaluation of known sites and structures in Poquoson. This should include PhaseII investigation of all listed sites, and an architectural survey of buildings of localsignificance. The architectural survey should include photographs, drawings, measurements,and title searches. In conjunction with this study should be the renumberingof all sites on state files to reflect their status as Poquoson, rather than YorkCounty, sites. The importance of such an evaluative survey is underlined by therecent destruction of Amory’s Store, which never received proper study before itwas dismantled. Timely survey of the building would have provided the informationneeded to determine its eligibility for preservation, and given concerned localgroups the context in which to make better decisions about the property.• Survey of the Emmaus Baptist Church (Plate 8.6) in preparation for its nominationto the National Register (Study Unit XXII).• Survey of the lower end of Poquoson Avenue (Plate 8.7) in preparation for itsnomination as an Historic District (Study Units XIII and XIV).126

Plate 8.6. Emmaus Baptist Church.Plate 8.7. Bungalow, Lower End of Poquoson Avenue.127

Evaluation Goals for Upcoming Development ProjectsA number of development projects in Poquoson are planned for areas which are sensitivearchaeologically and architecturally. The following are recommendations for evaluativesurveys of these areas.Lower End of Hunt’s Neck RoadThis area of Poquoson is likely to have been the site of the earliest settlement in theregion, dating to the early 17th century. A number of 18th-century objects have beenfound in the area as well, and it appears that that part of Poquoson is highly sensitive tohistoric archaeological sites. Since no standing structures dating to that period survivein Poquoson, the archaeological study of 17th- and 18th-century sites in the city isespecially important. In light of this, a Phase II survey of the land scheduled for developmentis recommended, as well as additional documentary study of 17th- and 18thcenturysettlement in the area (Study Units IX, X, and XI).Ren’s Road LandingThe area scheduled for development on Ren’s Road appears to have been well-settled inthe 18th century. As little is known about 18th-century settlement in Poquoson, anarchaeological survey of the land to be developed is recommended (Study Units X andXI).Historic LandingsThe City of Poquoson plans to develop one or more of its landings and wharves withinthe next decade. At least three of these, Messick’s Point (Plate 8.8), Amory’s Wharf,and White Cove Road Landing, are likely to have historic dry-land sites, and submergedprehistoric resources associated with them. It is recommended that any dredging carriedout in expanding these landings be preceded by an underwater archaeological survey,and systematic interviewing of local watermen about the locations of submergedsites (Study Units I-VI, XIII, and XIV).Registration GoalsThe following are sites and structures which should be considered for National Registernomination:• Lower end of Poquoson Avenue (historic district).• Messick Point (commercial district).• Methodist churches (thematic nomination).• Emmaus Baptist Church (single nomination).• Bennett’s Farm site (single nomination).128

Plate 8.8. Messick Point, Poquoson.Treatment StrategiesThe following are some suggested specific treatment goals:• Preservation of the maritime-oriented ambience by encouraging watermen to remainin the area through economic incentives.• Establishment of a local folklore-folklife program to collect and preserve folk stories,songs, and artifacts associated with the Poquoson watermen.ConclusionThe above recommendations are designed to serve as a guide to the kinds of projectsthat can and should be undertaken in Poquoson over the next several years to begin theCultural Resource Management process. They are only a guide, and many new taskswill be necessary as more information about Poquoson resources becomes available.The foregoing plan, like the report as a whole, will need constant updating, and itsimplementation requires an ongoing commitment to protecting the region’s heritage.129

130

CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG: MANAGEMENT PLANHistory of the City of WilliamsburgLocated near the center of the Virginia Peninsula, the area later to be called Williamsburgwas probably first settled by Native Americans several thousand years ago. Unfortunately,very little is known about the prehistory of this particular part of the Peninsula,and no prehistoric sites have yet been found within the city limits. More generally,however, it is known that this part of eastern North America has been inhabited for atleast 12,000 years, and surely Indians lived in or passed through Williamsburg. By theearly 17th century the Peninsula was inhabited by Virginia Algonquin-speakers of thePowhatan Confederacy, a centralized chiefdom owing allegiance to a single leader,Powhatan.The following discussion of the more recent history of this area is taken fromHunter et al. 1983.European explorers had visited the Peninsula since the late 16th century, but probablypenetrated no farther than very near the river shorelines. English settlers first reachedthe area when they landed at Jamestown Island in 1607. England desired to establish abase of commercial activity in North America and for this purpose they formed theVirginia Company of London. Although the mineral resources they had expected tofind in Virginia did not materialize, other sources of commercial activity were developed.The rich soils of Virginia were well suited for agriculture, and tobacco rapidlybecame the primary cash crop. Maize was also an important export item, as well as rawmaterials in demand in England such as lumber, tar, and pitch. The tobacco agriculturalsystem imposed a specific type of settlement pattern on the Peninsula. Since tobaccorapidly drained the soil fertility, new land was continually needed for subsequentplantings. This encouraged a dispersed settlement pattern, with large tracts of land reservedfor tobacco. Settlement on the Peninsula expanded along the major waterways,with the banks of the James River settled by the 1620s. Expansion to the north, alongthe York River, had taken place by the 1640s (Lewis 1975: 350, 361, 372-373). Thesesettlements, known as “Hundreds,” were usually composed of a central fortificationwith outlying domestic structures.Jamestown served as the capital of the Virginia Colony from its beginnings in1607 until the end of the 17th century. Jamestown was not a prime area for settlement,being located on a swampy, mosquito-ridden island that was difficult to defend againstIndian attacks. In 1622/23, the Colony passed the Act for the Seating of Middle Plantation(Goodwin 1972: 2). Located in the center of the Peninsula, this settlement representeda move away from the major watercourses into the interior. Although MiddlePlantation grew slowly at first, by 1676 it was recognized as “the very Heart and Centreof the Country,” second in importance only to Jamestown (Goodwin 1972: 6). TheCollege of William and Mary, the second oldest university in the nation (after Harvard),was chartered at Middle Plantation in 1693. A fire in the State House at Jamestownprecipitated the relocation of the Colony’s capital to Middle Plantation in 1699, and thesettlement was renamed Williamsburg in honor of England’s current king. The move131

provided not only a healthier environment, but a more centralized location of governmentfor the expanding colony.At the time the capital was moved to Williamsburg, the town consisted of BrutonParish Church, an ordinary, several stores, two mills, a smith’s shop, a grammar school,and the College of William and Mary (Anonymous 1930: 332). By 1701/02, the Swissvisitor Francis Louis Michel noted the town contained the church, college, State House,Bishop’s residence, stores, homes, eight ordinaries or inns, and a magazine, attesting tothe rapid growth of the town after its designation as the Colony’s capital (Anonymous1916: 25-26).Williamsburg was seated in the center of the Peninsula, between the James andYork Rivers. Queens Creek, draining into the York River, and College Creek, emptyinginto the James, provided two ports for the town. Each was navigable by sloops, allowingmerchandise to be shipped in and out. Queen Mary’s Port on Queens Creek (subsequentlynamed Capitol Landing) and Princess Anne’s Port on College Creek (later namedCollege Landing) were both formed in 1699 to serve the inner Peninsula. Warehousesto store tobacco and other merchandise were built at both ports, as were ordinaries andhomes. Plantations, such as Porto Bello, were located around Capitol Landing (Anonymousn.d.: 15).Williamsburg continued to flourish as the capital of the Virginia Colony during the18th century. Government assembly times brought many people from outlying plantationsand settlements into town, and taverns and other businesses sprang up to accommodatethem. In the second half of the 18th century, the town held about 1500 full-timeresidents, swelling to 5000 to 6000 during Public Times (Soltow 1956: 5). As a governmentseat, Williamsburg played an active role in the controversy preceding the RevolutionaryWar. The Revolutionary Council of Virginia met at Williamsburg in 1776 todiscuss waging a defensive war against England (Tyler 1907: 76). Although the towndid not witness any battles, French and American troops gathered there to rout LordCornwallis from the Peninsula. The ensuing battle at Yorktown resulted in the surrenderof the British troops. The Governor’s Palace and the Capitol Building served ashospitals to treat the wounded troops at this time. In 1780, the Virginia capital wasagain moved, this time up the James River to Richmond. After nearly a century as thecapital and main urban center of the Colony, Williamsburg was politically relegated tobackwater status, a condition continuing into the 20th century.Many residents followed the government to Richmond and there established businesses.Throughout the 19th century, Williamsburg was the capital of James City County.Considerably smaller in population, and less centrally involved in state-wide politicaland economic decision-making, it was in some senses a typical small eastern Virginiatown in a largely agrarian society. This by no means denigrates the historical importanceof this period of Williamsburg’s history. It was at this time that far-reaching changesin agricultural techniques, settlement patterns, and social life were taking place. Unfortunately,this part of the City’s history is badly understudied.Another part of Williamsburg’s history that is often unfairly treated as insubstantialis the Afro-American presence. Blacks were first imported during the 1610s and1620s to be used as slaves on the area’s tobacco plantations. As Williamsburg emergedas a city, black craftsmen, domestic servants, and laborers accompanied their mastersinto the town. Although partially assimilated into the dominant Euro-American cul-132

ture, these blacks maintained a vital and autonomous ethnic identity. Much of this issymbolized by the founding of the First Baptist Church in 1776, providing a religiousfocal point for the community. Beginning in the 18th century, but more apparent in the19th, free blacks began to appear and form their own communities in the countrysidearound Williamsburg.During the Civil War, Williamsburg lay strategically between the Confederate capitalat Richmond and the Union stronghold of Fort Monroe (Goodwin 1972: 88). Uniontroops captured the town in 1862, remaining in occupation until the end of the war in1865. During these three years, much structural damage was done to the town, with theWren Building at the College being burned by the Union Army, and many other buildingsdismantled for firewood (Goodwin 1972: 89). In 1881, in connection with theCentennial Celebration at Yorktown, the C&O Railroad was extended throughWilliamsburg, linking the town to the outside world. Although there were expectationsthat this would attract new businesses to Williamsburg, these dreams did not materialize.Williamsburg remained a small, rather sleepy town until John D. Rockefeller,Jr. began the restoration of the colonial capital in 1926.Rockefeller’s association with the town is by now a familiar story. Spurred byReverend W.A.R. Goodwin, former rector of Bruton Parish Church, Rockefeller fundedmassive restorative and reconstructive projects aimed at recreating the 18th-centurytown. The Historic Area (also called the Restored Area) became the focus of a burgeoningtourist trade and an economic base upon which much of the commercial activity inthe area was built. Research funded by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation has alsohelped to redefine much of the history of the entire Peninsula, and to provide a basis forstudy of the entire Colonial period. Indeed, Williamsburg is now perhaps the mostcomprehensively studied 18th-century colonial town in the world.Prehistoric and Historic ResourcesKnown Cultural ResourcesCultural resources are the visible and tangible evidence of history. Far more than wordsalone, they are capable of conveying a feeling of intimacy with the past, and of continuityinto the future. As co-habitants with America’s foremost outdoor historical museum,Williamsburg residents are quite aware of the evocative power that material objectspossess. What is perhaps less immediately clear, however, is that ColonialWilliamsburg presents only a small part of the area’s history, and that the material remainsof other parts of its history are also valuable. All phases of Williamsburg’s history,and the history of the surrounding area, have been dealt with in this study. Forconvenience, the different phases were organized into “study units,” each encompassinga separate period or theme. (For more detailed information, see the study unit narrativesin Sections 2 through 6 of this document.)Study Units I-IV deal with prehistoric Native Americans, from 8000 B.C. to A.D.1560. Sites may range from single Paleo-Indian points to large Late Woodland villages,and may be in almost any location. Particularly common seem to be sites within 150feet of an existing stream, as proximity to water was a very important consideration toprehistoric Virginia Indians (as it also was to their European successors). Although no133

prehistoric sites have yet been found in Williamsburg, it is likely that this is the result ofthe lack of a systematic survey. Simply because no prehistoric site is currently knownto be present within the corporate boundaries, discovery of such a site would add considerablyto current knowledge about their settlement patterns, lifeways, etc.Study Units V-VIII encompass the later history of local Native Americans, aftercontact with Europeans in the mid- to late 16th century. In these periods fall the contactsbetween Indians and the first white settlers, the expansion of the Europeans intoIndian-controlled interior lands, and the hostilities that resulted in the removal of Indiansfrom the area. Williamsburg itself was first settled by whites as a result of theperceived Indian menace, as the initial settlement (called Middle Plantation) was establishedas a garrison community to maintain the trans-peninsula palisade built to keepIndians out of the Lower Peninsula. Sites range from large Powhatan villages to smallcampsites; none of these types of sites, however, have yet been found withinWilliamsburg’s corporate limits. On the other hand, Brafferton Hall on the campus ofthe College of William and Mary is an especially important site relating to these periods,since in the early 18th century it was used as an Indian school.Study Unit IX covers the initial years of European exploration and colonization,but is mainly applicable to the James River Basin and the York River shore. It is unlikelythat sites relating to this period will be found within Williamsburg’s city limits,although the discovery of such a site would be a major sensation.Study Unit X covers the period between 1630 and 1689, when Europeans brokeout of the James River Basin and began to establish inland settlements. It was duringthis period that the predecessor of Williamsburg, Middle Plantation, was establishedand consolidated. The development of Middle Plantation is one of the most intriguingsubjects in the area’s history, and one of the least understood. Middle Plantation remainsare still occasionally encountered by Colonial Williamsburg archaeologists duringexcavation projects, and each time they raise new questions. It is still unclear howextensive the settlement was, who its residents were, and, perhaps most important, howit developed into an important enough settlement that the colony’s capital was movedthere in 1699.Study Unit XI concerns the period between 1689 and the Revolutionary War, andis the period that is most well-investigated. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation hasfor many years conducted in-depth archival, archaeological, and architectural studies ofthe properties that it controls in and around the Historic Area. Unfortunately, the areason the periphery of the Historic Area are not so well studied. A slightly distorted pictureis the result, as the domestic sites, industries, and commercial properties on the peripheryof the colonial town are not represented. The one survey of a portion of the periphery,the Second Street Extension Project, uncovered intriguing evidence of several 18thcenturycraft-related households in the northeastern portion of the town (Hunter etal. 1983).Study Unit XII, covering the period between the Revolutionary War and the CivilWar, is one of the most important yet least understood time periods. Histories ofWilliamsburg used to consider this a time of decline, and viewed Williamsburg as “dull,forsaken, and melancholy” after the capital was moved to Richmond (description citedin Carson 1961). This view is no longer accepted, and it is recognized that technologicaland cultural changes were occurring even as the city maintained an important role inthe area’s economic and social development. After the considerable decline in popula-134

tion and economic prosperity in the years immediately following the move of the capital,Williamsburg and the surrounding area experienced a significant revitalization— arevitalization only disrupted by the Civil War.Study Unit XIII considers the years between 1865 and 1907. These were years ofincreased industrialization, revolutionary developments in transportation systems, andmass immigration. The region remained mostly rural and agrarian, and Williamsburgremained a center for the distribution of goods and services into the surrounding countryside.However, much of the character of modern-day Williamsburg (outside of theHistoric Area) took its shape from the events of this period. A few portions of the town,most notably Peacock Hill, continue to maintain late 19th-century buildings and structures,although these are gradually disappearing even from this area.Study Unit XIV deals with the period from 1907 to the present. While this studyunit brings the history of the area to the present day, however, practicality demands thatthe majority of concern should be for those resources dating before the end of WorldWar II. Many, of course, are still standing, and many others were documented and thendestroyed during the restoration of the Historic Area. Although often thought of ascommon and mundane, many of these resources reflect the important trends of the last80 years— further industrialization, the expansion of the military, the Colonial Revivaland the rise of the tourist trade— and their value will be lost unless they are preserved.Study Units XV-XX concern a heritage parallel to that of European descendants—the Afro-Americans. The Afro-American study units deal with their arrival on the Peninsulaas slaves, the distinct cultural and social forms they developed, emancipation andthe roles of free blacks, and the development of distinctive black communities and institutions.Blacks constituted about 50% of Williamsburg’s population in 1782 (Tate 1965)and remained a sizable portion of the population throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.Even now, predominantly black communities exist at Braxton Court, HighlandPark, and Crispus Attucks Place. Those properties which reflect distinctly black life inWilliamsburg show another side of the community’s cultural mixture, a side which theColonial Williamsburg Foundation is presently attempting to present with its program“The Other Half.”Study Units XXI-XXIII deal with three crucially-important “themes” in the historyof the Peninsula— belief systems, public welfare institutions, and the military.Religion has always been an important part of the Peninsula’s history, and remains so tothis day. Properties relating to this theme range from churches to cemeteries. Clearlychurches have functioned, and still function, as important symbols of Williamsburg’scommunity identity. Perhaps no other properties engender such strong emotional reactionsas the still-used historic churches of an area— reactions often equalled by thosetoward still-used cemeteries. Vanished or abandoned churches and cemeteries, however,are also important to the community’s religious life as they carry the traditions andbeliefs of the community back into the past.Study Unit XXII deals with public welfare institutions— schools, hospitals, poorhouses,and prisons. Some of Williamsburg’s most important resources fall into thiscategory, from the restored Wren Building to still-standing Bruton Heights School tothe destroyed but reconstructed Public Hospital. The history of these institutions goesback to 1693, when the College of William and Mary became the second university inthe American Colonies, and lasts up to the present day. Like the remains of135

Williamsburg’s religious identity, the surviving material evidence of public welfare concernshows a continuity of civic life that ties the modern-day community into its past.The final study unit concerns the military and its always- important role on thePeninsula. Military-related sites and structures now draw a large share of public interest,particularly those identifiable as the sites of major events in the American Revolutionor Civil War. Equally importantly, however, they reflect in part the important rolethe military has had in the history of the Peninsula— a role which still continues today.Documentary SourcesWilliamsburg’s history has been studied through both documentary and non- documentary(archaeological and architectural) sources. Documentary sources for Williamsburg’shistory are relatively good for many periods, and excellent for a few. Eighteenth-centuryWilliamsburg is certainly the most fully covered, and the Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation’s Department of Research has compiled a vast storehouse of information onthe lives of its citizens. House histories have been prepared for almost all restored orreconstructed buildings (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation n.d.), and personal biographieshave been compiled. Much of the primary information comes from extant courtrecords, deeds, wills, and probate inventories, although a great deal of relevant informationwas lost when James City County’s records were burned during the Civil War.Another important primary source has been the Virginia Gazette, first published in 1736.This newspaper, later a group of newspapers published under the same name, containedimportant information on significant events, public affairs, business dealings, and evenminor personal transactions.The earlier history of the Williamsburg area is less well documented, and almostnothing at all is available for Native Americans in Williamsburg. Williamsburg’s predecessor,Middle Plantation, was described by several travellers and residents, but detailsof its growth, size and complexity are still relatively unclear.The period after 1783 is also poorly documented, although in this case it is more amatter of a lack of research interest. Despite Gilmer’s Maps, drawn during the CivilWar, and occasional documentary accounts, Williamsburg is not much discussed in secondarysources. Deeds, wills, tax records, insurance records, personal accounts, andeven oral histories are available, however, although they are often scattered. Among themost useful are the Mutual Assurance Society records and plats, which begin in the late18th century and show both lot layout and building values. The house histories for therestored and reconstructed properties in the Restored Area usually include chains oftitle and some sort of brief later history of the property, and these sources are mostvaluable in documenting individual properties. The few useful secondary sources alsoinclude Joseph Martin’s New and Comprehensive Gazetteer of Virginia (1835), whichdescribes the town and its residents.The late 19th century and early years of the 20th century, up to the time of theRestoration, are documented in a few popular accounts. The Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation itself, of course, kept detailed records of the condition of the town before,during, and after the Restoration, although again these records are often scattered anddifficult to use. A great deal of information is even now being lost, however; oral historiesare badly needed in the next few years.136

Archaeological and Architectural SourcesLike documentary studies, most archaeological and architectural investigations havebeen confined to the 18th-century sites and structures of Williamsburg. Extensive excavationshave been performed on most Williamsburg properties prior to restoration orreconstruction, mainly for the purpose of uncovering foundations. Since 1957 moredetailed excavations have helped elucidate the lifeways of some Williamsburg residents,and the results of these excavations have been reported in both academic reportsand popular accounts. Likewise, most of Williamsburg’s buildings have been studiedby architectural historians, and these studies have resulted both in accurate reconstructionsand in often-detailed studies of architecture of the period.Middle Plantation remains have received attention when they were inadvertentlydiscovered during the course of excavation projects, and have been mapped and photographed.No careful synthesis of this material has yet appeared, however, largely due tothe lack of good historical data.Earlier prehistoric remains are virtually unstudied, again largely due to the lack ofeither historical data or stratified, well-preserved remains.A few 19th-century structures and buildings have been documented, most notablyearly 19th-century buildings such as the Norton-Cole House. Post-Federal period architecturein Williamsburg is almost unstudied, however, though the Bowden-ArmisteadHouse, Wheatland, and several since-destroyed late 19th-century homes have at leastbeen documented by the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks. Houses built in thelate 19th or early 20th century, before the Restoration, are rarely studied, and many arenow endangered or destroyed. Similarly, few post-Revolution archaeological sites havebeen excavated, although post-Revolutionary materials have been found on many 18thcenturyproperties in town.Only one comprehensive archaeological survey has yet been performed within thecity limits— the Second Street Extension Survey (Hunter et al. 1983). This survey,along a restricted corridor on the northeastern side of the Historic Area, suggested thatthere are a wide range of cultural resources in the area yet to be found.Important Archaeological and Architectural ResourcesSome 53 archaeological sites are currently listed on the state-wide cultural resourceinventory (see Tables 7.4 and 8.9). One of these (WB30) encompasses roughly 150discrete properties within the Williamsburg Historic District, including some of the mostimportant restored buildings. Some 55 restored or unrestored structures and buildingshave been documented by the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks. Many of thesehave since been destroyed, but this number includes several of the 88 standing 18thcenturybuildings. These restored buildings in the Historic Area, many of which areoutbuildings of destroyed but now reconstructed dwellings, are critical resources for thereconstruction and interpretation of other, related structures. Similarly, the reconstructedbuildings in the Historic Area, although lacking the integrity demanded for inclusion onthe National Register or documentation by the VDHL, provide important informationabout landscape layout and town design, and furnish a “completed” feeling to the rebuiltcolonial town.137

TABLE 8.9INTENSITY OF INVESTIGATION OF WILLIAMSBURG’S RESOURCES 1I II III MR DRInventoried resources 2 18 7 0 26 0Architectural properties 3 14 0 0 0 0Colonial Williamsburg sites 4 0 0 147 0 0Unnumbered resources 5 29 0 0 0 9TOTAL 61 7 147 26 9PERCENTAGE 24.4 2.8 68.8 10.4 3.61I=Level I; II=Level II; III=Level III; MR=map reference; DR=documentary reference (for explanation of thesecategories, see Section 7).2Properties on state-wide cultural resource inventory.3Properties surveyed by VDHL but not on state cultural resource inventory.4Properties with only Colonial Williamsburg block/area designation.5Properties on none of above inventories.Despite the careful recording of certain properties, however, the state of the database is often rather poor. In addition to the 41 properties already on the state-widecultural resource inventory, there are 14 architectural properties that have received VDHLsurvey numbers. These properties, some since destroyed, are in most cases only documentedby incomplete scraps of paper and perhaps a photograph.There are also at least 38 properties that are neither on the cultural resource inventorynor on the list of VHDL-numbered architectural resources. These include some ofthe most important resources in the area— Bruton Heights School, the James City CountyTraining School Site, the Odd Fellows Lounge, and Cedar Grove Cemetery.Among the most important sites and buildings in town are those already individuallylisted on the National Register of Historic Places: the James Semple House, thePeyton Randolph House, Bruton Parish Church, the Wren Building of the College ofWilliam and Mary, the George Wythe House, Capitol Landing, and College Landing.The entire Historic Area is listed on the Register as a historic district, and all propertieswithin this area meeting significance and integrity requirements are clearly important.Other important properties include those of overriding public or community value: theFirst Baptist Church Site, Bruton Heights School, the James City County Training SchoolSite, and the remaining sites and structures associated with Peacock Hill, MerchantsSquare, and Braxton Court.The properties owned or controlled by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation aregenerally protected. Archaeologists are permitted to monitor any construction or maintenancework on Foundation holdings, and intensive archaeological investigation is almostalways performed before any major new construction is initiated. Most of thesesites were partially excavated for the Restoration, using the “cross-trenching” method(where long diagonal trenches were dug about 5 feet apart in order to locate brick foundations),but in almost all cases a potentially- undisturbed portion of the site remains.138

TABLE 8.10CONDITION OF WILLIAMSBURG’S CULTURAL RESOURCES 1Prot Good Poor Thr Dest UnkInventoried resources 2 0 1 1 7 3 39Architectural properties 3 0 7 0 0 6 1Colonial Williamsburg sites 4 147 0 0 0 0 0Unnumbered resources 5 0 7 0 0 20 11TOTAL 147 15 1 7 29 51PERCENTAGE 68.8 6.0 0.4 2.8 11.6 20.41Prot=Partially excavated/protected; Good=Good to excellent condition; Poor=Poor condition, damaged;Thr=Threatened; Dest=Destroyed; Unk=Unknown.2Properties on state-wide cultural resource inventory.3Properties surveyed by VDHL but not on state cultural resource inventory.4Properties with only Colonial Williamsburg block/area designations.5Properties on none of above inventories.Unfortunately, the properties not owned by the Foundation or the College are notas well-protected. As development has taken place, many of these sites have undoubtedlyinadvertently been destroyed. Even now, the current condition of virtually all ofthe properties not owned by the Foundation is unknown (see Table 8.10). At best, mostof the physically-located properties are seriously threatened by current developmentpressure. Even worse, however, the map-predicted sites and unnumbered (and usuallyundocumented) sites may be in serious danger without anyone even being aware of it.The same may be true of the undoubtedly large number of resources which exist in thearea but have not yet been identified. This, of course, points up the great need forremedial identification and evaluation work by cultural resource professionals— workunfortunately neglected in the past.Community ProfileEnvironmentThe City of Williamsburg is located in the middle part of the Virginia Peninsula, aboutmidway between the James and York Rivers (Map 8.4). Encompassing an area of some5800 acres, it lies between James City County on the south and west and York Countyon the north and east.The city’s boundaries have been expanding in recent years, as new land has beenannexed. In 1981 the city was roughly crescent- shaped, and included an area of some3300 acres. Five tracts have since been annexed from James City County: Tract A, 1506acres south of the city extending to Rte. 199; Tract B, 714 acres west of College Creekextending to Ironbound Road and Strawberry Plains Road; Tract C, a 20-acre block justnorth of Tract B; Tract D, 223 acres along Richmond Road north of Skipwith Farms;and Tract E, a 20-acre block containing James Blair Intermediate School. In size the139

Map 8.4.city now covers roughly 9.1 square miles, not including the watershed area aroundWaller Mill Reservoir, also controlled by the City.Geologically Williamsburg sits on the Atlantic Coastal Plain, a zone composed ofsediments dating back as far as the early Cretaceous (140 million years ago). Lying onthe James/York drainage divide (see Map 8.5), topographically it is mostly flat, althoughat one time it was dissected by numerous steep-sided ravines, many of which have sincebeen filled. Much of the area is wooded, although many wooded areas have been clearedin recent years as development took place. Two major streams, College Creek on thesouth and Queens Creek on the north, extend into the urban area and drain the adjoiningtributary valleys. Queens Creek has been dammed to form Waller Mill Reservoir andCollege Creek to form Lake Matoaka, and wetlands and tidal marshes extend along theshores of both streams, particularly Queens Creek (Giles 1974).Current Demographic ConditionsThe best and most recent data on demography and land use is found in the 1981 City ofWilliamsburg Comprehensive Plan (City of Williamsburg 1981). These figures, however,were based on a city only 60% of its present size, before the annexations fromJames City County. Perhaps a better measure of current conditions is described in the140

Map 8.5.Comprehensive Plan as the Williamsburg Planning Area (the City and about two milesbeyond). In 1980 this Planning Area contained 26,700 people, 9870 of which lived inthe City itself (as then constituted) and 16,844 in its nearby suburbs. This total includestwo major populations living in group quarters: some 4000 College of William andMary students living in dormitories, and 1200 Eastern State Hospital patients living onthe premises.Race, sex, and age characteristics of the Williamsburg population are based on the1970 Census, the most recent reliable information. In 1970 87% of the total populationof the city was white, and 77% of the Planning Area as a whole. The sex ratio wasapproximately equal, with a very slight preponderance of women. Median age wasestimated at 28.5 years, with the average age of the household population in the PlanningArea (not included Eastern State inmates or College of William and Mary students)estimated at 24.5 years. Residents of the city were generally older, on the average, thanresidents of the suburbs.Current Land-UseLand use is divided into seven categories: residential, public and semi-public, industrial,commercial, streets and alleys, water area, and vacant land. Table 8.11 shows thefigures for the City and the Planning Area in 1980 (City of Williamsburg 1981). Single-141

TABLE 8.11LAND USE IN WILLIAMSBURG IN 1980 aPlanning Area CityResidential 3,065.5 615.1Public and Semi-Public 7,758.8 1,295.1Industrial 253.5 47.2Commercial 842.3 343.6Streets and Alleys 1,342.9 278.3Water Area 984.3 27.7Vacant Land 15,183.9 689.1TOTAL 29,323.2 3,296.9aIn acres.family dwellings accounted for over 90% of residential land in the Planning Area, butless than 80% in the City itself (most of the remainder being multiple-family apartmentcomplexes). Hotels and motels accounted for most of the commercial land-use in theCity itself (63.5%), and 39.5% in the Planning Area. Over half of the land in the PlanningArea was undeveloped in 1980 (51.8%), but vacant land accounted for only 20.9%of the City’s land area.There are two major landowners in the City itself: the Colonial Williamsburg Foundationand the state-owned College of William and Mary. The Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation owns and/or controls the Historic Area, heart of the City; the InformationCenter parcel; and the area around Bassett Hall Woods, south of the Historic Area. Notonly the largest landowner, the Foundation is also the area’s major employer and thebasis of the area’s tremendous tourist industry. The College of William and Mary ownsand/or controls the campus itself, west of the Historic Area, and a large tract of land onthe west side of the Colonial Parkway. Much of the rest of the land is held publicly orsemi-publicly, and includes Waller Mill Reservoir and Park, Lake Matoaka, and variousschools and public buildings.There are several low-density to medium-density residential areas: in the northwesternpart of the City along Richmond Road, in the southwestern part of the Cityalong Jamestown Road, northeast of the Historic Area around Rte. 143 (Merrimac Trail),and southeast of the Historic Area east of Bassett Hall Woods. Commercial areas arefound in several strips, most notably along Richmond Road, around the Historic Area,and on the northeastern side of York Road.Projected Demographic GrowthCurrent projections suggest that the Williamsburg Planning Area will contain 30,850people by 1990, and 34,000 by the year 2000 (City of Williamsburg 1981). Populationin the City itself will reach 10,850 by 1990, and 11,200 by 2000, while population in thesuburbs will go from 16,844 in 1980 to 20,270 in 1990 to 22,800 in 2000.Although the city will undoubtedly grow in size, very rapid population growth isnot expected, based on current information. The institutional population at Eastern142

State Hospital is expected to remain stable, while the student population in dormitoriesat the College of William and Mary is expected to climb from 3950 in 1980 to 5630 bythe year 2000.Projected Land-UseChanges in land-use are closely tied to population growth, industrial or commercialdevelopment, and economic policies of the City’s major employers. It is projected thatfuture development will not be as rapid as in the past, and only certain areas will besubstantially affected.Based on 1980 data, it is projected that by the year 1990 another 2000 acres will bedeveloped in the Planning Area, and 3500 by the year 2000. A policy adopted in 1977,calling for encouragement of commercial development in order to expand and stabilizethe tax base, suggests that commercial growth will accompany residential growth in thearea. It is likely that at least some of this growth will be planned, resulting from fairlymajor development projects, and will therefore be to some extent foreseeable and predictable.This is critical for intelligent cultural resource management, since in suchcases the resource base can be evaluated and alternatives such as preservation, projectredesign, and mitigation can be discussed before ground is broken. This requires cooperationon the part of developers, planners, and cultural resource managers.Current Development PressuresAlthough large planned developments will undoubtedly take place, much of the landdisturbance likely to occur in the next few years involves relatively small parcels, and issomewhat haphazard and difficult to forsee. Only six areas can currently be targeted asknown sites of potential development (William Mettler, pers. comm, 1985; Lyle Browning,pers. comm. 1985). These are: (1) College Woods; (2) Port Coves; (3) South HenryStreet; (4) Richmond Road; (5) Merrimac Trail; and (6) Monticello Avenue Extension.College WoodsLocated west of the College of William and Mary and south of Berkeley High School,this is the proposed site of a 140-unit single-family development. This project is still inits initial planning stages, and it is possible that the College of William and Mary willpurchase the tract prior to development (William Mettler, pers. comm. 1985).Although the area has not been surveyed and no known sites appear on the statecultural resource inventory (Table 7.4), there are some indications that archaeologicalresources may exist on the proposed development site. Environmentally the area isrelatively flat, with several intermittent streams draining into Lake Matoaka. Soil mapsindicate that the area is approximately 40% Kempsville-Emporia fine sandy loam, 25%Kempsville fine sandy loam, 20% Emporia complex, and 15% Craven-Uchee complex(U.S. Department of Agriculture 1985). The Kempsville-Emporia and Kempsville soils,in particular, are prime agricultural soils, ideal for pasture and hay, as well as cultivatedcrops, presumably including tobacco. It appears that early settlement most often occurredon such excellent agricultural land.143

Perhaps an even better indicator is the presence of a historic road, following theroute of modern Strawberry Plains Road (Rte. 616) on the west side of the area. Thisroad is drawn on the 1781 Desandrouins Map, and from other cartographic evidence itappears that many types of sites and structures were almost invariably located alongsuch roads.Finally, the presence of small intermittent streams on the east side of the area suggeststhat prehistoric sites may also be present. These sites are usually found alongstream margins in favorable environmental zones such as these.Overall, then, there appears to be a high potential for prehistoric or historic culturalresources on the proposed project site. A Phase I survey is recommended if theland is to be developed.Port CovesThis is the site of a 120-lot planned unit development along South Henry Street nearCollege Landing. The Phase I plan of the Port Coves development indicates that it is toinvolve some 30 of the 120 units, on the north side of the proposed site.The College Landing area is among the most archaeologically-sensitive areas withinthe corporate boundaries of Williamsburg. The landing itself (currently on the NationalRegister) has been used at least since the 18th century, when it was the site of a smallservice industry, including tobacco inspection warehouses, other warehouses, a ferry,cart and boat rental, a brewhouse, and an ordinary (Hudgins 1977). Several structuresare shown on a variety of 18th-century maps— the Desandrouins Map (1781), the BerthierMap (1781), the St. Simon Map (1781), and the anonymously-drawn map titled “39eCamp a William’s burg...1781.” Only one of these structures, a rectangular buildingshown on the St. Simon Map, is definitely within the boundaries of the Phase I development,though two others, both from the Desandrouins and Berthier Maps, appear slightlyto the south. Any one of these map-predicted sites might physically appear in the projectarea.A 1977 survey was performed along South Henry Street and at the platted portionof the landing, a trapezoidal zone mapped on a 1774 plat prepared by Matthew Davenport.The survey located six features south of the proposed development, most of whichwere excavated and evaluated.Further information on the archaeological potential of this property is given in adetailed memorandum prepared on the project (Derry 1985). In sum, the area of PhaseI development at Port Coves appears to contain at least one 18th-century structure andholds an extremely high archaeological potential. A survey is strongly recommended.South Henry StreetThe College of William and Mary plans to develop an area on South Henry Street,behind the Marshall-Wythe School of Law. This area is mostly wooded with fairlysteep slopes in the back of the lot.Two map-predicted sites are located in the area (WB38 and WB39), both drawn onthe 1781 Berthier Map. This area lies just south of a ravine shown on the 1782Frenchman’s Map— the map most commonly accepted as the definitive authority for144

the city’s layout in the late 18th century. No structures are shown on this map, possiblybecause the ravine lies at the very edge of the drawn area, but another important contemporaneousmap, the Desandrouins Map, shows several small structures along theroad in the area of the modern law school. It appears likely, therefore, that there wereindeed late 18th- century structures in the general area.The area behind the law school has been surveyed as part of the Phase I survey ofthe eastern side of South Henry Street and College Landing, performed by TheodoreReinhart and John Sprinkle of the College of William and Mary. They found the remnantsof a 19th-century farmstead, along with isolated artifact scatters (John Sprinkle,pers. comm. 1985). Their recommendations are that the area be monitored when constructionis begun, and that certain designated areas be archaeologically tested. Morespecific recommendations may be obtained from John Sprinkle at the College of Williamand Mary’s Department of History.Richmond RoadFurther commercial development is expected along Richmond Road, northwest of theHistoric Area. This is one of the fastest- growing areas of the city, and is already largelydeveloped. No specific portion of Richmond Road is immune from development, butthe greatest development pressure seems to be near the outskirts of the corporate limitsnorth and east of Skipwith Farms.Richmond Road has been in existence since at least the 18th century, and it appearson the 1781 Desandrouins Map, among others. Historic sites probably were clusteredalong this road, a major thoroughfare up the Virginia Peninsula. At least three mappredictedsites lie along the road— WB26, WB40, and WB43. All these sites, locatedfrom Alexander Berthier’s 1781 map, apparently lie on the west side of the road withinone-half mile of Blair Intermediate School. No other sites have been recorded alongthis section of the road.Given the probability that historic resources once existed, it is now highly unlikelythat they have escaped the land disturbance of the past few decades, and the area hasmoderate to low archaeological potential. Traces of historic (or prehistoric) archaeologicalsites might be encountered during construction, but they probably would be onlyvestiges with little archaeological potential. It is therefore recommended that no surveyis necessary, but that an archaeologist be contacted if structural or other remains areencountered.Merrimac TrailThis is the site of a proposed development north of the Woodshire Apartments, on theeastern side of the city.The road, part of Route 143, has been in existence for some time, but does notappear on 18th-century maps of the area. Soils in the area belong either to the Craven-Uchee complex, the Emporia complex, the Johnston complex, or Slagle fine sandy loam;only the latter is considered prime agricultural land. In general, the soil evidence suggeststhat this is an unlikely place for early historic settlement.145

No sites in this area have been recorded on the state cultural resources inventory.Given the development which has already taken place in the area, and its location inrelation to roads and prime soil, it appears that the area has a low archaeological potentialand that a survey is not required.Monticello Avenue ExtensionThe Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is considering the extensionof Monticello Avenue past its current terminus at Ironbound Road, on the western edgeof the city. The extension, if approved, will extend the road into land currently ownedby James City County, and the great majority of the land disturbance will be in thatcounty. The only city land likely to be impacted will be the area around the intersectionof Monticello Avenue and Ironbound Road.No sites have been recorded in the general area of this intersection, although thesoils are mostly Kempsville-Emporia fine sandy loams— prime agricultural soils suggestingthat this area was an excellent candidate for early settlement. Monticello Avenueis relatively new, not appearing on pre-20th-century maps, but Ironbound Roadfollows the course of an 18th- century road depicted on the Desandrouins Map. Combinedwith the soil evidence, it therefore appears that the area may possibly have beenoccupied in the early historic period.The area near the intersection, however, has probably been seriously disturbedwith the construction of the roads themselves. This area appears to have low archaeologicalpotential in and of itself, but the entire project corridor for the proposed extension,presumably to come under the jurisdiction of the James City County Departmentof Planning and Development, undoubtedly has at least moderate to high archaeologicalpotential. The entire corridor, including the area around present-day terminus ofthe road, therefore should be surveyed.Planning in the City of WilliamsburgFrameworkLand-use decisions in Williamsburg are shaped by the policies elucidated in the 1981Comprehensive Plan (City of Williamsburg 1981). This plan lays out various classes ofgoals, in the areas of environment, land use, transportation, housing, and public facilities,along with specific plans for the realization of these goals. The ComprehensivePlan comes up for review in 1986, and inclusion of consideration for cultural resourcesis recommended.Among the important components of the Community Facilities portion of the ComprehensivePlan is a provision for permanent open space. Much of this space is currentlycontrolled as public or semi-public land, and other land is committed as openspace by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and the College of William and Mary.Certain designated private areas were recommended for acquisition, either by purchase,donation, or easement. These are based mostly on aesthetic criteria, but other localitieshave used these green-space provisions as a way of preserving certain archaeologicalsites or districts.146

Zoning is based on the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Williamsburg’szoning ordinance establishes nine major districts: Residential A, Residential B, ResidentialC, Residential D, Residential E, Retail Business, General Business, LimitedBusiness, and Industrial (City of Williamsburg n.d.). Specific limitations are placedupon the type of development that may occur within each district. Overlaying thesezones is a “Historic District,” composed of the Colonial Williamsburg Historic Area(which is also classed as Residential B), and several small “Planned Unit Development(PUD) Districts,” composed of lands upon which planned developments are recommended.Again, specific limitations are placed on building design and size within thesezones.ProceduresParticular development projects and land-use changes must be approved by the City.The nature of the project in large measure determines the extent and nature of review.Architectural plans for construction of a single-family home or duplex must besubmitted no less than one week before a scheduled meeting of the Board of ArchitecturalReview (William Mettler, pers. comm. 1985). This board is then asked to approvethe architectural design for adequacy. Site plans for anything except a one- or twofamilydwelling must be submitted at least 22 days in advance of a scheduled meeting.Site plans are filed at the Williamsburg Planning Department, and may be reviewed byinterested parties.Rezoning requests or zoning appeals must be submitted to both the Planning Commissionand City Council. Such appeals are generally submitted at least two monthsbefore a scheduled meeting, and are open to public inspection.Role of Cultural Resource ProtectionPreservation of historical, architectural, and archaeological resources is not specificallymentioned in Williamsburg’s Comprehensive Plan, but its importance is implicitly suggested.Among the City’s general goals is “to preserve and enhance the experience of avisit to the colonial city,” an experience which “should not be damaged or destroyed byeither too great a crowd or discordant 20th Century surroundings” (City of Williamsburg1981: 32-33). The preservation of non-eighteenth-century historic or prehistoric resourcesis not mentioned, although these resources are clearly important links to thecolonial city.Little enabling legislation is currently on the books, at either the state or locallevel, which specifically mandates the preservation and protection of these historicalresources. Except for federally-involved projects, subject to the provisions of Section106 of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act, land disturbance in Williamsburg issubject only to the zoning ordinance, planning policies, and public involvement. Theinstitution of local ordinances, more comprehensive zoning restrictions, easement programs,tax incentives, and jurisdictional certifications have all been used in other localitiesto better and more reasonably manage this part of the community’s heritage, andwill be recommended for adoption by Williamsburg’s local government.147

Goals and ObjectivesBecause Williamsburg is so important in local, regional, and even national history, preservationof its historic resources is a worthwhile goal. While few would disagree inregard to the material remains of 18th-century Williamsburg, however, it must be stressedthat these resources include not only those associated with the colonial town, but theprehistoric, protohistoric, 17th-century, and 19th- and 20th-century resources whichshaped and were an outgrowth of Williamsburg’s colonial history.The importance of these resources, at least in terms of their research potential orinterpretive potential, depends on their uniqueness or representativeness. This in turndetermines the primary goals that should be aspired toward. Based on current information,primary goals for cultural resource management in Williamsburg include:• Development of an understanding of Middle Plantation, the trans- peninsula palisade,and the relationship of Middle Plantation to the rest of the Peninsula.• Identification and evaluation of early 19th-century sites and structures, includingproperties in continuous use throughout the Colonial and early Federal periods.• Identification and evaluation of colonial properties on the periphery of the town,particularly in the areas of College Landing and Capitol Landing.• Identification of prehistoric or Protohistoric Native American sites in and aroundWilliamsburg.• Identification and evaluation of later 19th- and 20th-century sites, particularly examplesof Colonial Revival architecture and properties relating to industry andcommerce before the Restoration.• Identification and evaluation of properties relating to all phases of Afro-Americanhistory, from their arrival in the Colonies to the present day.• Recording and evaluation of public welfare institutions, schools, and hospitals.• Recording and evaluation of churches and ecclesiastically- related sites, along withidentification of cemeteries and family plots.• Identification of earthworks and other military-related properties.These goals and objectives may be attained with the help of local research institutions,state agencies, and concerned constituencies. Involvement of several of thesemay be necessary for realization of the goal, and close cooperation is highly recommended.In the following sections the recommendations will include suggestions aboutthe agencies or groups which should be involved, whether through authorization, funding,or actual research. The following abbreviations will be used: CofW (City ofWilliamsburg), WPD (Williamsburg Planning Department), VDHL (Virginia Divisionof Historic Landmarks), CWF (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Departments ofArchaeological Excavation, Architectural Research, and Research), CW&M (Collegeof William and Mary, Departments of History and Anthropology), WHS (WilliamsburgHistorical Society), ASV (Archaeological Society of Virginia, Greater WilliamsburgChapter), and avo (other avocational historical, archaeological, or garden clubs).148

Recommended Strategies for ImplementationGeneralBecause of its tremendous economic dependence on the interpretation of historical resources,Williamsburg should be a leader in the recognition of the importance of theseresources (and others dealing with other historical periods). National policies and modelregulations adopted by other localities furnish possible avenues for better resource managementin this area. The following steps are recommended:• Adoption of a model historic preservation ordinance as part of the local zoningordinance (CofW/WPD).• Formation of a local historical commission, like that initiated in James City Countyand proposed for York County and the City of Poquoson (CofW).• Application for Certified Local Government status. This would permit applicationfor certain federal preservation funds, as well as incorporate the local governmentinto the state-wide preservation planning community (CofW/WPD).• Revision of the Comprehensive Plan to include provisions for cultural resourceprotection, ideally by the preparation of a separate Historical Resources Plan withwell-defined goals and priorities. The Comprehensive Plan must be up-dated in1986 and it is recommended that the consultant selected have or be able to obtaincurrent data and guidelines on cultural resource protection (WPD).• Adoption as part of the planning process of a policy for consultation with the InformationCenter or, if this center is not established, the Virginia Division of HistoricLandmarks. Timely reviews for historic resource potential would permit evaluationof the damage to be caused before land disturbance is begun, and would eliminatemany of the delays caused by unexpected uncovering of an important historicalsite. If possible, the City should consider partial funding of the InformationCenter, in cooperation with the other affected localities— James City County, YorkCounty, and the City of Poquoson (WPD/CofW/VDHL/CW&M).• Consideration of nomination of the entire City as a multiple-resource area to theNational Register of Historic Places. Acceptance of this nomination would entitlethe City to consideration for available preservation funds. A partial inventory ofsites, structures, buildings, and objects in the area, to be identified by competentprofessional architectural historians and archaeologists, can be used to initiate thenomination, and a full inventory can be completed over a period of years (WPD/VDHL).• Inclusion on the planning staff of individuals with training or experience in culturalresource management. If employment vacancies arise, it is suggested thatindividuals knowledgeable about local history and preservation planning be givenserious consideration (WPD).• Development by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, the major land-holder inthe area, of a comprehensive cultural resource management plan within the nextyear. Foundation officials have already committed themselves to such a course ofaction, and the plan that is developed should serve as a model for other major landholders(CWF).149

• Development of an educational program about the importance of local architecturaland archaeological resources. This program may take the form of a writtenpamphlet, a series of lectures, a photographic display, or a videotaped documentary.The program should be made available to the general public— local residents,College of William and Mary students, visitors, etc. It should stress theirreplaceable value of these resources and the need for public involvement in theirprotection. An important corollary should also be stressed— the importance ofarchaeological context and the problem of “pothunting” (non-scientific collectingor excavating of a property, thus destroying the relationship of the objects withother objects and features on the site and thereby making them relatively useless inunderstanding the site) (WPD/WHS/ASV).IdentificationSite identification is the first and in some ways most important step in resource management.Since many archaeological sites are by their very nature below-ground and nearlyinvisible, and many architectural sites are masked by later renovations, this step is crucial.Once identified, steps can be intelligently taken to manage threatened sites withoutundue delay to developers. The following tasks are therefore recommended:• A Phase I archaeological survey on any development impacting land within 150' ofa stream. This will allow for identification of currently-unknown prehistoric sitesin their likeliest locations, along the margins of interior streams (for the rationale,see Study Units I-IV). The survey, which can often be done at a relatively minimalcost by a competent local prehistoric archaeologist, may result in the discovery ofpotentially- significant cultural resources during the planning phase of development,while redesign options are still available (WPD/VDHL).• Analysis of the settlement pattern of Middle Plantation, based on archival researchand archaeological discoveries. A preliminary map of known Middle Plantationremains has already been prepared (Figure 8.4), and these remains have been recordedwhen encountered. As noted in Study Unit X, a locational analysis mightallow more efficient prediction of Middle Plantation-period sites, and better managementof sites once encountered (CWF/CW&M).• A comparison of 17th-century tract maps with existing U.S. Department of AgricultureSoil Survey maps to determine the correlation of early settlements withprime agricultural land. If, as Lorena Walsh (pers. comm. 1985) suggests (seeStudy Unit X), early patents coincide with the most fertile land, then soil mapsmay be used as sensitivity indices— i.e., developments proposed for good agriculturalland are likeliest to encounter 17th-century remains. Provision can then bemade early in the planning process for evaluation of these specific parcels and anyarchaeological remains can be evaluated and treated before construction actuallybegins (CWF/CW&M).• An archival, architectural, and archaeological survey of industrial sites from allperiods, in order to develop a chronology of industrial development in the area. Ascraft specialization and industrialization is one of the most important trends in the150

Figure 8.4.area’s history (see Study Units IX-XIV), it is surprising that more is not knownabout these sites. The first step should be a documentary survey to identify sitesand their probable locations. This should be followed by an architectural and archaeologicalsurvey, performed by a competent industrial archaeologist and architecturalhistorian. This study, which would do so much to further the understandingof the history of the area, would ideally be funded by a consortium of JamesCity County, York County, the City of Poquoson, and the City of Williamsburg,and would include industrial properties in all four jurisdictions (WPD/CWF/CW&M/ASV).• Archival survey of existing family plots, along with locational plotting of theseareas to prevent unintentional disturbance during construction. Part of this taskcan be integrated into an overall oral history program aimed at studying former151

communities, lifeways, and important community shrines and symbols (CW&M/WHS).• An identification survey, both archival, archaeological, and architectural, of existingsites, structures, and buildings relating to local black history, with the ultimateintent of a thematic nomination of these resources to the National Register (for theimportance of such a nomination, see Study Units XV-XX). Such a survey may bedone by Colonial Williamsburg professionals as part of the Foundation’s managementplan, by College of William and Mary students, by local historical societiesand avocational groups, or by some combination of all of these (WPD/VDHL/CWF/ CW&M/WHS/ASV/avo).EvaluationSite evaluation is a logical next step in assigning significance and managing the resources.Evaluation involves more detailed strategies of ranking known sites or sitetypes, and weighing the informational or aesthetic potential of the resource against theneed for development. The following specific evaluative tasks are recommended:• Re-assessment of the periphery of the Historic Area and possibly nomination ofsome individual properties in this zone to the National Register of Historic Places.Possible candidates for nomination include, but are not limited to: Bassett Hall(CW-1A), the William Timson House (137-36), and the Griffin House (CW-5).This re-assessment should be performed by architectural historians of the ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation as part of their proposed management plan (CWF).• A continuation of Liddle and Styrna’s (1985) analysis of the 18th- century evolutionof Williamsburg settlement patterns (see Study Unit XI), with additional analysisrelating these patterns to archaeological remains. Important work at Alexandria(Cressey and Stephens 1982) has shown the benefits of a “city-site” approach tomaterial remains. This analysis, integrated with the on-going documentary analysisof the York County Project, is likely to yield significant insights intoWilliamsburg’s development as a city, and perhaps to urban development in general(CWF/CW&M).• Re-analysis of certain Colonial Williamsburg artifact assemblages, particularly thoseexcavated between 1957 and 1982, that could be used to address current researchinterests described in Study Unit XI, including the study of industrialization, urbanblack domestic life, and the development of the urban gentry. This would requiredocumentary research (in many cases already done), artifact identification, andsome contextual analysis based on existing excavation records. This re-analysisshould be performed by staff of the Colonial Williamsburg Office of ArchaeologicalExcavation as part of Colonial Williamsburg’s proposed management plan(CWF).• Evaluation of Brafferton Hall (CW-16C) on the College of William and Mary todetermine whether it still contains any evidence of its role as an Indian school after1705 (see Study Unit VIII). This property is currently used by the College, but it islikely that architectural and archaeological study of the property could be extremelyvaluable. This study should be performed by the Departments of Anthropology152

and/or History at the College of William and Mary, and may involve small-scaletest excavations on the property to determine its integrity (CW&M).• An oral history program designed to evaluate the presence of former communities,lifeways, and important community shrines and symbols (CW&M/CWF/WHS).• Analysis of existing Mutual Assurance Society plats to determine late 18th- andearly 19th-century site types, property layouts, and economic values, as advocatedin Study Unit XII. Threatened properties can often be evaluated partially on thebasis of this sort of documentary record, if it is in analyzable form (CW&M/CWF).• Evaluation of the Afro-American experience in Williamsburg, perhaps in coordinationwith Colonial Williamsburg’s “The Other Half” program. This should includea documentary study of Williamsburg’s slave and free black population inthe colonial period and the early 19th century, possibly by Colonial Williamsburg’sResearch Department, as well as a documentary study of blacks in the later 19thand 20th centuries (for specific research needs, see Study Units XV-XX). ColonialWilliamsburg’s archaeological assemblages should be re-analyzed for evidenceof Afro-American presence, and an architectural evaluation should be done onstanding structures likely to have been occupied by blacks, including The Quarter(U-60) and the Brush-Everard Kitchen (CW-29E) (VHDL/CWF/CW&M).RegistrationInclusion on the National Register of Historic Places suggests that the registered propertyholds important historical value and maintains a sufficient degree of integrity. Italso suggests that the property is worth preserving if at all possible. Registered propertiesare often associated with monetary or non-monetary incentives for preservation orat least full documentation. Registration tasks therefore usually involve nomination ofthose important properties that, for some particular reason, it is important to preserve.For the Williamsburg area, the following registration tasks are recommended:• Nomination of Merchants Square (Plate 8.9) as a historic district to the NationalRegister of Historic Places. This district, owned by Colonial Williamsburg, is animportant local example of Colonial Revival architecture (see Study Unit XIV),and should be preserved (VDHL/CWF).• Nomination of Bruton Heights School (U-55) as a historic property to the NationalRegister of Historic Places. This property holds important public value in the localblack community (see Study Units XX and XXII), and therefore should bepreserved (VDHL/CofW).• Nomination of the James City County Training School Site (U-54) to the NationalRegister of Historic Places. This property, the first black high school in the area,holds important public value in the local black community (see Study Units XXand XXII), and its former location should be preserved (VDHL/CofW).• Nomination of Braxton Court as a historic district to the National Register of HistoricPlaces. This black-owned, black-built community holds important communityvalue for local black Americans (see Study Unit XX), and should be preserved(VDHL/CofW).153

Plate 8.9. Merchants Square.• Nomination of other potentially-eligible sites to the National Register of HistoricPlaces, including WB4, WB28, and WB31, as recommended in the Second StreetExtension Survey Report (Hunter et al. 1983) (VDHL/CofW).• A possible thematic nomination of properties relating to local black history, includingBruton Heights School, the James City County Training School Site, BraxtonCourt, the First Baptist Church Site (CW-14A), the Brush-Everard Kitchen (CW-29E), and other properties known to have been owned, occupied, or utilized byblacks. This nomination should follow closely upon, and use information gatheredduring, the evaluation of Williamsburg’s Afro-American heritage describedunder Evaluation Goals, above (VDHL/CWF/CofW).TreatmentTreatment may involve preservation in place, relocation, or mitigation of destructiveimpacts by recording, excavation, or analysis. Well-informed, suitable treatments arethe ultimate goal of any management plan. For Williamsburg, the following specifictreatments are recommended:• Merchants Square.Preservation in place of all National Register and National Register-eligiblesites, structures, buildings, and objects, insofar as they can be determinedbefore development takes place. Preservation may be accomplished byproject redesign, historic district zoning, easement or donation, or some other formof cooperative action between planner, developer, and cultural resource professional(VDHL/WPD).154

• A Phase I survey, followed by Phase III salvage, of archaeological remains associatedwith College Landing (WB3), and preservation of all remains not to be impactedby the proposed Port Coves development. College Landing is one of themost important sites in the city (see Study Unit XI), and is also on the NationalRegister. Where necessary, salvage excavation should be performed to the highestprofessional standards, and may be undertaken cooperatively by the ColonialWilliamsburg Office of Archaeological Excavation and the College of Williamand Mary Departments of Anthropology and History (WPD/CWF/CW&M).• Preservation of Bruton Heights School, the first all-black high school inWilliamsburg. Now an elementary school, the building is threatened as plans havebeen proposed to build a $5.26 million replacement at another location, rather thanrenovate the existing building. There is considerable public support, however, forthe preservation and renovation of the building which now stands (CofW).• Preservation of local black communities such as Braxton Court, Crispus AttucksPlace, and Highland Park. These communities are an important aspect of localblack history, and should be preserved if possible (CofW).• Preservation of earthworks associated with the Battle of Williamsburg (JC56, JC57,and JC58). These important Civil War earthworks (see Study Unit XXIII) shouldbe preserved if possible, perhaps as “green space” in the developing areas near thesoutheastern part of the city (CofW).• Adoption by the City of Williamsburg of an explicit policy for treatment of humanremains uncovered during land disturbance. Such remains should be treated withcare and reverence. If possible, the site should be left undisturbed and the developmentproject should be redesigned to avoid the area. If this is not possible, reintermentof the remains is necessary. In the event of discovery of prehistoric orcontact-period Native American remains, local representatives of Native Americanconcerns should be immediately contacted. In any case where the remainsappear to be of some antiquity, discussions should be held with concerned partiesabout the preservation of the cemetery or the location of re-interment, perhapsafter osteological analysis of the remains (CofW).• “Banking” of the Nicolson House property (CW-7F), now owned by the ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, as a resource for the evaluation of urban black domesticlife. It is known that Robert Nicolson owned slaves, and that they were probablyhoused in outbuildings in the back yard. Eventual excavation of this until-nowunexcavated property, using as-yet undeveloped archaeological techniques, shouldreveal important aspects of their life and material culture (CWF).ConclusionThe title of the larger document that supports this management plan is “Toward A ResourceProtection Process.” The preceding recommendations, and the evaluations offuture development impacts presented earlier, are merely the first step. Even more importantis the ongoing nature of the cultural resource protection process, which is meantto continually incorporate new research findings, community interests, and developmentschedules. As noted in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Preservation155

Planning, “the incorporation of this information is essential to improve the content ofthe plan and to keep it up-to-date and useful; [n]ew information must be reviewed regularlyand systematically, and the plan revised accordingly” (U.S. Department of theInterior 1983: 44717).Because this is an ongoing process, it is essential to establish procedures for efficientand timely transferral of information. The costly delays in construction schedulessometimes associated with resource “salvage” are often merely the results of inefficientcommunication networks. If development plans are known in advance to preservationconstituencies, and the sensitivity of particular parcels is known to developers and planners,a reasonable compromise can usually be achieved. The transmission of this information,however, normally requires a formal framework.Such a framework has been proposed in this document. The regional InformationCenter, to be housed at the College of William and Mary, would provide a clearinghouseaccessible to local planners and developers and a link with the state’s ResearchCenter for Archaeology and Division of Historic Landmarks. The center would be staffedby students working under historians, architectural historians, and/or archaeologists,and would maintain up-to-date files of historic and environmental data, historic andmodern maps, and records of known resources. The staff would be trained to accuratelyevaluate the potential of specific parcels, on a case-by-case basis, and to recommend themost effective procedure for protecting any possible resource and yet facilitating development.It is hoped that this management plan can put the City of Williamsburg on the roadto an effective program of historic preservation. Successful implementation of the plan,however, will involve the sustained cooperation of planners, developers, preservationprofessionals, and concerned constituencies.156

BIBLIOGRAPHY: MANAGEMENT PLANSAbbot, H.L.1861 Campaign Maps, Army of the Potomac, Map No. 1, Yorktown toWilliamsburg. Prepared by Command of Maj. Gen. GeorgeB. McClellan, U.S.A. Commanding Army of the Potomac,Brig. Gen. A.A. Humphreys, Chief of Top. Engrs. Army of the Potomac,etc... Compilation under the direction of Brig. Gen. A.A. Humphreys, byCapt. H.L. Abbot, Top. Engnrs. Original in Atlas to Accompany theOfficial Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, 1861-1865, editedby G.B. Davis, L.J. Perry, and J.W. Kirkley (1891), Plate XVIII. Photostaton file, Special Collections, Research Department Library, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Advisory Council on Historic Preservation1984 Working with Section 106: Guidelines for the Review Process Establishedby 36 CFR Part 800. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington,DC.Anonymous1916 Report of the Journey of Francis Louis Michel from Berne, Switzerland, toVirginia, October 2, 1701— December 1, 1702. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 24: 25-26.1930 Speeches of Students of the College of William and Mary Delivered May1, 1699. William and Mary Quarterly 10(2nd series): 323-337.n.d.Queen Mary’s Port (Capitol Landing) and Princess Anne’s Port (CollegeLanding) 1699-1800. Colonial Williamsburg Research Report 56.Berthier, Louis-Alexandre1781 Environs of Williamsburg and Yorktown Peninsula. Original in Châteaude Grosbois, Sociètè d’Encouragement à l’Elevage du Cheval Français.Photostat on file, Special Collections, Research Department Library,Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Betzner, Ray1985 $200 Million Tourist Center Planned. Daily Press, August 8.Boye, Hermann1825 A Map of the State of Virginia, constructed in conformity to law, from thelate surveys authorized by the legislature and other original and authenticdocuments. Corrected by order of the executive 1859. Original in Libraryof Congress, Washington, DC. Photostat on file, Special Collections,Research Department Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg, Virginia.157

Carson, Jane1961 We Were There: Descriptions of Williamsburg, 1699-1859. Manuscript onfile, Research Department Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg, Virginia.City of Poquoson1985 Comprehensive Plan. Copy on file, City of Poquoson Planning Department,Poquoson, Virginia.City of Williamsburg1981 The Comprehensive Plan: Williamsburg, Virginia 1981. Copy on file,Williamsburg Planning Department, Williamsburg, Virginia.n.d.Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 30, Williamsburg City Code.Colonial Williamsburg Foundationn.d. Site reports, notes, and photographs of prior excavations, filed by blockand archaeological area. Unpublished reports on file, Office of ArchaeologicalExcavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg,Virginia.Cressey, Pamela J., and John F. Stephens1982 The City-Site Approach in Urban Archaeology. In Archaeology of UrbanAmerica: The Search for Pattern and Process, edited by Roy S. Dickens,pp. 41-61. Academic Press, New York.Derry, Linda1985 A Review of the College Landing Site in Light of the Port Coves Development.Memorandum on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Desandrouins1782 Carte des Environs de Williamsburg en Virginie, 1782. Rochambeau 57.Original in Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Photostat on file,Special Collections, Research Department Library, Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Frenchman’s Map1782 Plan de la ville et environs de Williamsburg en Virginie, 1782. Original inSwem Memorial Library, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg,Virginia. Photostat on file, Special Collections, Research DepartmentLibrary, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Giles, Robert H.1974 Prescriptions for the Williamsburg Environmental System. Report on file,Williamsburg Planning Department, Williamsburg, Virginia.Goodwin, Rutherfoord1972 A Brief and True Report Concerning Williamsburg in Virginia. The DietzPress, Richmond.158

Herd, Milton J., and Elizabeth David1981 Planning and Preservation Guidelines. Chapter X in Historic NorthernVirginia: Understanding and Protecting our Shared Heritage. NorthernVirginia History Officials Advisory Committee, Northern Virginia PlanningDistrict Commission, Falls Church, Virginia.Hudgins, Carter1977 Historical Archaeology and Salvage Archaeological Excavations atCollege Landing. Report on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation,Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Hunter, Robert R. Jr.1984 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Burwell’s Mill Site, York County,Virginia. Report on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Hunter, Robert R., Jr., Patricia M. Samford, and Marley R. Brown III1983 Phase II Archaeological Testing of the Proposed Second Street Extension,York County and Williamsburg, Virginia. Report on file, Office of ArchaeologicalExcavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg, Virginia.James City County1977 Heritage and Historic Sites: An Inventory and Description of HistoricSites in James City County. James City County Department of Planningand Development, James City County, Virginia.1981 Land Use Element: Update to the Comprehensive Plan. Copy on file,James City County Department of Planning and Development, James CityCounty, Virginia.Kelso, William M.1984 Kingsmill Plantations: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia,1619-1800. Academic Press, Orlando.Lewis, Kenneth1975 The Jamestown Frontier: An Archaeological Study of Colonization.Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oklahoma. University Microfilms, AnnArbor.Liddle, Melanie, and Christine Styrna1985 Urban Development in the Chesapeake: Land Acquisition and SettlementPatterns in Williamsburg, 1700-1850. Manuscript on file, Office ofArchaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg, Virginia.McCary, Ben C., and Norman F. Barka1977 The John Smith and Zuniga Map in Light of Recent ArchaeologicalInvestigations Along the Chickahominy. Archaeology of Eastern NorthAmerica 5: 73-86.159

Maddex, Diane (editor)1985 All About Old Buildings: The Whole Preservation Catalog. The PreservationPress, Washington, DC.Madison1807 A Map of Virginia formed from “Actual Surveys”, and the Latest as wellas most accurate Observations. Original in W.L. Clements Library.Photostat on file, Special Collections, Research Department Library,Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Martin, Joseph1835 New and Comprehensive Gazetteer of Virginia. Charlottesville.Morris, E. L. Jr.1983 Footprints: A History of York County Public Schools. Manuscript on file,York County Public Library, York County, Virginia.Noël Hume, Ivor1982 Martin’s Hundred. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.Pawlett, Nathaniel Mason, and K. Edward Lay1980 Early Road Location: Key to Discovering Historic Resources? VirginiaHighway and Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, Virginia.Schoepf, Johann David1911 Travels in the Confederation (1783-1784) from the German of JohannDavid Schoepf. Translated and edited by Alfred J. Morrison. J. CampbellWilliams, Philadelphia.Soltow, James H.1956 The Economic Role of Williamsburg. Colonial Williamsburg ResearchReport 40.St. Simon1781 Carte de la Campagne de la Division aux Ordres du Mis. de St. Simon enVirginie Depuis le 27 Bre 1781.... Original in Newberry Library. Photostaton file, Special Collections, Research Department Library, ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Tate, Thad W.1965 The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg. University Press ofVirginia, Charlottesville.Tyler, Lyon G.1907 Williamsburg, The Old Colonial Capitol. Whittlet and Shepperson, Richmond.160

United States Department of Agriculture1985 Soil Survey of James City and York Counties and the City of Williamsburg,Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service incooperation with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.United States Department of the Interior1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior’s Standardsand Guidelines. Draft. Federal Register, Volume 48, Number 190.Watkins, Vincent1981 Brief History of Poquoson. Report prepared for the First AnnualPoquoson Seafood Festival, Poquoson, Virginia.York County1983 York County Land Use Plan. York County Planning Commission, YorkCounty, Virginia.1984a York County Development Summary. Updated, August l985.1984bDraft Zoning Ordinance.York County Survey1980 York County Survey Project. Compiled data on file, Office of ArchaeologicalExcavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg,Virginia.161

162

Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological ReportsTowaroward a ResourceProtection Process:James City County,York County,City of Poquoson,City of WilliamsburilliamsburgOLUME 4: AVOLUME4: APPENDICESEdited by Marley R. Brown III and Kathleen J. BragdonThird EditionOffice of Archaeological ExcavationDepartment of ArchaeologyColonial Williamsburg FoundationPO Box CWilliamsburg, Virginia 23187Marley R. Brown IIIPrincipal InvestigatorOctober 1986Third edition issued November 2001

TOWARD A RESOURCE PROTECTIONPROCESS: JAMES CITY COUNTY,YORK COUNTY, CITY OF POQUOSON,AND CITY OF WILLIAMSBURGVOLUME 4: APPENDICESThird EditionNovmber 2001Office of Archaeological ExcavationThe Department of ArchaeologyThe Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

DISCLAIMERThe activity that is the subject of this report has been financed in part with federal fundsfrom the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. However, the contentsand opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of theInterior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement orrecommendation by the Department of the Interior.i

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITIONThe first edition of this report, completed in October 1985, was submitted to the VirginiaDivision of Historic Landmarks in fulfillment of a Survey and Planning Subgrant.Copies were also distributed to the planning departments of James City County YorkCounty, 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, itwas felt that a reorganization was necessary before it was distributed more widely. The secondedition was published in 1986 in a smaller typeface for wider distribution.This third edition, published in 2001, is designed for better readability and conversioninto digital formats. It has been divided into four separate volumes. Volumes 1 and 2 providethe introduction to the project and the “study unit narratives” that describe the background andcriteria 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 theevaluation, as well as (now outdated) management plans for each jurisdiction. Volume 4 containssupplementary 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, hasnot 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 producedby Meredith C. Moodey (now Meredith Poole) of the Department of Archaeological Researchof the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. All comprehensive site records and notes areon file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.iii

PROJECT MEMBERSProject Director:Contributing Authors:Research Director andReport Coordinator:Consultants:Project Managers:Cartography:Drafting:Interns:Other Contributors:Marley R. Brown IIIKathleen J. BragdonGregory J. BrownLinda K. DerryThomas F. Higgins IIIRobert R. Hunter, Jr.Craig LukezicLisa RoysePatricia SamfordAnn Morgan SmartKathleen J. BragdonKevin KellySam MargolinJames WhittenburgLinda K. DerryAndrew C. EdwardsHannah GibbsVirginia CaldwellNatalie LarsonLouisa WallerEmerson BakerPatricia KandleChester KulesaMelanie LiddleJohn Sprinkle, Jr.Christine StyrnaJeff HollandLeslie McFadenCassandra NewbyDavid T. RobertsAlan StrangeKathrine Walkerv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Volume 4)PageDisclaimer ..................................................................................................................... iPreface to the Third Edition ........................................................................................... iiiProject Members .......................................................................................................... vSection 9. Appendices.Appendix 1. Revised Archaeological Site and Architectural PropertyEncoding Forms (ROBERT R. HUNTER) ................................................................................... 1Appendix 2. Sample Archaeological Site Inventory Standards (CALIFORNIADEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION) ...................................................................................33Appendix 3. Annotated Bibliography of Archaeological Reports(PATRICIA KANDLE AND EMERSON BAKER) ..................................................................................49Appendix 4. Annotated Bibliography of General Architectural Sources(LISA ROYSE) ...........................................................................................................................81Appendix 5. Annotated Bibliograpy of Architectural Reports with SpecificReferences to the Lower Tidewater(LISA ROYSE) ...........................................................99Appendix 6. Bibliographic Essays on Secondary Historical Literature ................. 117Bibliographic Essay: The Early Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake(KATHERINE WALKER) ................................................................................................. 121Bibliographic Essay: The Development of a Distinctive Anglo-VirginianLifestyle in Response to the Conditions of the Chesapeake,1630-1689 (J. THOMAS WREN) ............................................................................... 129Bibliographic Essay: Expansion and Differentiation of Colonial Virginia’sSociety and Economy, 1689-1783 (J. THOMAS WREN) ...................................... 145Bibliwrghic Essay: The World the Slaves and Slaveholders Made(JEFF HOLLAND) .......................................................................................................... 163Bibliographic Essay: Industrialization and the Transportation Revolution,1800 to the Present (DAVID T. ROBERTS) ................................................................ 169Bibliographic Essay: Virginia Afro-American History(CASSANDRA L. NEWBY) .............................................................................................. 185Bibliographic Essay: Belief Systems (ALAN D. STRANGE) ....................................... 195Bibliographic Essay: The Establishment and Development of PublicWelfire Institutions (DAVID T. ROBERTS) ................................................................... 201Bibliographic Essay: The Rise of Fort Virginia; The ContinuingImportance of the Military to Tidewater Society (J. THOMAS WREN) .............. 211Appendix 7. Submerged Cultural Resources in the Tidewater PeninsulaRegion (SAM MARGOLIN) ..................................................................................................... 229vii

viii

Appendix 1.Revised Archaeological Site andArchitectural Property EncodingFormsRobert R. Hunter Jr. and Lisa Royse

APPENDIX 1.REVISED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE ANDARCHITECTURAL PROPERTY ENCODING FORMSThe following chapter contains proposed revisions to the archaeological and architecturalrecords currently used by the VDHL. Both revised forms are suitable for computer-assistedstorage and retrieval, and provide opportunities for efficient sorting byvarious closely-defined categories. The forms were designed on an IBM PC-XT, using theMicroPro “INFOSTAR+” data management package. Codes for various “look-up” fieldshave been included, and are entered in the program available on diskette from the ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation’s Office of Archaeological Excavation.3

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE CODE BOOKFOR THE JAMES-YORK PENINSULARobert R. Hunter, Jr.DraftAugust 1985

U.S.G.S. Quad Sheets01 Walkers02 Toano03 Gressitt04 Brandon05 Norge06 Williamsburg07 Clay Bank08 Surry09 Hog Island10 Yorktown11 Poquoson West12 Poquoson East13 Mulberry Island14 Newport News North15 HamptonProject10 Federal11 Federal- Highways12 Federal- Military13 Federal- Other20 State21 State- VDH&T22 State- VHLC23 State- Other30 Corporate31 Corporate- Utility32 Corporate- Other40 County50 Academic/Research60 Avocational98 Multiple Sponsors99 UnknownExposure10 Agricultural11 Plowed Field12 Field- In crop13 Fallow Field20 Forest21 Scrub Vegetation22 Beach23 Erosion-Feature24 Submerged30 Developed Area31 Lawn32 Disturbance33 No Exposure98 Multiple Exposures99 Unknown9

Ownership01 Federal02 State03 Municipal04 Corporate05 Colonial Williamsburg Foundation06 Special District07 Private98 Multiple Ownership99 UnknownLand Use- James City County01 Low Density Residential02 Moderate Density Residential03 Planned Community11 Commercial12 Major Commercial13 Tourist Commercial14 Primary Service Area21 Limited Industry22 General Industry31 Special Impact Area41 Agricultural, Forestry, Rural51 Greenbelt52 Conservation53 Reservoir54 Park, Reservoir Protection61 State, Federal, County62 Historic Site71 Proposed Roads98 Multiple Use99 UnknownLand Use- York County04 Single Family Residential05 Multi-Family Residential/Mobile Home13 Tourist Commercial15 Neighborhood Commercial16 General Commercial17 Office/Professional/Research23 Waterfront Commercial/Industrial24 Light Industrial25 Heavy Industrial42 Agricultural55 Public/Semi-Public56 Conservation/Recreation63 Federal72 Vacant98 Multiple Land Use99 Unknown10

Land Use- Williamsburg01 Low Density Residential02 Medium Density Residential11 Commercial13 Tourist Commercial18 Limited Commercial24 Light Industrial55 Public/Semi-Public57 Parks and Parkways58 Water64 Historic Area98 Multiple Land Use99 UnknownLand Use- Poquoson04 Single Family Residential06 Two-Family/Multi-Family07 Mobile Home16 General Commercial23 Waterfront Commercial/Industrial26 Industrial55 Public/Semi-Public73 Roadways74 Undeveloped75 Woodlands76 Wetlands77 Open Space78 Federal Lands (Wetland)98 Multiple Land use99 UnknownEcological Zones10 Southern Pine Forest20 Saltwater Area & Marsh30 Freshwater Marsh40 Chickahominy98 Multiple Zones99 UnknownGeologic Formations10 15-Foot Plains and Lower11 Big Bethel Scarp12 Harpersville Scarp13 Eustis Scarp20 30-Foot Plain21 Suffolk Scarp30 45-Foot Plain31 Kingsmill Scarp32 Camp Peary Scarp40 70-Foot Plain41 Camp Peary Scarp50 90-Foot Plain11

51 Surry Scarp60 120-Foot Plain99 UnknownDrainages100 Chickahominy River101 Mill Creek102 Hog Neck Creek103 Uncle’s Neck Creek104 Unnamed Creek 1-N105 Shipyard Creek106 Yarmouth Creek107 Black Stump Creek108 Unnamed 2-N109 Nettles Creek110 Gordon Creek111 Unnamed 3-N200 York River201 Ware Creek202 Taskinas Creek203 Unnamed 1-G204 Unnamed 2-G205 Unnamed 3-G206 Unnamed 4-G207 Unnamed 5-G208 Unnamed 6-G209 Skimino Creek210 Carter Creek211 Bigler Mill Pond212 Beaver Dam Pond213 Queen Creek214 King Creek215 Felgates Creek216 Field Creek217 Roosevelt Pond218 Ballard Creek219 Yorktown Creek220 West Branch Creek221 Wormeley Creek300 James River301 Unnamed 1-S302 Unnamed 2-S303 Powhatan Creek304 Back River305 Passmore Creek305 Unnamed 1-H307 Unnamed 2-H308 Unnamed 3-H309 Mill Creek310 Unnamed 4-H311 Unnamed 5-H312 College Creek313 Unnamed 6-H12

314 Unnamed 7-H315 Unnamed 8-H316 Grove Creek317 Thoroughfare318 Grice’s Run319 Skiffe’s Creek320 Blow’s Creek321 Morley’s Gut322 Fort Creek323 Unnamed 9-H324 Unnamed 10-MI325 Morrison’s Creek326 Unnamed 11-MI327 Unnamed 12-MI328 Unnamed 13-MI329 Unnamed 14-MI330 Jail Creek331 Deep Creek332 Unnamed 18-MI333 Fisher’s Creek334 Indigo Lake335 Unnamed 19-MI336 Kettle Pond337 Lake Maury’s Creek (Water’s Creek)400 Warwick River401 Unnamed 1-MI402 Lucas Creek403 Unnamed 2-MI404 Unnamed 3-MI405 Unnamed 4-MI406 Unnamed 5-MI407 Unnamed 6-MI408 Unnamed 7-MI409 Unnamed 8-MI410 Unnamed 9-MI411 Unnamed 15-MI412 Unnamed 16-MI413 Unnamed 17-MI500 Poquoson River501 Patrick’s Creek502 Quarter March Creek503 Harwood’s Mill Reservoir504 Moore’s Creek505 Lamb’s Creek506 Robert’s Creek600 Branch Back River601 Cedar Creek602 Topping Creek603 Unnamed 1-HA604 Unnamed 2-HA605 Unnamed 3-HA606 Unnamed 4-HA607 Unnamed 5-HA608 Watt’s Creek13

609 Fore Landing Creek610 Long Creek611 High Cedar Creek612 Flat Gut613 Unnamed 6-HA614 Tabb’s Creek615 Southwest Branch616 Unnamed 7-HA617 Harris River618 Unnamed 8-HA619 Unnamed 9-HA620 Wallace Creek621 Grunland Creek700 Chesapeake Bay701 Back Creek702 Claxton Creek703 Goose Neck Creek704 Chisman Creek705 Boathouse Creek706 Hodges Cove707 Bay Tree Creek708 Cabin Creek709 Lyon’s Creek710 Bennett Creek711 Lloyd Bay712 Rock Creek713 Unnamed 1-PE714 Unnamed 2-PE715 Fire Pine Creek716 Gum Hammond Creek717 Thoroughfare Creek718 Salt Ponds719 Mill Creek999 UnknownSoil Type100 Altavista Fine Sandy Loam101 Augusta Fine Sandy Loam102 Axis Very Fine Sandy Loam103 Beaches104 Bethera Silt Loam105 Bohicket Muck106 Bojac Sandy Loam107 Caroline Fine Sandy Loam108 Chickahominy Silt Loam109 Craven Fine Sandy Loam110 Craven Fine Sandy Loam111 Craven-Uchee Complex112 Craven-Uchee Complex113 Dogue Loam114 Dragston Fine Sandy Loam115 Emporia Fine Sandy Loam116 Emporia Fine Sandy Loam14

117 Emporia Complex118 Emporia Complex119 Emporia Complex120 Izagora Loam121 Johnston Complex122 Kempsville Fine Sandy Loam123 Kempsville-Emporia Fine Sand Loam124 Kenansville Loamy Fine Sand125 Levy Silty Clay126 Munden Loamy Fine Sand127 Newflat Silt Loam128 Nimmo Fine Sandy Loam129 Norfolk Fine Sandy Loam130 Pamunkey Soils131 Peawick Silt Loam132 Seabrook Loamy Fine Sand133 Slagle Fine Sandy Loam134 Slagle Fine Sandy Loam135 Slagle Fine Sandy Loam136 Slagle Fine Sandy Loam137 State Fine Sandy Loam138 Suffolk Fine Sandy Loam139 Tetotum Silt Loam140 Tomotley Fine Sandy Loam141 Uchee Loamy Fine Sand142 Uchee Loamy Fine Sand143 Udorthents Loamy144 Udorthents-Dumps Complex145 Urban Land146 Yemassee Fine Sandy Loam999 UnknownSite Shape01 Nucleated A02 Nucleated B03 Narrow Band04 Shape of Landform05 Widely Dispersed06 Restricted- Unknown07 Circular09 UnknownTerrain01 Flat- Major River02 Flat- Major Stream03 Flat- Major Confluence04 Flat- Small Branch05 Flat- Marsh06 Flat- Inundated07 Spit/Bar08 Sink/Depression09 Inundated- Other10 Small Rise- Major River15

11 Small Rise- Major Stream12 Small Rise- Major Confluence13 Small Rise- Small Branch14 Small Rise- Marsh20 Large Terrace- Major River21 Large Terrace- Major Stream22 Large Terrace- Major Confluence23 Large Terrace- Small Branch24 Large Terrace- Marsh30 Bluff- Major River31 Bluff- Major Stream32 Bluff- Major Confluence33 Bluff- Small Branch34 Bluff- Marsh40 Upland Flat41 Upland Flat- Spring42 Upland Flat- Swamp43 Upland Flat- Small Branch50 Upland Terrace51 Upland Terrace- Spring52 Upland Terrace- Small Branch99 UnknownSite Type0100 Urban Center0110 City0120 Town0130 Village0140 Hamlet0200 Residential Unit0210 Farmstead0220 House Alone0230 Outbuilding Alone0300 Linear Site0310 Boundary Line0320 Road0340 Railroad0350 Canal0400 Isolated Find0410 Artifact0420 Feature0430 Grave0450 Church0460 Church and Graveyard0470 Church Alone0480 Graveyard Alone0490 Mission0500 Military0510 Fortifications-Extant0520 Fortifications-Archaeological0530 Encampment0540 Battlefield0600 Industrial16

0610 Kiln0611 Pottery Kiln0612 Brick Kiln0613 Lime Kiln0620 Mill0630 Forge0631 Glass Forge0632 Iron Forge0640 Shipyard0700 Commercial0710 Tavern0720 Store0730 Wharf0740 Warehouse0750 Trading Post0800 Institutional-Gov’t.0810 School-College0820 Courthouse0830 Asylum0840 Customs House0850 Capitol Building0860 Governor’s Palace0870 Jail0900 Socio-Cultural0910 Fraternal Organization0911 Masonic Lodge0920 Entertainment0921 Theater0922 Movie House0930 Country Club0998 Multiple Types0999 Unknown17

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE CODE BOOKFOR THE JAMES-YORK PENINSULALisa RoyseDraftAugust 1985

CODESProperty Name - Most common name(s).Site Number - VDHL survey number or other identifying number.Ownership01 Federal02 State03 Municipal04 Corporate05 Colonial Williamsburg Foundation06 Special District07 Private98 Multiple Ownership99 UnknownLand Use and Projected Use - James City County01 Low Density Residential02 Moderate Density Residential03 Planned Community11 Commercial12 Major Commercial13 Tourist Commercial14 Primary Service Area21 Limited Industry22 General Industry31 Special Impact Area41 Agricultural, Forestry, Rural51 Greenbelt52 Conservation53 Reservoir54 Park, Reservoir Protection61 State, Federal, County62 Historic Site71 Proposed Roads98 Multiple Use99 UnknownLand Use and Projected Use - York County04 Single Family Residential05 Multi-Family Residential/Mobile Home13 Tourist Commercial15 Neighborhood Commercial16 General Commercial17 Office/Professional/Research23 Waterfront Commercial/Industrial24 Light Industrial25 Heavy Industrial42 Agricultural23

55 Public/Semi-Public56 Conservation/Recreation63 Federal72 Vacant98 Multiple Land Use99 UnknownLand Use and Projected Use - City of Poquoson04 Single Family Residential06 Two-Family/Multi-Family07 Mobile Home16 General Commercial23 Waterfront Commercial/Industrial26 Industrial55 Public/Semi-Public73 Roadways74 Undeveloped75 Woodlands76 Wetlands77 Open Space78 Federal Lands (Wetland)98 Multiple Land Use99 UnknownLand Use and Projected Use - City of Williamsburg01 Low Density Residential02 Medium Density Residential11 Commercial13 Tourist Commercial18 Limited Commercial24 Light Industrial55 Public/Semi-Public57 Parks and Parkways58 Water64 Historic Area98 Multiple Land Use99 UnknownFunction0100 Urban Center0110 City0120 Town0130 Village0140 Hamlet0200 Residential Unit0210 Farmstead0220 House Alone0230 Outbuilding Alone0231 Storehouse0232 Kitchen0233 Smokehouse0234 Dairy24

0235 Coach House0236 Granary0237 Stable0238 Lumber House0239 Office0240 Laundry0241 Slavehouse0242 Meathouse0243 Cornhouse0244 Necessary0245 Poultryhouse0246 Barn0250 Combined Functions (see comments)0270 Shop0271 Tailor’s Shop0272 Barber’s Shop0273 Blacksmith’s Shop0300 Linear Site0320 Road0340 Railroad0350 Canal0420 Feature0430 Grave0450 Church0460 Church and Graveyard0470 Church Alone0480 Graveyard Alone0490 Mission0500 Military0510 Fortifications-Extant0520 Fortifications-Archaeological0530 Encampment0540 Battlefield0600 Industrial0610 Kiln0611 Pottery Kiln0612 Brick Kiln0613 Lime Kiln0620 Mill0630 Forge0631 Glass Forge0632 Iron Forge0640 Shipyard0700 Commercial0710 Tavern0720 Store0730 Wharf0740 `Warehouse0750 Trading Post0800 Institutional-Gov’t.0810 School-College0820 Courthouse0830 Asylum0840 Customs House25

0850 Capitol Building0860 Governor’s Palace0870 Jail0900 Socio-Cultural0910 Fraternal Organization0911 Masonic Lodge0920 Entertainment0921 Theater0922 Movie House0930 Country Club0998 Multiple Types0999 UnknownLevel of Preservation01 None02 Private03 National Register Property04 Historic District Property99 UnknownStreet Address - Location of property in relation to existing roads.County/District01 James City County02 York County03 Williamsburg04 Yorktown05 PoquosonU.S.G.S. Quad01 Walkers02 Toano03 Gressitt04 Brandon05 Norge06 Williamsburg07 Clay Bank08 Surry09 Hog Island10 Yorktown11 Poquoson West12 Poquoson East13 Mulberry Island14 Newport News North15 HamptonMap Reference - Designation of modern and/or historic maps showing property.Community Reference - Name of modern or historic community.26

Project - Name of survey project, if any.Project Type01 Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)02 Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks (VDHL)03 Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (CWF)04 National Park Service (NPS)05 Private06 OtherSurveyor - Name of institution or major surveyor, if not included under type.Survey Level01 Map Predicted02 External Survey03 Photographic Survey04 Plan05 Measured Drawings06 Excavations07 Map, Plan, and Photos08 Written Report99 UnknownCondition - Condition at time of survey.01 Preserved02 Partially Preserved03 In Use - Good Condition04 In Use - Poor Condition05 Abandoned06 In Ruins07 Destroyed99 UnknownReport Location - Name of major institution holding report.Author - Name of author of documentary report.Title - Full title or as much as necessary to identify the report.Location - Name of major institution holding report.Collection/Survey - Name of photographic collection.Location - Name of major institution holding photographs.Number - Identifying call number of photographs, if any.Study Unit - Number(s) of relevant study unit.27

Beginning Date - Approximate date of construction.End Date - Approximate date of demolition or major alteration.Site Function - See above.Condition01 Preserved02 Partially Preserved03 In Use - Good Condition04 In Use - Poor Condition05 Abandoned06 In Ruins07 Destroyed99 UnknownBuilding Type01000 Residential/Domestic01010 Three-Room Plan01011 " " - no passage01012 " " - passage01020 Single-Cell House01021 " " - square01022 " " - rectangular01023 " " - miscellaneous01030 Double-Pile Plan01031 " " - two-story, no passage01032 " " - one-story, central passage01033 " " - one-story, no passage01034 " " - miscellaneous01040 Rectangular01041 " - two rooms, hall/parlor (of unequal size)01042 " - two-rooms (of equal size)01050 Side-Passage Plans01051 " " - double-pile01052 " " - single-pile01053 " " - double-pile variation01060 Slave or Servant House01070 Georgian House (I-House)01071 I-House01072 I-House with integral one-room ell01073 I-House with integral two-room ell01074 Single Story variations01075 I-House variation01080 Georgian House (Double-pile)01090 Miscellaneous01100 Side-Passage Plan01110 Queen Anne House/Irregular Plan01120 Revival Style House01121 " " - Neo-Colonial01122 " " - Tudor28

01130 Bungalow01140 Tract House01150 Military House01160 Trailer House01170 Planned Community HouseConstruction Material10 Wood Frame20 Brick21 English Bond22 `Flemish Bond23 American Bond24 Other25 Multiple Bond30 Stone31 Random Rubble32 Coursed Rubble33 Dressed Ashlar34 Quarry Faced Ashlar40 Log41 Squared Log42 Unsquared Log43 V-Notched Log44 Saddle-Notched Log45 Square-Notched Log46 Half Dovetail-Notched Log47 Full Dovetail-Notched Log48 Diamond-Notched Log50 Concrete Block60 Terra Cotta70 Steel Frame80 Other90 Combination of Two or More (see comments)99 UnknownSupport System01 Post-in-Ground02 Sill Constructed03 Slab Foundation04 Masonry09 Other99 UnknownCladding Material01 Weatherboard02 Vertical Siding03 Stucco04 Wood Shingle05 Asbestos Shingle06 Asphalt Shingle07 Bricktex08 Composition Siding29

09 Board and Batten10 Aluminum or Vinyl11 Cast Iron12 Corrugated Metal13 Enameled Metal14 Glass15 Veneer20 Other99 UnknownStories01 One02 One and a Half03 Two04 Two and a Half05 Three06 Four99 UnknownCellar/Basement01 English Basement02 Full Basement09 None99 UnknownBays01 One02 Two03 Three04 Four05 `Five06 Six99 Unknown1 - Symmetrical2 - AsymmetricalRoof10 Shed20 Gable21 Gable with Pediment22 Gable with Parapet23 Gable with Clipped End30 Hipped31 Pyramidal40 Mansard41 False Mansard50 Gambrel60 Flat61 Flat with Parapet70 Parapet (roof not visible)80 Other99 Unknown30

Roof Material10 Shingle11 Composition Shingle12 Wood Shingle20 Metal21 Standing Seam22 Corrugated23 Pressed Tin (Simulated Shingles)30 Tile31 Pantile32 Flat Tile33 Glazed Tile40 Slate50 Not Visible99 UnknownDormers01 One02 Two03 Three04 Four05 Five06 Six07 Seven99 Unknown1— Gable2— Gable with pediment3— Shed4— Hipped9— Unknow nPorch (describe under associated features)01 Yes02 No99 UnknownChimneys - Number of chimneys, if any (describe under associated features).Associated Features - Porches, chimneys, etc.Major Additions/Alterations - Describe construction type, date, etc.Comments - Any other comments.31

Appendix 2.Sample Archaeological SiteInventory Standards

CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES SURVEYOFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATIONCriteria for the Evaluation of Archaeological Site SurveyRecords Submitted for Inclusion in the Statewide SurveyEach archaeological site record shall be reviewed and evaluated using the following criterionsto insure the accuracy and completeness of the survey’s data. Site survey records which donot provide the required information should be returned to their preparer for correction orattachment of supplemental information. (In the case of previously recorded site survey records,Regional Offices will be responsible for updating any inadequate records they may have intheir files.)A complete archaeological site survey record has three parts: 1) a site survey recordform; 2) a detail(ed) site sketch map and; 3) a site location map xerox copy of a portion of theappropriate USGS Quadrangle Map showing the location of the site (as recorded by the siterecorder). Each site survey record must contain all its components before it will be acceptedfor inclusion as part of the survey data. An exception to the above statement will be madewhenever an aggregate of sites are reported for a small geographic area during a systemicreconnaissance. In such cases, items 1 and 2 will be required for each property and a USGSQuadrangle map showing the locations of all archaeological properties will be accepted in lieuof a xerox map for each property.The information categories listed below do not address all categories of informationwhich may be required to meet academic research needs. The Office of Historic Preservationwishes to stress that these criterions represent the minimal information necessary to propermanagement and protection of the state’s archaeological properties. Office of Historic Preservationwould recommend that in lieu of a regional site survey record form, if such a form doesnot exist, that the site survey record form currently in use by the Department of Parks andRecreation be utilized to record archaeological properties.I. Site Survey Form - This form must provide response spaces for the following categoriesof information.A. Official Site Trinomial - Should be placed in upper right hand corner of form.B. Site Locational Information1. Rectangular System of Survey References - Township, Range, Quadrants ofa section to the nearest 1/16 of the section, and section.2. Universal Transverse Mercator Grid References - One UTM reference pointmust be given for all sites covering an area of less than 10 acres. Sites coveringan area of 10 acres or more must have a UTM reference point for eachcorner along its boundary. Full UTM reference point coordinates must begiven.3. Verbal Description - This section should provide a mental map to anyonetrying to relocate the site. References to surrounding landmarks and “permanent”modern features should be provided in conjunction with informationconcerning their direction and distance from the site.35

C. Contour ElevationD. Ownership1. Owner’s name (In the case of public ownership, the agency having responsibilityfor the land should be given.)2. Owner’s addressE. Reference to Systematic Survey (if applicable).1. Name of project2. Date survey was conductedF. Description of Site1. Site dimensions2. Estimated surface area of site3. Estimated or known depth of deposit, if applicable4. Condition i.e., undisturbed, partially destroyed, etc.5. Site attributes i.e., midden/habitation debris, lithic scatters, etc.6. Temporal placement of site7. Cultural placement of siteII. Archaeological Site Sketch Maps - Sketch maps should provide a clear picture ofthe site’s surface manifestations and their relationship to each other and the surroundingenvironment. The following information should be provided on all sketchmaps:1. Site number2. Legend3. Scale4. North arrow5. Exact measurements between key features of the site and its environment;these measurements should include horizontal distances and compass bearings.III. Site Location Map - This map should be a xerox portion of a USGS QuadrangleMap upon which the property location has been marked. Preferable scale for sitelocation is 1:24,000; however, 1:62,500 scale maps will suffice when the former isnot available.The following reference information should be provided:1. Site number2. Map name and scale3. North arrow4. If any symbols are used, provide key or legend.36

ENCODING MANUALProcedural Guide for Encoding the Data SheetThe data encoding sheet does not replace the site record, but should be attached as a supplementto the site record when it is forwarded to the Office of Historic Preservation.Taking each county in alphabetical order, begin with the lowest recorded site numberwithin that county. Record all pertinent information from the site record onto the data encodingsheet in the appropriate place.Be sure that the information being encoded is as complete as possible. If the informationis not available on the site record, and no space exists to check either “other” or “unknown”,then leave the space blank.If there is a conflict in the site description between the original record and an update(s),check all site attributes (categories 19 and 20) recorded on the original and updated siterecords.If there is conflicting locational data between the original site record and an update(s)check the record against the location of the site plotted on the map to determine the mostaccurate information. If the map location is not available, use the most recent record to obtainthe location.In all other cases of conflicting data, use the most recent update to obtain the informationfor encoding.Where a gap exists in the site records, fill in the missing number on the data encodingsheet and write “No Record” across the entire sheet. If the number of missing records exceedsfive in sequence, indicate a block of site numbers (e.g. Sol 419-442).41

Defintions1. Site No.: 04-SON-561-HState-County-Number-HistoricEnter the California State trinomial given to the site. This consists of the state (i.e. CA or04), county, number and an “H” or “/H” to indicate if the site is historic or historic archaeologicalrespectively.An historic site, indicated by an “H” after the site number, is a site which derives itsimportance from person or events that are important to history.An historic archaeological site, indicated by “/H” following the site number, is a site whichderives its importance from its potential to yield information important to history, andwhich shows evidence of habitation (documented or physical) after the introduction ofnon-indigenous peoples.If the site is prehistoric or both prehistoric and historic in nature, leave this fourth space ofthe site number blank.2. Previous Maudlin 454Designations: 291Lover’s Leap LedgeEnter any previous name or numbers that specifically refer to the site. These include: 1 allpublished references, 2 local or ethnographic names, and 3 any previous designation byanother institution.3. USGS Quad Map No. 549B Scale 7.5 Year 69Enter the number and alphabetical sector (i.e. A, B, C, or D) of the quad in which the siteis located as designated by the “Index to Topographic Maps”, Department of WaterResources, 1971. The alphabetical sector is determined by the followingdiagram. The quad no. represents the number of the 15 minute map and theletter represents the pertinent quarter of the quad. The scale is the detailedcoverage of the map, found in the lower right hand corner of the USGSA BC Dmaps (e.g.: 7.5 minute, 15 minute). Enter the year that the quad map was published,found underneath the quad name and scale. Write in only the last two digits of the year(e.g., ‘58).4. Base Meridian: ___ 1) MDM ___ 2) HBM ___ 3) SBMCheck the base meridian which applies to the location of the site. The base meridian isthe reference line from which the township and range is determined. (Note: MDM=Mount Diablo Meridian, HBM= Humboldt Meridian, SBM= San Bernadino Meridian).Note: In the case of obvious errors, all locational data (categories 5-8) should be subjectto a professional determination of accuracy by the Regional Officer and corrected ifnecessary. If the site record only indicates Township and Range and is not plotted on themap, then leave the locational data blank and fill in the rest of the encoding sheet.42

5. T 13N R 9W ¼Sec NE ¼Sec NW Sec 01Township Range ¼ Section of ¼ Section of Section NumberEnter the Township number and direction in which the site is located, (e.g. 13N) foundalong the east and west borders of the USGS quad map.The Range number and direction (e.g. 9W) is found along the north and south borders ofthe USGS quad map.The ¼ ¼ Section is the quarter of the quarter sector of the section in which the site islocated.The ¼ Section is the quarter (i.e. NW, SW, NE, or SE) of the section in which the site islocated.The Section number is the number assigned to the approximate square mile section inwhich the site is located. There are thirty-six sections, each one square mile, within theborders of a township and range.If there is no number appearing on the USGS quad map for a section, the space may beleft blank.6. Latitude: 39 0' 28" NLongitude: 122 53' 54" WEnter the latitude-longitude as they appear on the site record. If they do not appear onthe site record, but an accurate UTM location is given, then this latitude-longitude isoptional. If the UTM location cannot be determined due to a lack of blue UTM tickmarks on the map, then it is essential to determine latitude and longitude by using theblack tickmarks pointing outward from the border of the map.7. UTM Zone Easting NorthingA ___________ ___________ ___________B ___________ ___________ ___________C ___________ ___________ ___________D ___________ ___________ ___________CENTER 10 508040 4317850Enter the UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) location of the site as it is recorded onthe site record. If it does not appear on the record, the UTM’s can be determined fromconnecting the blue UTM tickmarks along the borders of the USGS 7.5 minute map(plus measuring with a metric ruler). The Easting, a six digit number, is the line running ina North-South direction which measures the distance of the site in meters east of it. TheNorthing, a seven digit number, is the line running in an East-West direction which measuresthe distance of the site in meters North of it.If a site encompasses more than ten acres, record the UTM coordinates of the smallestquadrangle which confines the site. Starting with the most North-East corner, proceed ina clockwise direction and record these coordinates as A, B, C, and D.43

If a site is less than ten acres, use the UTM coordinates of the center of the site for thelocation.If the UTM location is known to be an estimated determination then write in “Est” next tothe “Elevation”, underneath the space for UTM center.If the site is not plotted on the map and there is no UTM location, and no latitude andlongitude, then use the UTM coordinates of the midpoint of the smallest section given.Example: NAP 391: T 11N R 8W ¼Sec NE ¼Sec SW Sec 36Center: Zone Easting Northing10 525200 4291400California lies within two UTM zones, 10 and 11. The zone is found in the legend at thebottom of the topographic map on the left hand side, if the map has been gridded.8. Elevation: Enter the height in feet or meters of the site above sea level, as it is read fromthe contour lines on the USGS topographic quad map.Example: __2820__ ft. _______ in.Numbers 9, 10 and 11 will be encoded by the State.12. Type of Ownership:_________ 1) private _________ 5) county_________ 2) federal _________ 6) city_________ 3) state_________ 7) special district_________ 4) unknownCheck the present ownership(s) of the property on which the site is located.13. Date Site Recorded: 71 Yr. 6 Mo.Recorder: Origer/BensonR OSSUEnter the date of the original recordation of the site, as evidenced by the earliest siterecord available. The Recorder is the name of the original recorder of the site; use bothfirst and last name for a single recorder and only last names if there is more than onerecorder.The R.O. is the Regional Office or other institution in which the site records are housed.If there is an updated record along with the site record, the R.O. space may be left blank.Use the following abbreviations for the Regional Offices:CABC Cabrillo CollegeCSUC California State University, ChicoCSUF California State University, FresnoIVCM Imperial Valley College MuseumUCLA University of California, Los AngelesUCR University of California, RiversideCSUS California State University, Sacramento44

SBCMSDSUUCSBSSUCSCSBAKCSan Bernadino County MuseumSan Diego State UniversityUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSonoma State UniversityCalifornia State College, StanislausBakersfield College14. Site Record Update: 73 Yr. 10 Mo.Recorder: Dan WhitakerR OUCLAEnter the date of the most recent update available on the site, the name(s) of the recorderof the update and the R.O. (Regional Office) in which the update is filed.15. Reference in Documented Survey: 75 Yr. 5 Mo.Recorder:Thomas KingEnter the date of publication and author(s) of the most recent archaeological surveyreport containing pertinent information about the site. If there is only one author use bothnames; if more than one use only last names.All physical characteristics of the site, categories 16-20, should be observed data, notsuspected information.16. Dimensions: N-S 5. m E-W 2.2 mEnter the length and width of the site measured in meters. If the dimensions are given infeet, determine the metric equivalent to the nearest meter by multiplying by .3. If there ismore than one locus give the dimensions of the total area encompassing the loci.Example: SAC 492a: N-S 1.5 m E-W 3.2 mSAC 492b: N-S 1.7 m E-W 6.0 mDimensions: N-S 5.2 m E-W 6.2 m17. Area: 1.5 acres _____ hectaresIndicate the area of the site in acres. If the area in acres is not present on the site record,then the space may be left blank. Hectares, the metric equivalent, is optional.18. Depth: 1.2 mEnter the maximum observed depth of the site. Convert feet into meters by multiplying by.3.19. Major Artifacts and Features (Prehistoric):Check as many attributes as are appropriate. This category is for prehistoric and ethnographicsites and should not be used for historic sites.1) unknown: no characteristics listed on the site record.2) lithic scatter: check if the major characteristic of the site is a scatter of chipped orflaked stone resulting from human manipulation.45

Example: Obsidian or chert flakes appearing on the site record with few or no otherartifacts.3) ceramic scatter: check if the major characteristic of the site is a scatter of pot sherds.If the site contains both lithics and ceramics, check both attributes.4) BRM/Mill features: check if the site contains a bedrock mortar(s), milling surfaces orcupules indicating material processing activity.5) petroglyphs: any stone surface which has been scored by humans in a patternedmanner for a purpose other than material processing. This category includes intaglios.6) pictographs: any design that has been painted on a rock surface; “rock painting.”7) architectural features: any feature that indicates the presence of human constructionactivity.Example: post holes, house pits, dance house, sweat lodge, hunting blinds, fish traps.8) stone feature: a patterned arrangement of rocks purposefully constructed or modified.Example: rock alignments, cairns or rock rings whose functions are unknown.9) burial: the presence of human bone.10) cache: a natural or constructed feature for the purpose of storing food or goods.11) hearths/pits: any feature which indicates cooking activity, such as roasting pits, or anassociation of cracked or burnt rock, discolored soil, ash and carbonated wood orplants.12) quarry: a source of lithic material evidencing human beings.13) lineal features: natural or constructed features indicating human use such as trails,earth works, windrows or stone features.14) rock shelter: a cavity in a sloping rock surface containing evidence of human habitation;caves.15) midden: habitation debris which is characterized by artifacts, materials or featureswhich represent a variety of human activities.16) other: check here if there is no other category in which the site description could beplaced.20. Major Artifacts and Features (Historic):This category is for historic site and should not be filled out for prehistoric sites unlessthere is an historic component or association with the prehistoric site.1) unknown: no characteristics on the site record.2) foundations: structural footings or lineal alignments made from wood, brick or rockto support a structure.Example: slabs of concrete, pilings (used to support a structure), walls, stairs (associatedconstruction)3) landscaping: evidence of modification through contouring of the land or planting vegetation.Example: hedgerow, orchards, terraces, ponds4) privy pits/dumps: any refuse deposits, outhouse pits, or other accumulation of debris.Example: trash pits, outhouse pits, dumps5) wells/cisterns: a hole or receptacle designed to hold or provide access to waterwhich may or may not be lined.46

6) water conveyances: any device constructed to transport water over a distance.Example: flumes, pipes, ditches, canals, tunnels7) roads/R/R beds: a lineal, constructed conveyance, either depressed, elevated, orground level, designed to facilitate the transportation of people or vehicles.Example: bridges, R/R tunnels, wagon roads8) dams: a barrier constructed to contain a body of water.9) mines: an excavation and associated structures built into the earth for the purpose ofextracting natural resources (e.g. ore, precious metals or raw lithic materials). Thiscategory includes quarries.Example: shafts, elevators, mining tunnels, quarry10) machinery: a mechanical deviceExample: mills, farm equipment, steam donkey, windmill, arrastra11) walls/fences:Example: postholes or posts placed at regular intervals, retaining walls, post- cairns,walls, fences, jettys, and breakwaters.12) graves/cemetery: any single or multiple burial location.13) wharfs: a structure or remains of a structure built at the shore of a harbor or river forthe docking of ships and boats; pier; dock.14) ships/barges: floating vessels designed for transporting people and goods acrosswater.15) standing structure: any historic building presently erect.Example: outhouses, sheds, houses, cabins, office buildings, barns, etc.16) other: check if there is no other category in which the site description could be placed.21. Historic SiteApproximate Date: __________ - __________ (range)Enter the estimated range of years within which this historic site was constructed andused. If unknown leave blank. If only one date is known, enter that in the appropriatespace.22. Prehistoric SiteAbsolute Date: __________ - __________ (range)Enter the range of dates derived from radio-metric or other absolute dating techniques. Ifclose relative dating based on material cultural remains can be established, these may beused.23. Ethnic Association: Check the group(s) which appear to have been directly associatedwith this site through material or documentary evidence.1) unknown - not able to be determined2) Native American - American Indian3) Asian American - Chinese, Japanese, Pacific Islanders4) Russian5) Afro-American47

6) Hispanic: Spanish, Mexican7) Euro-American8) other24. Era: temporal periods distinguished by significant events resulting in culture transformation.Check all which are appropriate.1) unknown: cannot be derived from the information given on the site record.2) ethnographic: the transition period between the prehistoric and historic era duringwhich Native American cultures began to acquire traits from non-indigenous cultures.Sites from this period generally contain historic artifacts such as glass tradebeads, European smoking pipes, coins, and buttons.3) historic: sites from this era generally contain a dominance of feature designed orinfluenced by non-indigenous cultures and lacks materials derived from indigenousgroups.Example: machinery manufactured domestic goods, etc.4) prehistoric: sites from this era contain materials derived solely from the indigenouspopulation and are not indicated in the historic record.25. Current Information Base: present level of investigation as evidenced by the records.1) unknown: not able to be determined from the site record.2) surface survey: systematic recordation of the site which may include mapping.3) surface collection: any systematic recovery of surface artifactual material.4) subsurface testing: any preliminary excavations to determine the nature of the site.5) excavation: any intensive subsurface investigation of the site.6) analysis: subsequent studies of materials recovered from surface collections or excavationof the site.7) other: any other source which provides information relative to the site, (i.e. publications,oral history).26. Condition of Site:1) unknown: cannot be derived from the information given on the site record.2) part vandalized: site is partially disrupted due to theft, defacement or non-archaeologicalremoval of artifacts and materials.3) inundated: site is submerged by water permanently or periodically.4) partially eroded: partial loss of site integrity due to the natural action of the elements.5) buried: most of the site is covered.6) destroyed: site no longer retains any archaeological value.7) partially disturbed: site has been subjected to activity which diminishes the value ofthe site.8) no impact: pristine or undisturbed site.9) other: any other impact, natural or contrived, which affects the site and cannot beplaced in any other category.27. Easement: legal right of way with restrictive covenants for the protection of the site.Check the one which applies._____ 1) unknown _____ 2) yes _____ 3) no48

Appendix 3.Annotated Bibliography ofArchaeological ReportsPatricia Kandle and Emerson Baker

Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities1971 The Second Church Site of Elizabeth City Parish 1623(4). Published by theSociety.Brief overview of the site, directed by MacCord and excavated by the ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia. See also report by MacCord.Ayres, Edward1982 Pursuing an Elusive Goal: The Documentary Evidence and the YorktownPottery Factory. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeologyannual meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.1983 The Evolution of a Virginia Plantation: An Historic Overview ofFlowerdew Hundred. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeologyannual meeting, Denver, Colorado.Bailey, Worth1938 Lime Preparation at Jamestown in the Seventeenth Century. William and MaryQuarterly 18(2nd series): 1-12.Archaeological data explaining the building process and technological innovationat Jamestown’s three kilns.Barber, Michael1976 The Vertebrate Fauna From a Late Eighteenth Century Well: The Bray Plantation,Kingsmill, Virginia. Historical Archaeology 10: 68-72.A discussion of faunal remains from a circa 1770-1790 well. Domesticatedspecies dominated the sample; however, the deposition of both garbageand whole carcasses indicates that the well served more than one purpose.Barka, Norman F.1975 Flowerdew Hundred on the James. Paper presented at the Society forHistorical Archaeology annual meeting, Charleston, South Carolina.1976 Archaeology of the Yorktown Battlefield. Report YO5, VRCA Library,Yorktown, Virginia.Site report on excavations on the National Park Service property, includingfeatures from the battle as well as domestic features from the 18th and 19thcenturies. Work centered on French and American trenches, redoubts, andbatteries. Barka tries to differentiate between the French and Americanpositions on the battlefield.1978 Archaeology of the Nelson, Smith, and Ballard Houses, Yorktown, Virginia.Report YO8, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Archaeological excavation of large portions of the yards of these houses forinformation on outbuildings and socio-economic assessment.1979 The Archaeology of Kiln 2, Yorktown Pottery Factory, Yorktown, Virginia.Report YO17, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.51

1982a1982bInterim report on structural information of Kiln 2 and summary of artifacts.Also includes a brief description of Kiln 1 and associated structures, and anassessment of industrial precedents and methods on manufacture at thesite. A summary of this report was presented as a paper at the Society forHistorical Archaeology annual meeting, San Antonio, Texas, 1978.The Yorktown Pottery Factory, Virginia: The Site, Kilns, and StructuralEvidence. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annualmeeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Meaning and Significance: A Systems Approach. Paper presented at theSociety for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.An analysis of the Poor Potter of Yorktown project.1984 The ‘Poor Potter’ of Yorktown: A Study of a Colonial Pottery Factory.3 volumes.Final report on excavations at the Yorktown Pottery factory. Research intoa colonial industry, the contrast between historical records and archaeologicalfacts. Volume I-History, Volume II-Archaeology, Volume III-Ceramics.Report includes comparison with European kilns for precedents anduses of ceramic types.Barnes, Arthur G.1976 Restoration/Reconstruction of the Yorktown Battlefield. Report YO4,VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Includes history of the seige of Yorktown and 18th-century seige fortifications.Also a design for reconstruction and maintenance of fortifications.Bauer, Ann P.1973 A Conjectural Restoration of Littletown, the Pettus Plantation, in SeventeenthCentury, Tidewater, Virginia. Report JC15, VRCA Library, Yorktown,Virginia.Archaeological and documentary data are used to develop an architecturaldesign for the Pettus Plantation.Bauer, Maria1940 Foundations Unearthed. Glendale, California.Book by the psychic who claimed that cryptograms indicated that originalsof Shakespeare’s works lay in a crypt in Bruton Parish church. Excavationsin the church revealed nothing, but subsequent shovelling in the graveyardrevealed the foundations of the first Bruton Parish Church.Beaudry, Mary1975 A Study of York County, Virginia Inventories, 1730-1750. M.A. thesis,Department of Anthropology, Brown University.52

1977 Ceramics in York County, Virginia, Inventories, 1730-1750: The TeaService. The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers, 1977 12:201-210.The author notes that tea services show up earlier and in greater frequencyin York County probate inventories than would be expected. This reflectsthe wealth, status and increasing prosperity in early eighteenth-century Virginia.1978 Worth its Weight in Iron: Categories of Material Culture in Early VirginiaProbate Inventories. Archaeological Society of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin33(1): 19-24.A brief article summarizing the value of probate inventories for archaeologistsand suggesting how material culture in inventories should be divided.Drawn from the author’s M.A. and Ph.D. work on York County probate inventories.1979 What’s a Pot For? Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeologyannual meeting, Nashville, Tennessee.Beaudry, Mary, Jane Long, Henry M. Miller, Fraser D. Neiman, and Garry W. Stone1983 A Vessel Typology for Early Chesapeake Ceramics: The Potomac TypologicalSystem. Historical Archaeology 17(1): 18-43.A preliminary typology for vessel forms based on the names given them in17th-century probate inventories. A beginning look at functional variabilityin vessel forms. A good summary of vessel forms, based both on documentsand archaeology.Bennett, Amy E.1984 A Treatise on Gardening by A Citizen of Virginia: Three Sources of Documentationfor the Physical Remains of Eighteenth Century WilliamsburgGardens. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annualmeeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.Documentary sources are used to predict archaeological remains of 18thcenturyVirginia gardens.Blades, Brooke S.1978 The John Washington House (ca. 1660) and the James Latane Barn(ca. 1920): 260 Years of Architectural Continuity in Westmoreland County,Virginia. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annualmeeting, San Antonio, Texas.1979 The John Washington House (ca. 1655) and the James Latane Barn(1918). Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annualmeeting, Nashville, Tennessee.Brittingham, Joseph B., and Alvin W. Brittingham1947 The First Trading Post at Kicotan. Franklin Printing, Newport News, Virginia.53

Brief site report on salvage excavations in 1940-41. The author believedthe site to be an early trading post.Brown, Marley, Linda Derry, and Andrew Edwards1984 Excavation at Colonial Williamsburg Thirty Years Ago: An ArchaeologicalAnalysis of Cross-Trenching Behind the Peyton Randolph House. Paperpresented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting,Williamsburg, Virginia.Colonial Williamsburg’s re-excavation of cross-trenches suggests that thetrenches destroy stratigraphy but maintain the general horizontal distributionof artifacts.Buchanan, William T., Jr., and Edward F. Heite1971 The Hallowes Site: A Seventeenth-Century Yeoman’s Cottage in Virginia.Historical Archaeology 5: 38-48.Site report on excavation of a late 17th-century domestic site inWestmoreland County. Report draws on data from other 17th-century sitesto find parallels in architecture and artifacts.Buchanan, William T., and Randolph M. Owens, Jr.1981 The Browning Farm Site, Charles City County, Virginia. ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 35(3): 139-158.Carson, Cary1975 English Vernacular Architecture Gone Native. Paper presented at theSociety for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Charleston, South Carolina.Carson, Cary, Norman F. Barka, William M. Kelso, Garry W. Stone, and Dell Upton1981 Impermanent Architecture in the Southern American Colonies. WinterthurPortfolio 16: 135-196.A major synthesis of all work on 17th-century posthole buildings in theChesapeake. This pattern of impermanent architecture is related to historicaltrends (the tobacco economy and the high mortality rate) and theartifactual record of conspicuous consumption. The authors conclude thatthe short lifespan of early southerners tended to make them live for theday, spending their money for material possessions, rather than a permanentdwelling. A major synthesis, the single most important article on theearly Chesapeake to date. Includes an appendix of excavated sites, andreferences to many obscure publications.Caywood, Louis1955a Excavations at Green Spring Plantation. Colonial National Historical Park,Yorktown, Virginia.1955bDescriptive site report on Green Spring Plantation (ca. 1650- 1797), theresidence of Governor Berkeley.Green Spring Plantation Archaeological Report. National Park Service,Washington, DC.54

Site report on excavations prior to planned National Park Service developmentof the site. Caywood excavated numerous 17th- and 18th-century structuresand features at the plantation, including the mansion, and such subsidiarystructures as the kitchen, potter’s kiln, greenhouse, and a possiblesmithy.1957 Green Spring Plantation. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 65(1):67-83.Summary of the history and archaeology of Green Spring.Chappell, Edward1975 Morgan Jones and Dennis White: Country Potters in Seventeenth- CenturyVirginia. Virginia Cavalcade 24 (4): 149-155.A history of potting in early Virginia, with particular reference to excavationsat the Glebe Harbor Kiln Site in Westmoreland County.1976 Petitt Trash Pit Report. Report JC28, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Site report on 1973 test and 1975 complete excavation of a late 17th-centurytrash pit on the Governor’s Land tract. Most of the report is an artifactcatalogue of the rich trash pit.Clarke, Wayne, and Michael Smolek1982 Observations on the Settlement Patterning of Seventeenth-Century Sites inthe Chesapeake Region. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeologyannual meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.The authors examine sites for their locational characteristics. Sites wereclose to navigable water, and at low elevations. In Maryland, sites have aclose proximity to spring heads. Also, 17th-century sites tend to have lowartifact and feature visibility.Cotter, John L.1957a Jamestown: Treasure in the Earth. Antiques 81(1): 44-46.1957bExcavations at Jamestown, Virginia, Site of the First Permanent English Settlementin America. Antiquity 121: 19-24.1957c Rediscovering Jamestown. Archaeology 10(1): 25-30.Brief review of 1956 and 1957 excavations and test trenching.1958 Archaeological Excavations at Jamestown. National Park Service, Washington,DC.Site report on excavations on Jamestown. Detail particularly good on artifacts.1975 Architecture as a Cultural Artifact at Jamestown, Virginia. Paper presentedat the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Charleston, SouthCarolina.55

1976 Architecture at Jamestown: Seventeenth-Century and Beyond. Archaeology29(3): 152-163.A review of archaeology and architecture at Jamestown.Cotter, John L., and J. Paul Hudson1957 New Discoveries at Jamestown. National Park Service, Washington, DC.A thoroughly illustrated report of archaeological finds at Jamestown, concentratingon artifacts, and devoting little time to features. Designed morefor the lay public than for the archaeological community.Cotter, John L., and Edward B. Jelks1957 Historic Site Archaeology at Jamestown. American Antiquity 22(4): 387-389.Crass, David C.1981 A Formal Analysis of the Clay Pipes from Green Spring. M.A. thesis,Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg,Virginia.Analysis of English and terra-cotta pipes from 17th-century Green Spring.Certain maker’s marks predominate the sample, suggesting marks can helpformulate trade relationships.Dalton, Joseph F.1974 The Owings Site, Northumberland County, Virginia. Archaeological Society ofVirginia Quarterly Bulletin 28(3): 162-168.De Cunzo, Lu Ann1978 Smokehouse or Squatter’s Cabin: The Historic Component at the CollegeCreek Site. Archaeological Society of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 32(4):101-116.Site report on 1976 and 1977 excavations at site JC27 directed by Reinhart.Article is based on De Cunzo’s B.A. Honors Thesis, Department of Anthropology,College of William and Mary. A detailed report on the 19thcenturysite which compares the JC27 with other smokehouse sites. Reportincludes a detailed history of site property ownership and land use.Deetz, James1984 Harrington Pipestem Dating and Flowerdew Settlement History. Paperpresented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting,Williamsburg, Virginia.Using Harrington bore histograms from thirty Flowerdew sites, Deetz demonstratesthat the Harrington histogram is a more accurate indicator ofnature and date of Tidewater sites than the Binford formula.Derry, Lindan.d. York County Survey Report. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology,Yorktown, Virginia. In preparation.56

This study was entered expressly to check bias on location of prehistoricsites. Location of historic sites was a by-product of the survey. Materialdrawn from informant interviews and field survey. Includes an assessmentof historic resources, past and current research designs in York County,history of settlement utilization and summary of recorded sites.Derry, Linda, and Andrew Edwards1984 Spatial Patterning on the Peyton Randolph Back Lot. Paper presented atthe Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.Computer-generated patterns of artifact distributions are examined for validity.Dimmock, Jesse1929 Green Spring. William and Mary Quarterly 9(2nd series): 129-130.Brief history of Green Spring that includes plans of foundations unearthedby Dimmock.Edwards, Andrew, and Linda Derry1984 The Peyton Randolph Site: An Application of Methods New to ColonialSite Archaeology. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeologyannual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.Discusses abandonment of traditional Colonial Williamsburg 10' × 10'squares for open area excavation, and use of the Harris Matrix.Egloff, Keith1980 Colonial Plantation Hoes. Research Report Series 1, Virginia Research Centerfor Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.A typology of plantation hoes drawn from over one hundred hoes excavatedfrom colonial sites on Kingsmill Plantation. Examines the evolution of hoemanufacture and repair. Originally presented as “Agricultural Hoes in theColonial Period” a paper at the Society for Historical Archaeology annualmeeting, Ottawa, 1977.Emerson, Matthew1984 Excavation of a Seventeenth-Century Settlement at Flowerdew Hundred.Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting,Williamsburg, Virginia.Description of first of a three-year excavation of a late 17th-century site.Excavated features include a food refuse pit, a burial and several postholes.Forman, Henry C.1938 Jamestown and St. Mary’s, Buried Cities of Romance. Johns Hopkins Press,Baltimore, Maryland.1940 The Bygone “Subberbs of James Cittie.” William and Mary Quarterly 20(2ndseries): 475-486.57

Deals with history, not archaeology, but a good documentary source forOutlaw’s excavations at Governor’s Land.1941 The Old Hardware of James Town. Antiques 39(1): 30-32.1943 An Archaeological Find Near the Leonard Calvert House. Maryland HistoricalMagazine 38(1): 56-59.Fausz, Frederick J.1971 Patterns of Settlement in the James River Basin, 1607-1642. M.A. thesis,Department of History, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.Though no archaeological data is used, the thesis is a good discussion ofsite location. The author examines several factors in creating differentgrowth patterns at different times.Foster, Andrea K.1984 Resource Management Planning in Context of the Historic Area in ColonialWilliamsburg. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeologyannual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.Case study of map overlays showing resources and disturbances on oneblock of the historic district. Data is being collected as part of ColonialWilliamsburg’s resource management plan.Geddes, Joseph W.1934 The Probable Form and Appearance of the Original Church. Manuscriptcopy of speech delivered at Hickory Neck Church, October 28.Discusses excavation by Geddes of the foundation of the first church.Goodwin, Conrad M.1981 Ethnicity in the Graveyard. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.Greeby, Chris, and Linda France1982 Phase I Survey Report for Proposed Building Site at the U.S. Coast GuardReserve Training Center, Yorktown, Virginia. VRCA Library, Yorktown,Virginia.Phase I survey of ca. one acre adjacent to Coast Guard structures. No culturalfeatures discovered.Gregory, George C.1935 Jamestown, First Brick State House. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 43(3): 193-199.Documents relating to the excavation of a brick foundation, believed to bethe first state house.Griffith, Larry1977 Archaeological Survey of the Yorktown Beach, Yorktown Virginia. ReportYO7, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.58

Contract survey report on testing of area of construction for proposed restrooms and sidewalks.Green, Paul1983 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Proposed Mine Engineering Facility atYorktown Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia. Report YO32,VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Assessment of cultural resources in impacted area at intersection of MainRoad and Lackey Road. No cultural materials found.Grim, Ronald1977 The Absence of Towns in Seventeenth-Century Virginia: The Emergence ofService Centers in York County. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Hanna, Susan D.1984 Preliminary Study of the Makers Marks and Dates on Lead Window Camesfrom Jamestown, Virginia. Paper presented at the Society for HistoricalArchaeology annual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.The interiors of lead strips bear makers marks and dates which can provideimportant information for dating a structure.Harrington, J. C.1940 Partnership at Jamestown: Archaeology and History Working Hand in Hand.The Regional Review 5(2/3): 2-6.1950 Seventeenth-Century Brickmaking and Tilemaking at Jamestown, Virginia.Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 58(1): 16-39.A detailed but brief site report.1951a Some Delft Tiles Found at Jamestown. Antiques 59(1): 36-37.1951bShort review of tiles and their decoration.Tobacco Pipes from Jamestown. Archaeological Society of Virginia QuarterlyBulletin 5(4): 2-7.Brief article with good illustrations and typology.1952 A Tryal of Glass: The Story of Glassmaking at Jamestown. Richmond,Virginia.1954 Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Clay TobaccoPipes. Archaeological Society of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 9(1): 10-14.The article where pipe stem diameter is used as a dating tool for the firsttime.Harrington, J.C.1957 The Tools of America’s First Glass Blowers. The Chronicles of the EarlyAmerican Industries Association 1: 4-6, 11.59

Heath, Barbara1981 Seventeenth-Century English and Dutch Clay Tobacco Pipes from theVirginia Research Center for Archaeology Study Collection. VRCA Library,Yorktown, Virginia.Heite, Edward F.1973 A Seventeenth-Century Trash Dump in Northhampton County Virginia. ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 28(2): 80-86.Site report on excavations by Heite and MacCord of a mid-17th centurytrash pit.Heite, Edward F., and R. Rolling Batt1968 Eppe’s Island House Site, Charles City County, Virginia. ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 23(1): 39-49.Excavation of an 18th-century structure included a scatter of 17th-centurymaterials.Henry, Susan L.1979 Terra-Cotta Tobacco Pipes in Seventeenth-Century Maryland and Virginia: APreliminary Study. Historical Archaeology 13: 14-37.A study of mold-made terra-cotta pipes, primarily from the St. Johns’s site(St. Mary’s City) and Jamestown. The author hypothesizes that colonistsmade these pipes during economic depressions, when they could not affordthe more expensive pipes imported from England. An interesting attemptto link archaeological patterns to historical trends.1980 Physical, Spatial, and Temporal Dimensions of Colono Ware in the Chesapeake,1600-1800. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Catholic Universityof America.Hinks, Steven, and Gary Norman1984 Report on Archaeological Monitoring of Utility Trenching South side of theSir Christopher Wren Building, College of William and Mary. Report WB7,VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Monitoring of trench turned up little data.Hudgins, Carter1976a First Interim Report, Miles Cary Archaeological Project. Report NN2,VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.1976bResults of survey of this 17th-century site.Miles Cary Archaeological Project, Newport News, Virginia, SecondInterim Report: the 1976 Season. Report NN1, VRCA Library, Yorktown,Virginia.Site report on salvage excavations on this 17th-century house site.60

1976c1977a1977bPreliminary Report- College Landing Salvage Project. Report WB1,VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Mitigation for Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation on 18thand19th-century features at College Landing.Architecture and Social Class: Testing an Historiographic Model. Paperpresented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Ottawa,Ontario.Historical Archaeology and Salvage Archaeological Excavations at CollegeLanding. Report WB2, VRCA Library. Yorktown, Virginia.Detailed site report on salvage excavations of late 17th through 19th-centuryfeatures excavated at College Landing.Hudson, J. Paul1957 Jamestown Artisans and Craftsmen. Antiques 71(1): 47-50.1961 Seventeenth-Century Glass Wine Bottles and Seals Excavated at Jamestown.Journal of Glass Studies 3.1967 The Importance of Archaeology at Jamestown, Virginia, Site of the First SuccessfulEnglish Settlement in the New World. The Conference on Historic SiteArchaeology Papers 1965-1966 1: 27-32.An overview of Jamestown archaeology since 1934, stressing how archaeologyhas added to our knowledge on life in early Virginia.1975 Pottery-Making in Virginia in the Seventeenth Century. Archaeological Societyof Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 30(1): 41-52.1980 Treasures from Jamestown. Archaeological Society of Virginia SpecialPublication 7.n.d.A well-illustrated report on 17th-century artifacts excavated at Jamestown.Plantation, Refuge, Prison, Statehouse: This was Green Spring. JamestownFoundation.A pamphlet for tourists describing the history and archaeology of GreenSpring.Hudson, J. Paul, and C. Malcolm Watkins1957 The Earliest Known English Colonial Pottery in America. Antiques 71(1): 51-54.Discussion of the Jamestown potter.Hunter, Robert R. Jr.1983 Phase I Archaeological Report for the Second Street ExtensionProject. Report WB5, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.61

Presents “preliminary archival research” by Office of Excavation and Conservation,Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.1984 Addendum Report on Additional Phase II Archaeological Testing of RevisedAlternate 5, Second Street Extension Project. Report WB6, VRCALibrary, Yorktown, Virginia.Details of Phase II shovel test units.1984 Recording and Analysis of Soils: A Comprehensive Approach. Paperpresented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting,Williamsburg, Virginia.An explanation and evaluation of Colonial Williamsburg’s soils program.Hunter, Robert R., Jr., Patricia Samford, and Marley R. Brown1984 Phase II Archaeological Testing of the Proposed Second Street Extension,York County and Williamsburg, Virginia. Report submitted to the VirginiaDepartment of Highways and Transportation, Richmond, Virginia.A highly detailed report of limited test excavations along the proposed rightof-way.The project made extensive use of historic maps to locate 17th,18th and 19th-century features. The general research design includes detailson site universe, typology, sampling strategy and excavation techniques.Report also includes an overview of Virginia prehistory, history, and historicalarchaeology.Johnson, P.F., J.R. Varner, and V.L. Burdick1982 Analysis of Yorktown Pottery Artifacts. Paper presented at the Society forHistorical Archaeology annual meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Kandle, Patricia L.1984 Comparative Research on the First and Second York Parish Churches forthe Purpose of Reconstruction. Uncatalogued, VRCA Library, Yorktown,Virginia.Reassessment of historical and archaeological data of the site of the 17thcenturyYork Parish Church Site at the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve TrainingCenter.Keeler, Robert W.1977a An Earthy Look at Life on a Seventeenth-Century Farm. Paper presentedat the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Ottawa, Ontario.1977bA study of soils from the St. John’s site in St. Mary’s City. High calcium andphosphate levels in soils determine areas of cultural activity (particularlyareas of refuse disposal).The Homelot on the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake TidewaterFrontier. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofOregon.62

Keeler analyzes the homelot, one aspect of settlement pattern and materialculture. The study centers on St. John’s, but draws on comparative datafrom other 17th-century Chesapeake sites and from documentary data. Theauthor examines factors which went into site selection and layout. He notesthat in the 17th century, the houselot evolved from simple enclosures withfew outbuildings to elaborate building with increasingly formal spatial division.1979 Changing Patterns of Spatial Organization and Use on the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake Frontier. Paper presented at the Society for HistoricalArchaeology annual meeting, Nashville, Tennessee.Kelso, William M.1966 Excavation of a Late Seventeenth-Century Domestic Refuse Pit Near Lightfootin James City County, Virginia, 1964-1965. Archaeological Society of VirginiaQuarterly Bulletin 20(4): 103-114.Site report of excavation of a trash pit just west of Chisel’s Run. Includesartifact line drawings.1967 More Excavations at Lightfoot: Another Late Seventeenth-Century DomesticRefuse Pit in James City County, Virginia, 1966-1967. Archaeological Societyof Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 22(2): 55-72.1973a1973bExcavation of a second trash pit, contemporary with the first, and locatedfifty feet northwest of it. No structure was found to go with these two trashpits.Land Development Archaeology: The Beginning at Kingsmill. Paperpresented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, St. Paul,Minnesota.An Interim Report, Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1972 Season.Report JC2, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology Library, Yorktown,Virginia.Preliminary report on salvage excavations on the Anheuser-Busch KingsmillTract. Sites excavated were the 18th-century Bray Plantation and the 17thcenturyPettus Plantation.1974 An Interim Report on the Excavation at Kingsmill Plantation: The 1973Season. Report JC3, Virginia Research Center For Archaeology Library,Yorktown, Virginia.Preliminary report on the second season at Kingsmill. Sites covered includethe Pettus Plantation (ca. 1640-1690), Littletown Quarter (late 17thand early 18th century), and the Burwell’s Ferry sites (late 18th century).1974? Seventeenth-Century Frame Building Sites at Kingsmill. Report JC7,VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.63

Report briefly describes different building practices employed on theposthole buildings at Kingsmill, and demonstrates the variety of postholebuilding practices.1975a An Interim Report, Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1974Season. Report JC4, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.1975b1977a1977b1979aThird interim site report on Kingsmill excavations. Sites covered includeUtopia Cottage (ca. 1660-1700) and Kingsmill Tenement/ Quarter (ca. 1620-1650 and 18th century).Post Buildings at Kingsmill: Frustrating Seventeenth-CenturyFootprints. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annualmeeting, Charleston, South Carolina.Possibly Report JC7 was a draft of this paper.An Interim Report, Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill, The 1975 Season.Contributing authors: Fraser D. Neiman, A. Camille Wells, and MerryA. Outlaw. Report JC5, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Sites covered in the final year of the Kingsmill project were: KingsmillPlantation (17th-century quarter and 18th-century plantation), LittletownQuarter (17th- and 18th-century posthole outbuildings), and Hampton Key(ca. 1770-90 house site).Plantation Landscapes at Kingsmill, Virginia: Images of EnvironmentAdjustment. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annualmeeting, Ottawa, Ontario.House of Cards and Castles: Virginia’s Seventeenth-Century MonotheticParadox. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annualmeeting, Nashville, Tennessee.1979b Rescue Archaeology on the James. Archaeology September/October: 15-25.Brief summary report on the Kingsmill excavations and how they began.1983 Landscape Archaeology: A Key to Virginia’s Cultivated Past. Eighteenth-Century Life 8(2): 159-169.A discussion of Kelso’s landscape archaeology at three 18th-century plantations,Burwell’s Landing at Kingsmill, Carter’s Grove, and Monticello.The author demonstrates archaeology’s ability to restore past landscapes.1984 Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in ColonialVirginia. Academic Press, Orlando.Kelso, William M., and Edward F. Chappell1974 Excavation of a Seventeenth-Century Pottery Kiln at Glebe Harbor,Westmoreland County, Virginia. Historical Archaeology 8: 53-63.Site report on excavation of the kiln.64

Kille, Wayne B.1984 The Dating of Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg Brick: An Evaluation ofThermoluminescent and Seriation Methods. Paper presented at the Societyfor Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.Characteristics of dated bricks have helped to develop a seriation to dateundated brick. Thermoluminescence provides independent verification forthe seriation.King, Julia, and Henry M. Miller1984 Exploring Seventeenth-Century Spatial Behavior: Evidence from the VanSweringen Site, St. Mary’s City, Maryland. Paper presented at the Society forHistorical Archaeology annual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.The distribution of functionally related artifacts reveal areas of specific activities.The authors also examine the differences in 17th- and 18th-centuryartifacts from the site.Koubek, Jana Elisa1982 A Comparative Analysis of Two Virginia Populations: A Skeletal Consideration.M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary,Williamsburg, Virginia.A study of skeletal remains at the Clifts Plantation and at College Landing,looking specifically for skeletal variability. The author feels that human skeletalremains should be viewed as an archaeological subsystem. A detailedanalysis.Lewis, Kenneth E., Jr.1975 The Jamestown Frontier: An Archaeological Study of Colonization.Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oklahoma.An ethnographic model of socio-cultural change which the author uses toexplain English adaption to the 17th-century Virginia frontier. Archaeologicaldata from Jamestown is used to examine cultural patterns. The result isthe “frontier model,” an interaction of a variety of factors. An importantsynthesis of documents and archaeology.Luccketti, Nicholas M.1977 The 1977 Survey of Weyanoke Plantation, Charles City, Virginia. ReportCC1, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Includes historic and prehistoric sites.1978 Archaeological Survey of Bacon’s Castle, Surrey County, Virginia. ReportSur2, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Report of test excavations in the yard, which included some 17th-centurymaterials.1979 North Quarter Salvage Excavation, Interim Report. Report JC17, VRCALibrary, Yorktown, Virginia.65

1982a1982bA brief report of excavations on the North Quarter (1770-1800) at Kingsmilldirected by Kelso. Briefly compares North Quarter to other quarters onthe Kingsmill tract.River Creek and Bennett Farm: A Case Study in Salvage Archaeology.Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.An Archaeological Survey of Smith’s Fort, Surry County, Virginia.Report on test excavations and artifacts from a 17th-century earthworks.1984 Seventeenth-Century Planters in ‘New Pocosin,’ York County, Virginia.Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Report on excavation of the Bennett Farm Site (1640-1700) and the RiverCreek Site (1640-1700). Both sites are endangered by development. A comparisonof two planters at the opposite end of the middle class. The authorexamines architecture, use of space, material culture, and faunal remains.MacCord, Howard A.1967 The Second Church at Hampton, Virginia: An Archaeological Study. ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 22(1): 39-48.1972a1972bExcavation of 1624 church, burials, and associated trash pits.Hungar’s Neck Trash Pit, Northhampton County, Virginia. ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 27(1): 165-172.Excavation of a 17th-century trash pit.The Suffolk By-Pass Trash-Pit, Nansemond County, Virginia. ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 26(4): 165-172.Salvage excavations of a mid 17th-century trash pit.McCartney, Martha1976 A History of College Landing. Report WB3, VRCA Library, Yorktown,Virginia.1977 History of New Quarter Park Property, Bruton District, York County,Virginia. Report YO15, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Historical assessment of park area from the prehistoric to beginning of20th century.1978 The Bryan Manor Plantation: Home of Frederick Bryan, York County,Virginia. Report YO12, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Historical report excerpted from National Register Nomination.McClure, James P.1977 Littletown Plantation, 1700-1745. M.A. thesis, Department of History,College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.66

A detailed examination of Littletown under the Bray family. While drawnmostly from historical data, the author utilizes Kelso’s archaeological workat Littletown to complement documents. A good synthesis of history andarchaeology.McKee, Larry W.1984 The Faunal Analysis of an Eighteenth-Century Slave Quarter at Kingsmill.Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting,Williamsburg, Virginia.A view of the faunal remains from one slave site and an overview of documentson slave diet. Also a discussion of ethnicity in foodways.Miller, George L.1984 A Model for Estimating Total Ceramic Vessel Populations from Sites Basedon the Sample Recovered from the Excavation. Paper presented at theSociety for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.Provides a simple procedure for estimating ceramic population from partialexcavation of a site.Miller, Henry M.1975 Seventeenth-Century Maryland Subsistence Patterns: A PreliminaryReport. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annualmeeting, Charleston, South Carolina.1978 Pettus and Utopia: A Comparison of the Faunal Remains from Two LateSeventeenth-Century Virginia Households. Paper presented at the Conferenceon Historic Sites Archaeology annual meeting, Winston-Salem, NorthCarolina.1979 The Planter’s Victuals: A Study of Changing Dietary Patterns in theColonial Chesapeake. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeologyannual meeting, Nashville, Tennessee.1983 A Search for the Citty of St. Mary’s: A Report on the 1981 Excavations inSt. Mary’s City, Maryland. St. Mary’s City Commission, St. Mary’s City,Maryland.A detailed site report on test excavations designed to located the 17thcenturyvillage. Includes a thorough analysis of artifacts.1984 The Evolution of Subsistence on the Chesapeake Frontier: An ArchaeologicalSynthesis. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeologyannual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.The author draws on faunal data from twenty one 17th- and early 18th-centuryChesapeake sites (including sites at Kingsmill and Governor’s Land)and determines that despite some variability from site to site, there aresome distinct patterns in early Chesapeake diet. The early 17th-centurydiet of Virginian’s was much more varied and seasonal than diets of both67

English contemporaries and of later Virginians. By the mid-18th century,the Chesapeake diet was much less seasonally varied, and was made upincreasingly of domestic meat. An important synthesis.Miller, Henry M., and Alexander H. Morrison III1982 Discovering a Seventeenth-Century Village: Excavations in St. Mary’sCity, Maryland. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeologyannual meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Mitchell, Vivienne, and J. Paul Hudson1974 Seventeenth-Century Wine Bottle Seal Found in WestmorelandCounty. Archaeological Society of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 29(2): 41-42.Excavation of a late 17th-century trash pit at Nomini Hall included a winebottle seal.Morrison, Alexander H., II1979 An Improved Method for Excavating Post-in-the-Ground Structures. Paperpresented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Nashville,Tennessee.1984 Discoveries in the Village Center: Excavations in Seventeenth- CenturySt. Mary’s City, Maryland. Paper presented at the Society for HistoricalArchaeology annual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.Brief summary of two seasons of excavations on a variety of 17th-centurysites, including Governor Calvert’s House (built ca. 1635) and WilliamSmith’s Ordinary (1667-1678).Moyer, Curtis S.1984 A ‘Real Time’ Comparison of Methods of Iron Conservation. Paper presentedat the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Williamsburg,Virginia.Results of evaluation of Colonial Williamsburg’s excavated iron collection,which dates to 1939. The evaluation suggests that currently accepted ironconservation procedures need re-evaluation.Myzk, William1984 Excavations at the ‘Madd House’ in Williamsburg, 1980-83. Paper presentedat the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Williamsburg,Virginia.Discusses the complex archaeology of the 1773 hospital site, which included17th- through 19th-century components.Neiman, Fraser1975 Burwell’s Kingsmill Plantation: A Brief Description. Report JC37, VRCALibrary, Yorktown, Virginia.A brief (five page) overview of history and archaeology of Kingsmill.68

1977 The Chesapeake Plantation System and Economic and Social Change inthe later Eighteenth Century: Evidence from Kingsmill andStratford. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annualmeeting, Ottawa, Ontario.1978a1978bDomestic Architecture at the Clifts Plantation: The Social Context of EarlyVirginia Building. Northern Neck of Virginia Historical Magazine 20(1):3096-3128.Neiman argues that all Virginians, even the wealthy, were accustomed toliving in posthole structures. He questions the traditional interpretation ofthese structures as impermanent, for the people who lived in them mayhave felt they were permanent. An important synthesis, which places theClifts Plantation in context with other 17th-century Virginia dwellings.A Provisional Model of Cultural Change in Late Seventeenth- and EarlyEighteenth-Century Westmoreland County, Virginia. Paper presented at theSociety for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, San Antonio, Texas.1979 Social Change at the Clifts Plantation. Paper presented at the Society forHistorical Archaeology annual meeting, Nashville, Tennessee.1980 The ‘Manner House’ Before Stratford. Robert E. Lee Memorial Association,Stratford, Virginia.1984 An Evolutionary Approach to House Plans and the Organization of Productionon the Chesapeake Frontier. Paper presented at the Society forHistorical Archaeology annual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.Neiman examines the evolution of Chesapeake house plans, based on datafrom St. John’s and the Clifts Plantation. Changes in house form in the 17thcentury seem tied to fluctuations in the tobacco industry.Noël Hume, Audrey1963 Clay Tobacco Pipe Dating in the Light of Recent Excavations. ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 18(2): 22-25.A test of the Binford formula based on Colonial Williamsburg excavationsat Rosewell, Clay Bank, Tutter’s Neck and sites in the historic district ofWilliamsburg. The formula works well for sites in the first half of the 18thcentury,but not so well after that.1974 Archaeology and the Colonial Gardener. Colonial Williamsburg ArchaeologicalSeries No. 7, Williamsburg, Virginia.Discusses archaeological evidence of colonial gardens, based on ColonialWilliamsburg excavations. Designed for the general public.1978 Food. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. 9, Williamsburg,Virginia.Archaeological evidence on colonial diet. Designed for the general public.69

1979 Clay Tobacco Pipes Excavated at Martin’s Hundred, Virginia, 1976-1978. InThe Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe II, edited by Peter Davey. BritishArchaeological Reports, International Series 60: 3-36.A detailed report on pipes excavated at Martin’s Hundred.Noël Hume, Ivor1957 A Seventeenth-Century Virginian’s Seal: Detective Story in Glass. Antiques72(3): 244-245.1958a German Stoneware Bellarmines-An Introduction. Antiques 74(5).1958bWine Relics from the Colonies. The Wine and Spirit Trade Record, August16.1961 The Glass Wine Bottle in Colonial Virginia. Journal of Glass Studies 3.1962a1962bExcavations at Rosewell, Gloucester County, Virginia. United States NationalMuseum Bulletin 225. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.Report on excavation of a very large mid-18th century trash pit at Rosewell.Indian Ware of the Colonial Period. Archaeological Society of VirginiaQuarterly Bulletin 17(1): 3-14.The author discusses the Colono-Indian pottery phenomenon, discussingpossible origins of the ware. Noël Hume coins the term “Colono-IndianWare,” and suggests manufacturing dates of ca. 1690-1800.1963 Here Lies Virginia: An Archaeologist’s View of Colonial Life. AlfredA. Knopf, New York.1966aNoël Hume discusses history and archaeology at many Virginia sites, includingJamestown, Yorktown, Williamsburg (and Middle Plantation), GreenSpring, Rosewell, Corotoman, Tutter’s Neck and others. Includes very importantinformation about early excavations at these and other, rarely-notedsites.Excavations at Clay Bank in Gloucester County, Virginia, 1962-1963. Contributionsfrom the Museum of History and Technology 52. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, DC.1966b Excavations at Tutter’s Neck in James City County Virginia, 1960-1961.Museum of History and Technology Paper 53. Smithsonian Institution,Washington, DC.Report on excavations on a small house foundation and kitchen and refusepit, ca. 1690-1750.1966c Mathews Manor. Antiques 90(6): 832-836.Preliminary site report on salvage excavations of the 17th-century houseand ice house.70

1969a1969b1969c1969d1969e1970aHistorical Archaeology. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.Textbook for historical archaeology which uses many sites in and aroundWilliamsburg for examples.Glass in Colonial Williamsburg’s Archaeological Collections. ColonialWilliamsburg Archaeological Series No. 1, Williamsburg, Virginia.A survey of glass artifacts excavated at Colonial Williamsburg. Written forthe general public.Pottery and Porcelain in Colonial Williamsburg’s Archaeological Collections.Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. 2, Williamsburg,Virginia.An overview of colonial ceramics, and their dates of use. Designed for thegeneral public.Archaeology and Wetherburn’s Tavern. Colonial Wiliamsburg ArchaeologicalSeries No. 3, Williamsburg, Virginia.An example of how the archaeology of the tavern (particularly the artifacts)contributes to our understanding and re-interpretation of the ColonialWilliamsburg. Designed for the general public.The Wells of Williamsburg, Colonial Time Capsules. Colonial WilliamsburgArchaeological Series No. 4, Williamsburg, Virginia.A discussion of well construction methods, and the wealth of artifacts excavatedfrom them. Designed for the general public.A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.Many examples come from Virginia sites.1970b The Rise and Fall of English White Salt-Glazed Stoneware. Antiques 94(2/3).1970cDiscussion includes many stonewares from Williamsburg sites.James Geddy and Sons: Colonial Craftsmen. Colonial Williamsburg ArchaeologicalSeries No. 5, Williamsburg, Virginia.Overview of excavations at the Geddy Site, and the information it revealsabout metalworking in 18th-century Williamsburg.1971 Williamsburg Cabinetmakers: The Archaeological Evidence. ColonialWilliamsburg Archaeological Series No. 6, Williamsburg, Virginia.Excavations revealed cabinetmaker’s tools, hardware, and even woodenfurniture fragments from 18th-century Williamsburg. Designed for the generalpublic.1972 Excavations at the President’s House, College of William andMary. Report WB4, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.71

1974a1974bExcavation of an 18th-century brick drainage system occurred during repairsto the house basement.All the Best Rubbish. Harper and Row, New York.Though the book is largely about Noël Hume’s excavations in England,many Virginia sites are also mentioned.Digging for Carter’s Grove. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological SeriesNo. 8, Williamsburg, Virginia.Discussion of excavations at 18th-century sites at Carter’s Grove. Designedfor the general public.1977 Early English Delftware from London and Virginia. Colonial WilliamsburgOccasional Papers in Archaeology 2, Williamsburg, Virginia.Discussion includes many pieces of Delft from Virginia sites.1979 First Look at a Lost Virginia Settlement. National Geographic 155: 735-767.Details of the early part of the excavations of Martin’s Hundred.1982a New Clues to an Old Mystery. National Geographic 161: 52-77.1982bAn update on excavations at Martin’s Hundred.Martin’s Hundred. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.A more-or-less day to day account of the excavations at Martin’s Hundred,a settlement destroyed in the Powhatan uprising in 1622. Noël Hume demonstrateshow archaeologists try to solve puzzles posed to them by thedocumentary and archaeological evidence. Strong on artifact analysis.1984 Jamestown: Thinking the Unthinkable. Paper presented at the Society forHistorical Archaeology annual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.Noël Hume reexamines the documents relating to early Jamestown andquestions the nature and location of early Jamestown’s Fort.Outlaw, Alain C.1974a Archaeological Survey of the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve Training Centerat Yorktown, Virginia. Report YO10, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.1974bPhase I survey of portion of base around Gooch grave and area alongWormley Creek. Survey located 17th-century York Parish churches andYorke Village Site.Excavation at Burkes Corner and Survey of the Skimino Meeting HouseLot. Report YO1, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Limited salvage excavation of the Burkes Corner house site. Test excavationsfor the Skimino meeting house failed to reveal the location of themeeting house. Partially impacted by I-64.72

1977 The Role of Locally Made Ceramics at Seventeenth- Century Kingsmill.Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting,Ottawa, Ontario.1978 Governor’s Land Archaeological District Excavations: The 1976 Season.Report JC21, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Report on full-scale excavations of several 17th-century sites found in thesurvey.1980 Boom and Bust: Seventeenth-Century Life at the Governor’s Land. Paperpresented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Albuquerque,New Mexico.An examination of the change in 17th-century housing in Governor’s Land,where early houses of the tobacco boom years give way to more permanentones toward the end of the century.1982 A Fairly Large Village: Settlement Patterns at Governor’s Land, nearJamestown, Virginia. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeologyannual meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.1984 Plantation Landscapes at Governor’s Land, James City County,Virginia. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annualmeeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.Outlaw presents the development of the Drummond Plantation (1648-1820)and relates changes in the plantation to the movement of the colonial capitalof Virginia from nearby Jamestown, to Williamsburg, and finally to Richmond.Outlaw, Merry A., Beverly A. Bogley, and Alain C. Outlaw1977 Rich Man, Poor Man: Status Definition of Two Seventeenth-CenturyCeramic Assemblages from Kingsmill. Paper presented at the Society forHistorical Archaeology annual meeting, Ottawa, Ontario.Painter, Floyd1956 The Helmet Site. Archaeological Society of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin10(3): 2-9.Excavation of an early 17th-century trash pit west of Carter’s Grove includeda siege helmet.1965 Artifacts from the Thoroughgood Site. The Chesopien 3(6): 130-135.Brief report on artifacts from the excavation. Some possibly late 17th-centurymaterials, but most are 18th-century.Parker, Jeff S.1977 44JC53, 44JC54, 44JC55, A Survey. Report JC16, VRCA Library,Yorktown, Virginia.73

Site report of surface collection and test excavation of several 17th-centurysites, and an Archaic campsite at the confluence of College Creek and theJames River.Peck, Rodney M.1967 Tobacco Pipes from Jamestown Island, Virginia. The Chesopien 5(4): 116-118.Brief discussion of the author’s collection of pipes, excavated at Jamestownin the early 20th century. Includes many decorated bowls and maker’s marks.The author inherited the artifacts.1969 Artifacts from Jamestown Island. The Chesopien 7(2): 39-44.Artifacts besides tobacco pipes from Jamestown.Pogue, Dennis1984 Town Rearing on the Maryland Chesapeake Frontier: A Re-interpretation.Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting,Williamsburg, Virginia.Southern Maryland towns were more significant than previously thought.Over time, they evolved in their location and functional roles.Polk, Roni H.1984a Historical Archaeology at Jamestown Virginia. M.A. thesis, Department ofAnthropology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.1984bAn overview of archaeology at Jamestown, using the ethnohistorical approach.Polk finds that the archaeology at Jamestown varied over time,depending upon administrative designs and current historical researchtrends. A significant summary and overview of past research trends anddirections for future work at Jamestown.Retrospect on Jamestown: An Archaeological Legacy. Symposium presentedat the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.Chaired by Polk, the session was an oral history of Jamestown archaeology.Participants were John L. Cotter, J. Paul Hudson, Kenneth Lewis, and JoelL. Shiner.Potter, Stephen R., and Gregory A. Waselkov1984 “...Whereby We Shall Enjoy Their Cultivated Places...” Paper presented atthe Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.Archaeological evidence from the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers suggestthat early settlers tended to select abandoned Indian fields and villagesfor their settlements. A case study of settlement patterns on theethnohistorical frontier.74

Reinhart, Theodore R.1984 The Indian School at Hampton, Virginia, as Seen Through itsGraveyard. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annualmeeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.A study of 38 gravestones of Native Americans at the Hampton Indian School(late 19th century). The gravestones reveal important information aboutthe school and its students.Research Department, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation1978 Urbanization in the Tidewater South: Town and Country in YorkCounty Virginia 1630-1830. Research proposal submitted to the NationalEndowment for the Humanities, Washington, DC.Proposal integrating “Colonial Williamsburg’s original 18th-century buildingsand its...collection of archaeological artifacts.”Samford, Patricia, and William Pittman1984 Estimating Vessel Populations from a Partially Excavated Urban Site: TheNicolson House, a Case Study. Paper presented at the Society for HistoricalArchaeology annual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.A test of Miller’s vessel estimation hypothesis.Sheridan, Chris1982 Ceramic Forms Produced at the Yorktown Pottery Factory. Paper presentedat the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.Smith, James1977 The Archaeology of Yorke Village: An Interim Report. Report YO9, VRCALibrary, Yorktown, Virginia.Includes survey, testing, and excavation for impact statement on proposedconstruction.1978 Archaeology of Yorke Village and the First and Second York ParishChurches. Report YO13, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Final report on excavations at 17th-century church site, settlement sitesand graves.1980 The Pottery and Kiln of Green Spring: A Study in Material Culture.M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary,Williamsburg, Virginia.A study of the operation and production of the kiln at Green Spring, a shortlivedunsuccessful attempt to establish a local industry. Based on NationalPark Service excavations in the 1950s.Smith, Robin, and Nicholas Honercamp1982 Patterns of Domestic Life at Kiskiack. Report YO28, VRCA Library,Yorktown, Virginia.75

Proposal for archaeology, historical research and complex analysis of theLee House. Submitted to National Endowment to the Humanities.Smolek, Michael A., Dennis J. Pogue, and Wayne E. Clark1984 Historical Archaeology of the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake: A Guideto Sources. Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum Occasional Paper No. 1.A review of historical archaeology of 17th-century Chesapeake sites. Includesan extensive bibliography.Spleth, Thomas H., Thomas J. Roberts, and Douglas K. Casebeer1982 An Analysis of the Yorktown Pottery: A Modern Craftsman’sResponse. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annualmeeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Sprinkle, John H., Jr.1984a An Archaeological Survey of ‘The Governor’s Land,’ James City County,Virginia. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, College of William andMary, Williamsburg, Virginia.1984bA probabilistic and purposive research design for Reinhart’s survey of theGovernor’s Land. Sprinke indicates the importance of environmental factorsin both prehistoric and historic site locations. Report includes a reviewof sampling strategy literature, and 28 site forms (both historic and prehistoric).Probabilistic Survey at the Governor’s Land, James City County, Virginia.Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting,Williamsburg, Virginia.A summary of the M.A. thesis.Stone, Garry Wheeler1974 St John’s Archaeological Questions and Answers. Maryland Historical Magazine69(2): 146-168.1975a1975bA summary of excavations at the St. Johns’s Site, a 17th-century dwellingand outbuildings in St. Mary’s City, Maryland. Stone integrates the documentaryhistory of the site with the archaeological record.Inventoried Ceramics and Society. Paper presented at the Society for HistoricalArchaeology annual meeting, Charleston, South Carolina.The St. John’s Dwelling: A Seventeenth-Century Maryland House and itsYards. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting,Charleston, South Carolina.1979 Housing in Manorial Maryland: 1636-1644. Paper presented at the Societyfor Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Nashville, Tennessee.1982a Adaption to the Chesapeake: The Evolution of the Virginia House, 1607-1750. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.76

1982b1982cToward the Archaeological Study of Past Landscapes: An Exploration.Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Society, Housing, and Architecture in Early Maryland: John Lewger’sSt. Johns. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of American Studies, University ofPennsylvania.A case study demonstrating the significance of architecture and archaeologyin understanding cultural adaption and social change. Stone demonstratesthat Maryland architecture went through four forms in its first century.1984 The Roof Leaked but the Price was Right. Paper presented at the Society forHistorical Archaeology annual meeting, Williamsburg, Virginia.The author traces the steps in constructing an earthfast Virginia House.Most of the cost came from labor, so houses had to be simple and quick tobuild. Stone suggests that houses were quite similar to tobacco warehouses.Traver, Jerome D.1965 A Preliminary Report, Excavations at the Thoroughgood Site. The Chesopien3(4): 93-94.Brief site report on excavations directed by Painter on the circa 1690 (orlater) house in Virginia Beach. See 3(4): 115-116 for two photographs of theexcavations.Upton, Dell T.1977 Vernacular Architecture at Kingsmill. Paper presented at the Society forHistorical Archaeology annual meeting, Ottawa, Ontario.Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission1973 Morgan Jones Kiln Site. Northern Neck of Virginia. Historical Magazine23(1): 2435-2436.A brief article on excavations at the 17th-century pottery site, reprintedfrom Notes on Virginia.1975 The 1975 Survey of the Governor’s Land Archaeological District, JamesCity County. Report JC9, VRCA Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Report on plowzone and limited subsurface testing directed by Outlaw. Primarily,the survey looked for sites plotted on two historic maps. A numberof colonial sites were found, including two important 17th-century sites:Pasbehay Tenement and the Drummond Plantation. Project research designsuggests that the variety of sites in the district will improve understandingof the Southern plantation system.1979 Excavations at Governor’s Land, ‘A Subberb of James Citty.’ Notes onVirginia 19.77

Brief report designed for the educated public on following excavations tothe 1975 survey.Virginia Research Center for Archaeology1977 Dow Badische Well, James City County. Report JC1, VRCA Library,Yorktown, Virginia.Report on salvage excavation of a barrel well eroding out of the JamesRiver. Believed to date to the 17th-century, but the only excavated find wasone piece of coarse earthenware.1978 The New Quarter Park Survey. Report YO6, VRCA Library, Yorktown,Virginia.Replacement summary for lost report. Prehistoric through 19th- centurysites.Wamsley, Cooper1982 Trade and the Yorktown Pottery: Theory and ArchaeologicalEvidence. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annualmeeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Watkins, C. Malcolm1960 North Devon Pottery and its Export to America in the Seventeenth Century.United States National Museum Bulletin 225, Paper 13. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, DC.A discussion of North Devon pottery found in early colonial sites, particularlyat Jamestown.Watkins, C. Malcolm, and Ivor Noël Hume1967 The Poor Potter of Yorktown. Museum of History and Technology Paper 54.Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.Weaver, John W.1979 An Early Trash Pit at the Governor’s Land. Archaeological Society of VirginiaQuarterly Bulletin 34(1): 43-47.Site report on salvage excavations at a circa 1690-1720 trash pit. Excavationsoccurred in 1965.Webber, Carmen1982 Phase I Survey Report Waste Water Collection Facilities, U.S. CoastGuard Reserve Training Center, Yorktown, Virginia. Report YO30, VRCALibrary, Yorktown, Virginia.Assessment of impact by pipeline construction. No cultural evidence found.Wells, Ann Camille1976 Kingsmill Plantation: A Cultural Analysis. M.A. thesis, Department ofArchitectural History, University of Virginia. Report JC8, VRCA Library,Yorktown, Virginia.78

A major and important synthesis of documents, archaeology, and architecturaldata. The synthesis places the architecture of the 18th-centuryKingsmill plantation in the cultural setting of the James River planter aristocracy.Wells suggests that in Virginia, the brick-pile, hipped-roof mansionwas a significant cultural statement of the closed gentry class. They hadbourgeois values, but pretensions toward a landed aristocracy.Wesler, Kit W.1982 Toward a Synthetic Approach to the Chesapeake Tidewater: Historic SitePatterning in Temporal Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.An examination of site pattern from late 17th- to 20th-century sites, utilizingartifact categories patterns derived from Stanley South. Looks particularlyat the effect of the tobacco economy and its rural/urban implications.Winter, Leonard1983 The Archaeology of a Seventeenth-Century Enclosure. Paper presented atthe Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Denver, Colorado.The enclosure is at Flowerdew Hundred.Wittkofski, J. Mark1979 The Seventeenth-Century Bandolier Cap. Archaeological Society of VirginiaQuarterly Bulletin 33(3): 118-124.1982 Bibliography of the Colonial National Historic Park’s Unpublished ArchaeologicalReports. Colonial National Historic Park, Yorktown, Virginia.Detailed bibliography on excavations at all Park sites. The primary sourcefor all manuscripts at the Colonial National Historical Parks (1902 to 1982).1983 Bibliography of Archaeological and Related Research Reports. VirginiaResearch Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.An annotated bibliography of all VRCA reports through 1982.79

Appendix 4.Annotated Bibliography of GeneralArchitectural SourcesLisa Royse

I. High Style ArchitectureHitchcock, Henry Russell1929 Modern Architecture, Romanticism and Reintegration. Payson and Clarke,Ltd., New York.1958 Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Penguin Books, Baltimore,Maryland.Pierson, William1976 American Buildings and Their Architects. Doubleday, Garden City, NewJersey.Roth, Leland1979 A Concise History of American Architecture. Harper and Row, New York.Scully, Vincent, Jr.1974 Modern Architecture: The Architecture of Democracy. George Braziller,New York.Waterman, Thomas Tileston1946 The Mansions of Virginia, 1706-1776. University of North Carolina Press,Chapel Hill, North Carolina.Whiffen, Marcus1969 American Architecture Since 1780: A Guide to the Styles. MIT Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts.Whiffen, Marcus, and F. Koeper1981 American Architecture, 1607-1976. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.This is a small sample of books on high style architecture. These bookstend to approach architecture from a stylistic viewpoint, looking at buildingswhich are the best example of a style or built by a prominent architect.Waterman’s The Mansions of Virginia is included in this group because ofhis stylistic and descriptive approach to Virginia architecture.II. Vernacular Architecture: General SourcesCarson, Cary1969 Settlement Patterns and Vernacular Architecture in Seventeenth- CenturyTidewater Virginia. M.A. thesis, in Early American Culture, University ofDelaware.1978 Doing History with Material Culture. In Material Culture and the Study ofAmerican Life, edited by Ian Quimby, pp. 41-64. W. W. Norton and Co.,New York.83

Chandler, Joseph Everett (editor)1892 The Colonial Architecture of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Bates,Kimball, and Guild, Boston, Massachusetts.Clark, Clifford E., Jr.1976 Domestic Architecture as an Index to Social History: The Romantic Revival andthe Cult of Domesticity in America, 1840-1870. Journal of InterdisciplinaryHistory 7(1): 33-56.Deetz, James1977 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archeology of Early American Life.Doubleday, Garden City, New Jersey.Hindle, Brooke (editor)1975 America’s Wooden Age: Aspects of its Early Technology. Sleepy HollowRestorations, Tarrytown, New York.Historic American Buildings Survey1976 Historic American Buildings Survey: Virginia Catalogue. University Press ofVirginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.1983 Historic America: Buildings, Structures, and Sites. Library of Congress,Washington, DC.Jencks, Charles, and George Baird (editors)1970 Meaning in Architecture. George Braziller, New York.Kniffen, Fred1965 Folk Housing: Key to Diffusion. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers 55(4): 549-577.Kniffen, Fred, and Henry Glassie1966 Building in Wood in the Eastern United States: A Time-Place Perspective. TheGeographical Review 56: 40-66.Loth, Calder1974 Notes on the Evolution of Virginia Brickwork from the Seventeenth Century tothe Late Nineteenth Century. APT Bulletin 6(2): 82-120.O’Neal, William Bainter1968 Architecture in Virginia: An Official Guide to Four Centuries of Building inthe Old Dominion. Walker, New York.Rappaport, Amos1969 House Form and Culture. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Rasmussen, William M. S.1982 Designers, Builders, and Architectural Traditions in Colonial Virginia. VirginiaMagazine of History and Biography 90: 198-212.84

Upton, Dell1979 Toward a Performance Theory of Vernacular Architecture. Folklore Forum12(2): 173-196.Venturi, Robert1977 Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. Museum of Modern Art,New York.Wells, Camille (editor)1982 Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture. Vernacular Architecture Forum,Annapolis, Maryland.Work Projects Administrationn.d. Virginia: A Guide to the Old Dominion. Work Projects Administration,Washington, DC.Wright, Gwendolyn1981 Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America. PantheonBooks, New York.These sources are included to demonstrate that vernacular architecture isstudied by a wide range of scholars from historians to geographers using avariety of methodologies from the descriptive to the symbolic. Most of thesesources do not deal specifically with Tidewater architecture, but insteadgive a basis from which to study any architectural topic.III. Vernacular Architecture: English PrototypesAddy, Sidney1898 The Evolution of the English House. Swan Sonnenschein, London.Brown, R. J.1982 English Farmhouses. Hale, London.Brunskill, R. W.1971 Illustrated Handbook of Vernacular Architecture. Faber and Faber, London.1982 Traditional Farm Buildings of Britain. Gollancz, London.Carson, Cary1976 Segregation in Vernacular Building. Vernacular Architecture 7: 24-29.Dixon, Roger, and Stefan Muthesius1978 Victorian Architecture. Oxford University Press, London.Girouard, Mark1978 Life in the English Country House: A Social and Architectural History.Penguin Books, New York.85

Mercer, Eric1975 English Vernacular Houses: A Study of Traditional Farmhouses andCottages. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.Robinson, John Martin1983 Georgian Model Farms: A Study of Decorated and Model Farm Buildingsin the Age of Improvement, 1700-1846. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Smith, Peter1975 Houses of the Welsh Countryside: A Study in Historical Geography. HerMajesty’s Stationery Office, London.Waterman, Thomas Tileston1939 English Antecedents of Virginia Architecture. Lancaster Press, Inc.,Lancaster, Pennsylvania.Watkin, David1979 English Architecture: A Concise History. Oxford University Press, London.Knowing English architectural trends is important to the study of Americanvernacular architecture since many elements and forms have evolved froman Anglo-American tradition. However, other cultural heritages, such asAfro-American, American Indian, etc., have contributed to a total picture ofAmerican vernacular architecture, but in this study area very little has beendone to demonstrate cultural antecedents other than those which are indicativeof European stylistic traditions.III. Vernacular Architecture: 17th and 18th Century DomesticResidentialBuchanan, Paul1976 The Eighteenth-Century Frame Houses of Tidewater Virginia. In Building EarlyAmerica, edited by Charles Peterson. Chilton Books, Radnor, Pennsylvania.Carson, Cary1974 The ‘Virginia House’ in Maryland. Maryland Historical Magazine 69: 185-196.Carson, Cary, Norman F. Barka, William M. Kelso, Gary Wheeler Stone, and Dell Upton1981 Impermanent Architecture in the Southern American Colonies. WinterthurPortfolio 16(2/3): 135-196.Carson, Jane1954 Green Spring Plantation in the Seventeenth Century. Manuscript on file, ResearchDepartment, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Caywood, Louis1957 Green Spring Plantation. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 65(1):67-83.86

Coffin, Lewis Augustus1970 Brick Architecture of the Colonial Period in Maryland and Virginia. DoverPublications, New York.Colonial Williamsburg Foundation1971 Legacy from the Past: A Portfolio of Eighty-Eight Original WilliamsburgBuildings. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Farrar, Emmie Ferguson1957 Old Virginia Houses Along the James. Bonanza Books, New York.Forman, Henry Chandlee1938 Jamestown and St. Mary’s: Buried Cities of Romance. Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, Baltimore.1948 The Architecture of the Old South, the Medieval Style, 1585-1850. HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge.1957 Virginia Architecture in the Seventeenth Century. 350th Anniversary CelebrationCorporation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Glassie, Henry1972 Eighteenth-Century Cultural Process in the Delaware Valley. WinterthurPortfolio 7: 29-58.1975 Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: A Structural Study of Historic Artifacts.University of Tennessee, Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.Gregory, George Craghead1936 Log Houses at Jamestown, 1607. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography44: 287-295.Hatch, Charles E.1941 The Moore House: A National Shrine. William and Mary Quarterly 21(2ndseries): 293-317.1969a1969b1969c1969d1969eThe Ballard House and Family. Colonial National Historical Park, NationalPark Service, Washington, DC.Dependencies (Outbuildings) of the Dudley Digges House. Colonial NationalHistorical Park, National Park Service, Yorktown, Virginia.The Edmund Smith House: A History. Colonial National Historical Park,National Park Service, Yorktown, Virginia.The Nelson House and the Nelsons. Colonial National Historical Park,National Park Service, Washington, DC.The Thomas Pate House and Lot 42 in Yorktown. Colonial National HistoricalPark, National Park Service, Yorktown, Virginia.87

1970a1970bThe Bellfield Estate. Colonial National Historical Park, National Park Service,Yorktown, Virginia.The Ringfield Plantation. Colonial National Historical Park, National ParkService, Yorktown, Virginia.1973 Colonial Yorktown’s Main Street (from Secretary Nelson’s to the Windmill)and the Military Entrenchments Close in and Around the Town of York.National Park Service, Denver.Kimball, Fiske1956 Domestic Architecture of the American Colonies and of the Early Republic.Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.Kocher, A. Lawrence, and Howard Dearstyne1949 Colonial Williamsburg: Its Buildings and Gardens. Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Moorehead, Singleton Peabody1955 Tazewell Hall: A Report on its Eighteenth-Century Appearance. Journal of theSociety of Architectural Historians 14: 14-17.Neiman, Fraser D.1978 Domestic Architecture at the Clifts Plantation: The Social Context of EarlyVirginia Building. Northern Neck Historical Magazine 28: 3096-3128.Noël Hume, Ivor1983 Discoveries in Martin’s Hundred. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological SeriesNo. 4, Williamsburg, Virginia.Pallante, Martha Irene1982 The Development of Building Patterns in Tidewater Virginia. M.A. thesis,Department of History, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.Trudell, Clyde F.1938 Report on the Restoration of the Lightfoot House. Manuscript on file, ColonialNational Historical Park, National Park Service, Yorktown, Virginia.1971 Colonial Yorktown. Viking Press, New York.Tyler, Lyon G.1938 Historic Residences in Williamsburg. Tyler’s Quarterly Historical andGeneaological Magazine 11: 73-84.Upton, Dell1979 Early Vernacular Architecture in Southeastern Virginia. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of American Civilization, Brown University.1982aSlave Housing in Eighteenth-Century Virginia: A Report to the Department ofSocial and Cultural Anthropology, National Museum of American History,Smithsonian Institution. July 31.88

1982bVernacular Domestic Architecture in Eighteenth-Century Virginia. WinterthurPortfolio 17: 95-119.Waterman, Thomas Tileston, and John A. Barrows1932 Domestic Colonial Architecture of Tidewater Virginia. Charles Scribner’sSons, New York.Whiffen, Marcus1960 The Eighteenth-Century Houses of Williamsburg: A Study of ArchitecturalBuildings in the Colonial Capital. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg, Virginia.Due to the interest and research generated by the Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, examples of domestic architecture of the colonial period havebeen well documented in this study area. Buildings within the historic districthave been researched by the Architectural Research Department andmanuscript copies are available in their library. Both Jamestown andYorktown are part of the National Park Service and research manuscriptson buildings within its jurisdiction are also available. The Virginia Divisionof Historic Landmarks keeps records of documented historic buildings forall of Virginia. Since not all of this material has been published, it has notbeen included in this bibliography. Although these three towns have hadintensive research the greater part of James City County and York Countyhave not been thoroughly studied.V. Vernacular Architecture: 19th Century DomesticResidentialCohen, Lizabeth1980 Embellishing a Life of Labor: Working Class Homes. Journal of AmericanCulture 3(4): 752-775.Hayward, Mary Ellen1981 Urban Vernacular Architecture in Nineteenth-Century Baltimore.Winterthur Portfolio 16(1): 33-64.Kornwolf, James D.1976 Guide to the Buildings of Surry and the American Revolution. The SurryCo., Virginia Bicentennial Committee, Surry, Virginia.Lounsbury, Carl1977 Development of Domestic Architecture in North Carolina. North CarolinaHistorical Review 54: 17-48.Maass, John1972 The Victorian Home in America. Hawthorn Books, New York.89

There has been a limited amount of research done on 19th-century domesticarchitecture as compared with work done on the colonial period. Within thisstudy area, nothing has been published on this subject. This should not beunexpected since a major source for research, the Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, is mostly limited to studies of the colonial period.VI. Vernacular Architecture: 20th Century DomesticResidentialArchitectural Record1954 A Treasury of Contemporary Houses. F. W. Dodge, New York.Beaver, Pat, Mary Jane Putzel, and Tom Schlesinger1980 Trailers: The Factory, the Business, the Owners. Southern Exposure 8(1): 14-25.Cromley, E. C.1982 Modernizing: Or, ‘You Never See a Screen Door on Affluent Homes’. Journalof American Culture 5(2): 71-79.Lancaster, Clay1958 The American Bungalow. Art Bulletin 40: 234-244.Moore, Charles W., Katherine Smith, and Peter Becker (editors)1983 Home Sweet Home: American Domestic Vernacular Architecture. Rizzouli,New York.Vlach, John1976 The Shotgun House: An African Architectural Legacy. Pioneer American 8.1978 The Afro-American Tradition in Decorative Arts. Cleveland Museum of Art,Cleveland.White, Charles E.1923 The Bungalow Book. Macmillan, New York.Williams, Randall1980 Billion Dollar Shell Game. Southern Exposure 8(1): 86-91.This is a sample of the type of research which could be done within thisstudy area, but has not yet been attempted.VII. Vernacular Architecture: AgriculturalColonial Williamsburg Foundationn.d. Survey of 18th- and Early 19th-Century Agricultural Buildings. In preparation.Architectural Research Library, Williamsburg, Virginia.90

Hemphill, W. Edwin1957 Why Barns? Then and Now. Virginia Cavalcade 7(3): 17-27.Research on agricultural buildings is being carried out by Architectural ResearchDepartment of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, but nothinghas been yet published.VIII. Vernacular Architecture: Public InstitutionsArchitectural Record1960 Hospitals, Clinics, and Health Centers. F. W. Dodge Corp., New York.Comte de Grasse Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution1981 The Yorktown Customhouse, 1720-1981. Manuscript on file, York CountyPublic Library, York County, Virginia.Gregory, George Craghead1935 Jamestown’s First Brick Statehouse. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 43: 193-199.Hall, Virginia Cornick1973 Virginia Post Offices, 1798-1859. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography81(1): 49-97.Hatch, Charles E.1943 America’s Oldest Legislative Assembly and Its Jamestown Statehouses.Popular Study Series, National Park Service, Washington, DC.Moynahan, J. M., and Earle R. Stewart1980 The American Jail: Its Development and Growth. Nelson Hall, Chicago.Whiffen, Marcus1958 The Public Buildings of Williamsburg, Colonial Capital of Virginia: AnArchitectural History. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg,Virginia.1959 The Early County Courthouses of Virginia. Journal of the Society of ArchitecturalHistorians 18: 2-10.Zurier, Rebecca1982 The American Firehouse: An Architectural and Social History. AbbevillePress, New York.Some research has been done on public institutions from the colonial period.Buildings which need to be researched are courthouses, firehouses,jails, police stations, hospitals, municipal buildings, federally-owned publicservice buildings, etc.91

IX. Vernacular Architecture: EducationalAnonymous1976 Some Williamsburg Memoirs. Williamsburg Press, Williamsburg, Virginia.Belvin, Edward1981 Growing Up in Williamsburg. Williamsburg Press, Williamsburg, Virginia.Byrd, Rawls1968 History of Public Schools in Williamsburg. Rawls Byrd, Virginia.Johnson, Norris Brock1982 School Spaces and Architecture. Journal of American Culture 5(4): 79-88.Moody, Mildred Taylor1976 History of Toano High School, 1908-1955. Manuscript on file, Swem Library,College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.Morris, Eli, Jr.1983 Footprints: A History of York County Public Schools. Manuscript on file, YorkCounty Public Library, York County, Virginia.Rouse, Parke, Jr.1983 A House for a President: 250 Years on the Campus of the College ofWilliam and Mary. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.Swem, Earl G.1928 Some Notes on the Four Forms of the Oldest Building of William and MaryCollege. William and Mary Quarterly 8(2nd series): 217-307.1930 Supplementary Documents Giving Additional Information Concerning the FourForms of the Oldest Building of William and Mary College. William and MaryQuarterly 10(2nd series):68-86.Virginia Gazette1984 Williamsburg-James City County Public Schools. Supplement to the regularedition. Virginia Gazette, November 14, 1984.Local historians have written some histories and memoirs of the educationalsystem within James City County. These have limited value as architecturalresearch tools, but are a beginning for study in this area.X. Vernacular Architecture: MilitaryGreene, Jerome1976 The Allies at Yorktown. Colonial National Historical Park, National ParkService, Washington, DC.MacCord, H. A.1970 Forts in Colonial Virginia. Virginia Cavalcade 20(2): 5-11.92

Robinson, Willard B.1977 American Forts: Architectural Form and Function. University of IllinoisPress, Chicago.Thompson, Erwin N.1976 British Defenses of Yorktown, 1781. Colonial National Historical Park,National Park Service, Washington, DC.A surface treatment of military architecture has been done because of itshistorical significance. But there has not been an in-depth study of this typeof architecture which would include the Virginia Naval Shipyard, Jamestownand Yorktown forts, buildings connected with the militia or musterings,modern military installations, etc.XI. Vernacular Architecture: EcclesiasticalAustin, John C.1976 Bruton Parish Churchyard: A Guide with Map. Bruton Parish Church,Williamsburg, Virginia.Brock, Henry Irving1930 Colonial Churches of Virginia. Dale Press, Richmond, Virginia.Binney, Marcus1978 Virginia’s Country Churches. Country Life 27: 1138-1140.Davis, Margaret1936 Tidewater Churches. South Atlantic Quarterly 35: 86-97.Gee, Madeline1976 Grove Festival, A Bicentennial Event, July 31, 1976. Manuscript onfile, Williamsburg Public Library, Williamsburg, Virginia.Goodwin, Edward1927 The Colonial Church in Virginia. Morehouse Publishing, Milwaukee.Hatch, Charles E.1970 Grace Church. Colonial National Historical Park, National Park Service,Washington, DC.Holmes, Reverend1932 Shiloh Baptist Church. Manuscript on file, York County Public Library, YorkCounty, Virginia.Hudson, Paul1970 Jamestown Church. Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities,Richmond, Virginia.93

Kandle, Patricia L.1984 Comparative Research on the First and Second York Parish Church for thePurpose of Reconstruction. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology,College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.Little, Reverend1932 History of Grafton Baptist Church. Manuscript on file, York County PublicLibrary, York County, Virginia.Mason, George Carrington1945 Colonial Churches of Tidewater Virginia. Whitten and Shepperson, Virginia.Massay, Alice C., George E. Massay, and James D. Massay1984 Pages from the Past: Grafton Christian Church, 150th Anniversary.Manuscript on file, York County Public Library, York County, Virginia.Meade, Bishop1978 Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia. Geneaological Publishing,Baltimore.Micou, Mary D.1908 Colonial Churches in the Original Colony of Virginia. Southern ChurchPublishing, Richmond, Virginia.Oliver, Vicki Dale1973 Twenty-Five Years: History of the Yorktown Baptist Church. Manuscript on file,York County Public Library, York County, Virginia.Rawlings, James Scott1963 Virginia’s Colonial Churches, an Architectural Guide. Garrett and Massie,Richmond, Virginia.Rawlings, James Scott, and Vernon Purdue Davis1978 Virginia’s Antebellum Churches. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.Rose, Harold Wickliffe1963 The Colonial Houses of Worship in America: Built in the English ColoniesBefore the Republic, 1607-1789, and Still Standing. Hastings House, NewYork.Saunders, Robert L., Jr.1977 History of Grafton Baptist Church. Mark Enterprises, Virginia.Smith, Elizabeth1973 The History of Bethel Baptist Church, Tabb, Virginia. Peninsula BaptistAssociation. Manuscript on file, Yorktown Library, Yorktown, Virginia.Snyder, Joe1973 History of Yorkminster Presbyterian Church. Manuscript on file, York CountyPublic Library, York County, Virginia.94

Waterman, Thomas Tileston1944 The Bruton Church of 1683 and Two Contemporaries. Journal of the Societyof Architectural Historians 4(3/4): 43-46, 54.White, Robert E.1950 History of Providence Methodist Church. Tidewater Printing Co., HiltonVillage, Virginia.These sources are mainly local histories with limited information on thearchitecture of the church discussed. However, next to domestic architecture,ecclesiastical architecture has been given the most attention withinthis study area.XII. Vernacular Architecture: Social/Cultural-RelatedKyriazi, Gary1976 The Great American Amusement Parks. Citadel Press, Secaucus, NewJersey.McNamara, Brooks1969 The American Playhouse in the Eighteenth Century. Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge.Mullin, Donald C.1970 The Development of the Playhouse: A Survey of Theatre Architecture fromthe Renaissance to the Present. University of California Press, Berkeley,California.Rankin, Hugh F.1960 The Theater in Colonial America. University of North Carolina Press, ChapelHill.Sharp, Dennis1969 The Picture Palace. Praeger Publishers, New York.These sources give an idea of the possible subjects which could be studied,such as Busch Gardens, movie theaters, etc. Buildings within theWilliamsburg Historic Area, such as the First and Second Theatre, havebeen researched and the information is both in manuscript form at the ArchitecturalResearch Library and included in Hugh Rankin’s The Theatre inColonial America.XIII. Vernacular Architecture: TransportationAnderson, Warren H.1981 Vanishing Roadside America. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.95

Architectural Record1960 Motels, Hotels, Restaurants, and Bars. McGraw Hill, New York.Baeder, John1982 Gas, Food, and Lodging: A Postcard Odyssey Through the Great AmericanRoadside. Abbeville Press, New York.Belasco, Warren James1979 Americans on the Road from Autocamp to Motel, 1910-1945. MIT Press,Cambridge.Deibler, Dan Grove1975 A Survey and Photographic Inventory of Metal Truss Bridges in Virginia,1865-1932. Vol. III. The Culpepper Construction District. Virginia HighwayResearch Council, Charlottesville, Virginia.Grant, H. Rogers and Charles W. Bohl1978 The Country Railroad Station in America. Pruett Publishing, Boulder.Halprin, Lawrence1966 Freeways. Reinhold Publishers, New York.Hatch, Charles E.1949 The Great Road: Earliest Highway Used and Developed by the English atJamestown. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 57: 14-21.Lohof, Bruce A.1982 The Service Station in America. In Material Culture Studies in America,edited by Thomas Schlereth. American Association for State and Local History,Knoxville, Tennessee.Pawlett, Nathaniel Mason1976 Historic Roads in Virginia: County Road Orders Series. Virginia Highwayand Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, Virginia.Venturi, Robert, Dennis Brown, and Steven Izenour1972 Learning from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of ArchitecturalForm. MIT Press, Cambridge.Vieyra, D. I.1979 Fill ‘Er Up: An Architectural History of America’s Gas Station. Macmillan,New York.Since Williamsburg, Jamestown, and Yorktown are all tourist centers, thereis a great deal of transportation-related architecture within this study ares.These sources give an idea of the possibilities available for research.96

XIV. Vernacular Architecture: CommercialArchitectural Record1962 Stores and Shopping Centers. McGraw-Hill, New York.Baeder, John1978 Diners. Harry N. Abrams, New York.Bolitho, Hector1975 The Glasshouse: Jamestown, Virginia. Glasshouse Foundation, Inc.,Jamestown, Virginia.Fishwick, Marshall1977 Ronald Revisited: The World of Ronald McDonald. Bowling Green University,Kentucky.Harrington, J. C.1950 Seventeenth-Century Brickmaking and Tilemaking at Jamestown, Virginia.Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 58(1): 16-39.Trimmer, Joseph F.1982 Monuments and Myths: Three American Arches. In Material Culture Studiesin America, edited by Thomas Schlereth. America Association of State andLocal History, Knoxville, Tennessee.Yorke, Douglas A.1980 Kentucky Fried Design. Southern Exposure 8(1): 70-73.As with transportation-related architecture, because of the high density oftourists visiting this area, there is a great deal of commercial architecture.There is a great potential for research on this subject from stores to restaurantsto small markets.XV. BibliographiesNichols, Frederick Doveton1965 The Early Architecture of Virginia: Original Sources and Books. In AmericanAssociation of Architectural Bibliographers, Papers, Volume 1, edited byWilliam B. O’Neal, pp.81-124. American Association of Architectural Bibliographers,Charlottesville, Virginia.Rath, Frederick L., Jr., and Merrilyn Rogers O’Connell (editors)1975 Research: A Bibliography on Historical Organization Practices. AmericanAssociation of State and Local Historians, Nashville, Tennessee.Roos, Frank J.1968 Bibliography of Early American Architecture. University of Illinois Press,Urbana.97

Upton, Dell1979 Vernacular Architecture in Virginia: A Bibliography. Journal of Virginia FolkloreSociety 1: 73-94.1981 Ordinary Buildings: A Bibliographic Essay on American Vernacular Architecture.American Studies International 19(2): 57-75.Wilson, Richard Guy1979 Popular Architecture. In Handbook of American Popular Culture, edited byM. Thomas Inge. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.98

Appendix 5.Annotated Bibliography ofArchitectural Reports with SpecificReferences to the Lower TidewaterLisa Royse

I. General SourcesBinney, Marcus1978 Virginia’s Country Churches. Country Life 27: 1138-1140.Short history with photos. None of the buildings are in the survey area.Brock, Henry Irving1930 Colonial Churches in Virginia. Dale Press, Richmond.Historic descriptions of churches, including Jamestown Tower, GraceChurch, and Hickory Neck Church.Buchanan, Paul E.1976 The Eighteenth-Century Houses of Tidewater Virginia. In Building EarlyAmerica: Contributions Toward The History of a Great Industry, editedby Charles E. Peterson. Chilton Books, Radnor, Pennsylvania.Discusses five basic house types and framing techniques affected by limitationof obtainable materials. Discusses Brush-Everard House, BrackenHouse, and Wetherburn’s Tavern.Carson, Cary1969 Settlement Patterns and Vernacular Architecture in Seventeenth- CenturyTidewater Virginia. M.A. thesis in Early American Culture, University ofDelaware.Town planning, English precedents, interaction between Old & New Worldenvironments, and the “Virginia Style.”Carson, Cary, Norman F. Barka, William M. Kelso, Gary Wheeler Stone, and Dell Upton1981 Impermanent Architecture in the Southern American Colonies. WinterthurPortfolio 16 (2/3): 135-196.Discusses six types of earthfast building techniques. Interpretation basedon social factors, i.e., high mortality rate, tobacco economy, etc. Suggestscorrelation between shift to diversified crops and first appearance of improvedvernacular buildings.Chappell, Edward1981 Williamsburg Architecture as Social Space. The Interpreter 3(6): i-iii.Social order and status expressed in buildings.1982 Slave Housing. The Interpreter 4(6): i-iii.Discussion of diversity of forms and social separation.1983 Beyond the Pale: Architectural Fieldwork for Colonial Williamsburg. TheInterpreter 5(6): i-iii.Fieldwork through archaeology, measured drawings, and reconstructionsand with an eye to interpretations of social conditions.101

1984 Looking at Buildings. The Interpreter 6(6): i-vi.Argues that social and functional hierarchies can be perceived through architecturaldetailing, both decoration and form. Uses Carter’s Grove, theCapitol, Timson House, Wren Building, Orrell House, Geddy Foundry, andWetherburn’s Stables.Coffin, Lewis Augustus, Jr., and Arthur C. Holden1919 Brick Architecture of the Colonial Period in Maryland and Virginia. ArchitecturalBooks, New York.Photos, plans, elevations and detailed drawings of brick architecture, verylittle written information.College of William and Maryn.d. Virginiana Collection and James City County File. Swem Library, College ofWilliam and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.Photographs of buildings taken in the 1930s.Davis, Margaret1936 Tidewater Churches. South Atlantic Quarterly 35: 86-97.History of churches, including Jamestown and Bruton Parish Churches.Farrar, Emmie Ferguson1957 Old Virginia Houses Along the James. Bonanza Books, New York.Historical descriptions of buildings and photos.Forman, Henry Chandlee1948 The Architecture of the Old South: The Medieval Style, 1585-1850. HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Argues for 17th century as a medieval style. Some photos and drawings.1957 Virginia Architecture in the Seventeenth Century. 350th Anniversary CelebrationCorporation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Emphasis on Jamestown and discussion of the period as medieval.Glassie, Henry1975 Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: A Structural Study of Historic Artifacts.University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.Outlines structural vocabulary for identifying houses by type.Goodwin, Edward1927 The Colonial Church in Virginia. Morehouse, Milwaukee.History of colonial church and clergy. Information on parishes, but not onspecific churches, except Jamestown Church.Hemphill, W. Edwin1957 Why Barns? Then and Now. Virginia Cavalcade 7(3): 17-27.102

Argues that 19th-century Tidewater and Piedmont Virginians used barns toprotect crops, whereas in the 20th century, barns are used to protect livestock.Historic American Buildings Survey1976 Historic American Buildings Survey: Virginia Catalogue. University Press ofVirginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.Kibler, James Luther1931 The Cradle of a Nation: A Dictionary of Jamestown, Williamsburg, andYorktown, Virginia’s Historic Triangle. Garrett and Massie, Richmond,Virginia.Historical sketch of the area with short paragraphs on historic sites— bothexisting and obliterated— and some maps.Kibler, James Luther1936 Colonial Virginia Shrines: A Complete Guide Book to Jamestown,Williamsburg, and Yorktown. Garrett and Massie, Richmond, Virginia.Short historic descriptions of significant buildings, both standing and nolonger existing.Lancaster, Robert A., Jr.1915 Historic Virginia Homes and Churches. J.B. Lippincott Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Historic descriptions and some photos of existing structures.Loth, Calder1974 Notes on the Evolution of Virginia Brickwork from the Seventeenth to the LateNineteenth Century. APT Bulletin 6(2): 82-120.Notes on individual buildings with photos.MacCord, Howard1970 Forts in Colonial Virginia. Virginia Cavalcade 20(2): 5-11.History of Virginia forts with photos and maps.Marzio, Peter C.1972 Carpentry in the Southern Colonies during the Eighteenth Century with Emphasison Maryland and Virginia. Winterthur Portfolio 7: 228-250.Defines the colonial carpenter, artisan and master builder, and levels ofbuilding technology and education.Mason, George Carrington1938 Doorways of Colonial Churches in Virginia. William and Mary Quarterly2(18): 449-452.Drawings and some descriptions of various church doorways. None fromthis study area.103

1945 Colonial Churches of Tidewater Virginia. Whitten and Shepperson, Richmond,Virginia.History of churches discussed by counties with maps and some photos.1958 A Supplement to Colonial Churches of Tidewater Virginia. Virginia Magazineof History and Biography 66: 167-177.An update to his book.Meade, Bishop William1978 Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia. Genealogical Publishing,Baltimore.History, includes Theological Seminary in Williamsburg, Jamestown Church,Bruton Parish Church, and York-Hampton Parish Church.Neiman, Fraser D.1978 Domestic Architecture at the Clifts Plantation: The Social Context of EarlyVirginia Building. Northern Neck Historical Magazine 28: 3096-3128.Discusses different building phases at the site and argues that the structuresshould not be labelled impermanent since they would not have beenconsidered so at the time. Change brought about by changing social attitudesof relationship between servant/slave and master.O’Neal, William R.1968 Architecture in Virginia: An Official Guide to Four Centuries of Building inthe Old Dominion. Walker, New York.Brief description and photos of buildings.Pallante, Martha1982 The Development of Building Patterns in Tidewater Virginia. M.A.thesis, Department of History, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg,Virginia.Does not use contemporary sources to substantiate her theory, so her approachis slightly dated. Mainly an historical approach, attempting to discoverwhat types of buildings could have been built. Some maps of forts anddefense line. Does not discuss buildings within this study area.Rawlings, James Scott1963 Virginia’s Colonial Churches: An Architectural Guide. Garrett and Massie,Richmond Virginia.Historical overview of styles, etc., and specific information on each individualchurch.Rawlings, James Scott, and Vernon Perdue Davis1978 Virginia’s Ante-Bellum Churches. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.Architectural history with description of specific architectural elements,detailed drawings, and glossary.104

Reps, John W.1972 Tidewater Towns: City Planning in Colonial Virginia and Maryland.Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Antecedents and examples of urban planning at Williamsburg, Yorktown,and Jamestown.Sale, Edith Tunis1927 Interiors of Virginia Houses of Colonial Times. William Byrd Press, Richmond,Virginia.Descriptions of interiors with photos and plans.Upton, Dell1976 Board Roofing in Tidewater Virginia. APT Bulletin 8(4): 22-44.1979a1979bDiscussion of roofing techniques with map, photos, and drawings.Early Vernacular Architecture in Southeastern Virginia. Ph.D. dissertation,Brown University.Discusses English vernacular prototypes, the “Virginia House,” and framingtechniques. Includes plans, descriptions, etc.Toward a Performance Theory of Vernacular Architecture in Early TidewaterVirginia. Folklore Forum 12(2).Discusses social diffusion of architectural ideas (from top to bottom) andcodification of rooms.1982 Vernacular Domestic Architecture in Eighteenth-Century Virginia. WinterthurPortfolio 17: 95-119.Analyzes architecture as a response to social requirements using namingsystems, room function and building types.Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission1976 The Virginia Landmarks Register. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.n.d.Photos and short descriptions (not much information) of buildings on theregister.Individual files on documented historic buildings at the Richmond headquarters.Buildings on file include, in Williamsburg: Armistead House, Dr. PhilipBarraud House, Bell Farm, Bell Mead, Archibald Blair House, John BlairHouse, Bland-Wetherburn House, Rev. John Bracken House, Brush-Everard House, Bruton Parish Church, Capitol, Colonel Charles ChiswellHouse, Coke-Garrett House, Cole Shop, Brafferton Hall, Wren Building,President’s House, Court House, Custis Kitchen, Providence Hall, PublicGaol, Public Records Office, Rabon House, Peyton Randolph House, SempleHouse, Spencer’s Hotel, Sun Oil Service Station, Taliaferro-Cole Shop,Wheatland, Wythe House, Geddy, Baker & Inman Law Office, Governor’sPalace, Greenhow-Repition Office and House, Margaret Hunter Shop,105

George Jackson House and Store, Ludwell-Paradise House, Magazine,Moody House, Nelson-Galt House, Robert Nicolson House, Captain HughOrr House, John Orrell House, Palmer House, Peacock Hill Post Mill, andPrentis Store.In James City County: Colonel William Allen House, Amblers on the James,Ashland Farm House, Austin house, Bick House, Binn’s Place, Bray Mansion,Burnt Ordinary, Burwell’s Landing, Carter’s Grove, Clover Dale,Confederate Peninsula Defenses, Cowles House, Diascund Railroad Station,Durfey’s Mill, Ewell Plantation, Ewell Railroad Station, Geddy FarmHouse, Harris House, Hickory Neck Church, eight houses in Toano, JamesRiver Church, Jockey’s Neck Farm, Kingsmill Plantation, La Grange, LaneFarm, Littletown Quarter, Lombardy Farm, Lutheran Parish House, MaineFarm, Major Barn, Marston House, Martin House, Mount Folly, OliveBranch Christian Church, Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, Pinewoods, PoplarHall, Powhatan Farm, Richardson House, Riverview, Shellfield, Skiff’sCreek House, Slater House, Stone House, store at Diascund, store in Toano,Vaiden House, Walsh House, Warrenton, Waverly Farm, and Windsor Castle.In York County: Archer House, Ballard House, Bennett Field, Cherry Hall,Customs House, Dairy House, Dudley Digges House, Grace Church,Grafton Christian Church, Hunt’s Neck, Kiskiack, Marl Bank, Medical Shop,Moore House, Nelson House, Oxford Tide Mill, Thomas Pate House,Piggott’s Mill, Porto Bello, Ringfield, Rippon Hall, Session-Shields House,Edmund Smith House, Somerwell House, Swan Tavern, Tue Marshes Light,Virginia Farm Group, Waterview, Wharf Buildings, York County Courthouse,and York Spit Light.Waterman, Thomas Tileston1946 The Mansions of Virginia, 1706-1776. University of North Carolina Press,Chapel Hill, North Carolina.Discussion of historic styles (early, mid-, and late Georgian), English antecedents,and an overview of 17th-century architecture.Waterman, Thomas Tileston, and John A. Barrows1932 Domestic Colonial Architecture of Tidewater Virginia. Charles Scribner’sSons, New York.History of domestic architecture with photos, elevations, etc. of individualbuildings.Whiffen, Marcus1959 The Early County Courthouses of Virginia. Journal of the Society of ArchitecturalHistorians 18(1): 2-10.Development of courthouse from domestic form to Romantic Classicism.Mentions and has a photo of Williamsburg Courthouse.Work Projects Administrationn.d. Virginia: A Guide to the Old Dominion. Work Projects Administration,Washington, DC.106

Travel guide to Virginia with information on how to get there, special events,maps, history, and some photos.II. JamestownBolitho, Hector1975 The Glasshouse: Jamestown, Virginia. Glasshouse Foundation, Inc.,Jamestown, Virginia.Pamphlet on the history of the glasshouse and the excavations.Brown, Glenn1928 Jamestown. Architectural Record 63: 78-79.Personal reminiscences of a visit to Jamestown.Forman, Henry Chandlee1938 Jamestown and St. Mary’s: Buried Cities of Romance. John Hopkins UniversityPress, Baltimore.A history of the two towns with map, plans, photos, and drawings.1940 The Bygone Subberbs of James Cittie. William and Mary Quarterly 20(2ndseries): 475-486.A walking guide up “Maine Road,” with some history and a map.Gregory, George Cragshead1935 Jamestown’s First Brick Statehouse. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 43: 193-199.Historic description, documents, and plan of statehouse.1936 Log Houses at Jamestown, 1607. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography44: 287-295.Argues for log houses being the earliest homes. No specific buildings mentioned.Harrington, J.C.1950 Seventeenth-Century Brickmaking and Tilemaking at Jamestown, Virginia.Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 58(1): 16-39.Discussion of bricks made locally, a map, excavation drawing, plan and photos.Hatch, Charles E.1943 America’s Oldest Legislative Assembly and Its Jamestown Statehouses.Popular Series, National Park Service, Washington, DC.History of legislature and a discussion of excavations. Includes photos anda plan.107

1949a1949bThe Great Road: Earliest Highway Used and Developed by the English atJamestown. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 57: 14-21.Discussion of excavations with map and excavation photos.Jamestown: The Town Site and Its Story. National Park Service, Washington,DC.History of site with photos and map, includes church, statehouse, and kiln.Hemphill, William E.1957 Hallowed by the Place. Virginia Cavalcade 6(4): 22-29.Short history of Jamestown Church with photos and drawings.Hudson, J. Paul1970 Jamestown Church. Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities,Virginia.A short history and description of the church.Scribner, Robert1957 Digging into Jamestown’s Past. Virginia Cavalcade 7(1): 40-47.Discussion of excavations at Jamestown with photos.1957 Jacquelin and Ambler. Virginia Cavalcade 7(1): 23-28.History of the Jaquelin-Ambler House and family with photos.Yonge, Samuel H.1907 The Site of Old “James Towne,” 1607-1698. Heritage Press, Richmond,Virginia.History and excavation with maps and photos.III. WilliamsburgAnonymous1982 Earlier Views of Williamsburg. Virginia Gazette, April 7.n.d.Views down Duke of Gloucester Street and England Street.Historical Williamsburg and Jamestown, Virginia, and the Restoration ofWilliamsburg Through the Munificence of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. H.D. Cole,Williambsurg, Virginia.Includes photos and short descriptions of Bruton Parish Church, WytheHouse, Saunders House, Raleigh Tavern, Henley-Servient House, GaltHouse, Travis House, Marshall House, Bassett Hall, Peyton RandolphHouse, Courthouse, Powder Magazine, and Jamestown Church.1976 Some Williamsburg Memoirs. Williamsburg Press, Williamsburg, Virginia.108

History of schools and photos, with views of downtown.The Architectural Record1930 Measured Drawings of Early American Architecture. Architectural Record67:597-790.Includes Martha Washington’s Kitchen and the Galt House.1935 The Restoration of Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia. Reprint from Decemberissue.History, architectural detail drawings, plans, measured drawings, BodelianPlate, Frenchman’s Map, landscaping, and sketch of Duke of GloucesterStreet.Austin, John C.1976 Bruton Parish Churchyard: A Guide with Map. Bruton Parish Church,Williamsburg, Virginia.Transcriptions of tombstones.Belvin, Edward1981 Growing Up in Williamsburg. The Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg, Virginia.History with map of town in 1920s and 30s. Includes photos and some informationon Matthew Whaley School, College of William and Mary, viewsdown streets.Byrd, Rawls1968 History of Public Schools in Williamsburg. Rawls Byrd, Virginia.History, photos and map.Colonial Williamsburg Foundation1971 Legacy from the Past; A Portfolio of Eighty-Eight Original WilliamsburgBuildings. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.n.d.Mainly a photo album with some historic information.Architectural research files on individual buildings.This is an incomplete list of buildings which have been researched by theColonial Williamsburg Foundation, since it is of standing structures whichhave either been preserved or restored.Humelsine, Carlisle1976 Fifty Years of Colonial Williamsburg. Antiques 110: 1267-1291.A pictorial history of Williamsburg since its restoration.Kocher, A. Lawrence, and Howard Dearstyne1976 Colonial Williamsburg: Its Buildings and Gardens. Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.109

History of Williamsburg with photos (before and after), plans, and drawingsof restored buildings and sources for the reproductions and restorations.Moorehead, Singleton Peabody1955 Tazewell Hall: A Report on Its Eighteenth Century Appearance. Journal of theSociety of Architectural Historians 14: 14-17.Description of condition, excavations and restoration with maps and elevations.Rose, Grace Norton1940 Williamsburg Today and Yesterday. G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York.Rouse, Parke, Jr.1973 Cows on the Campus. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.History with drawings.1982 Berkeley Built his Castle in 1650 in James City County. Daily Press, December12.History of Green Spring.1983 A House for a President: 250 Years on the Campus of the College ofWilliam and Mary. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.History and role of the President’s House.1984 Recalling Williamsburg after the 1800’s and before the Rockefellers. DailyPress, July 15.Short article mentioning the Colonial Inn, Bruton Parish Church, Mahone’sStore, Tarpley’s Store, Penniman Ammunition Plant, and the Powder Magazine.Stevens, Williams Oliver1938 Old Williamsburg and Her Neighbors. Dodd, Mead and Co., New York.Historical tour of Williamsburg and the surrounding area.Swem, Earl G.1928 Some Notes on the Four Forms of the Oldest Building of William and MaryCollege. William and Mary Quarterly 2(8): 217-307.Excerpts which relate to architectural information about the College: buildingaccounts, documents, sketches, plans, journal entries, elevations, drawings,and photos.1930 Supplementary Documents Giving Additional Information Concerning the FourForms of the Oldest Building of William and Mary College. William and MaryQuarterly 10(2nd series): 68-86.Documents for Brafferton Hall and the College of William and Mary.110

Tyler, Lyon G.1929 Historic Residences in Williamsburg. Tyler’s Quarterly Historical and GenealogicalMagazine 11: 73-84.The history and documents about the Tucker House, Blair House, andPeyton Randolph House.Waterman, Thomas Tileston1944 The Bruton Church of l683 and Two Contemporaries. Journal of the Societyof Architectural Historians 4(3/4): 43-46, 54.History of the Bruton Church with plans and photos, and comparison withJamestown Church.Whiffen, Marcus1958 The Public Buildings of Williamsburg, Colonial Capital of Virginia: AnArchitectural History. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg,Virginia.History of Williamsburg and the role of its public buildings with photos,plans, and drawings.1960 The Eighteenth-Century House of Williamsburg: A Study of ArchitecturalBuildings in the Colonial Capital. Colonial Williamsburg, Williamsburg,Virginia.Descriptive work with histories, condition reports, photos, and plans.The Williamsburg Garden Club1932 A Williamsburg Scrap Book. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.Vignettes and drawings of Williamsburg.IV. James City CountyAllyn, R. M.1937 Old Houses in James City County. William and Mary Quarterly 17(2ndseries): 528.Photographs.1938 Old Houses in James City and King William Counties. William and MaryQuarterly 18(2nd series): 387.Photographs.1938 Old Houses in James City, York, and Warwick Counties. William and MaryQuarterly 18(2nd series): 147.Photographs.111

Anonymous1929 Some Notes on Green Spring. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography37: 289-300.A map, plan drawing, and the Lee letters.Bowman, Jesse E.n.d. A History of James City and James River Baptist Churches. TrumpetPublishing, Williamsburg, Virginia.Carson, Jane1954 Green Spring Plantation in the Seventeenth Century. Manuscript on file, ResearchDepartment, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.Description of excavations and history of the house with photos, plans, drawings,etc.Dimmick, Jesse1929 Green Spring. William and Mary Quarterly 9(2nd series): 129-130.A history and plan of the excavation.Gaines, William Harris, Jr.1956 Green Springs: A Tale of Three Mansions. Virginia Cavalcade 6(4): 30-37.History of the site with drawings and photos taken during excavations.Gee, Madeline1976 Grove Festival, A Bicentennial Event, July 31, 1976. Manuscript on file,Williamsburg Public Library, Williamsburg, Virginia.History of Mount Gilead Baptist Church, Morning Star Baptist Church, andLittle Zion Baptist Church.Herman, Bernard L.1974 Architectural Survey of James City County, Virginia. Manuscript on file, VirginiaDivision of Historic Landmarks, Richmond.Moody, Mildred Taylor1976 History of Toano High School, 1908-1955. Manuscript on file, College ofWilliam and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.Reminiscences about Toano High School by past graduates.Noël Hume, Ivor1983 Discoveries at Martin’s Hundred. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,Williamsburg, Virginia.Discussion of excavations at Martin’s Hundred.Virginia Gazette1984 350th Anniversary of James City County. Supplement to regular edition. VirginiaGazette, August 22, 1984.112

Articles on Toano, historic houses, Jamestown, churches, Lightfoot, andNorge.1984 Williamsburg-James City County Public Schools. Supplement to regular edition.Virginia Gazette, November 14, 1984.A short history of the public schools with photos.V. York CountyAnonymousn.d. Kiskiacke. Manuscript on file, York County Public Library, York County,Virginia.History of Kiskiack.Campbell, Helen J.1961 Porto Bello, Bruton Parish, York County, Virginia. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 69: 460-468.A history of the building, photos, and a plan.Comte de Grasse Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution1981 The Yorktown Customhouse, 1720-1981. Manuscript on file, York CountyPublic Library, York County, Virginia.History, drawings, and recipes.Greene, Jerome1976 The Allies at Yorktown. Colonial National Historical Park, National ParkService, Washington, DC.History of battle and description of American defenses with maps.Hatch, Charles E.1941 The Moore House: A National Shrine. William and Mary Quarterly 21(2ndseries): 293-317.1969a1969b1969cHistory, restoration, photos, and location on “plan.”The Ballard House and Family. Colonial National Historical Park, NationalPark Service, Washington, DC.History of house with map, drawings, and photos.Dependencies (Outbuildings) of the Dudley Digges House. Colonial NationalHistorical Park, National Park Service, Yorktown, Virginia.History, drawings, and photos.The Edmund Smith House: A History. Colonial National Historical Park,National Park Service, Yorktown, Virginia.113

1969d1969e1970a1970b1970cHistory of house with maps, plan and photos.The Nelson House and the Nelsons. Colonial National Historical Park,National Park Service, Washington, DC.History of house with maps, plan and photos.The Thomas Pate House and Lot 42 in Yorktown. Colonial National HistoricalPark, National Park Service, Yorktown, Virginia.History, map, plan, photos and review of excavations.The Bellfield Estate. Colonial National Historical Park, National Park Service,Yorktown, Virginia.History, map, plan, photos, and review of excavations.Grace Church. Colonial National Historical Park, National Park Service,Washington, DC.History and photos of Grace Church.Ringfield Plantation. Colonial National Historical Park, National Park Service,Yorktown, Virginia.History, documents, photos, plans, and a map.1973 Colonial Yorktown’s Main Street (from Secretary Nelson’s to the Windmill)and Military Entrenchments Close in and Around the Town of York. NationalPark Service, Denver, Colorado.History, documents and photos of Main Street by lot.Holmes, Reverend1974 Shiloh Baptist Church. Manuscript on file, York County Public Library, YorkCounty, Virginia.Short history, photos of the building and the members.Ironmonger, Elizabeth1974 A History of Zion Methodist Church of Seaford, York County, Virginia.Manuscript on file, York County Public Library, York County, Virginia.History of the church.Kandle, Patricia L.1984 Comparative Research on the First and Second York Parish Church for thePurpose of Reconstruction. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology,College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.History of churches and excavations.114

Little, Reverend1932 History of Grafton Baptist Church. Manuscript on file, York County PublicLibrary, York County, Virginia.History of the church.Mason, George Carrington1945 York County Churches. In Colonial Churches of Tidewater, Virginia. Whittenand Shepperson, Virginia.History of Marston Church, Bruton Church, Cheescake Church, GraceChurch, Charles Church, and York Church.Massay, Alice C., George E. Massay, and James D. Massay1984 Pages from the Past: Grafton Christian Church, 150th Anniversary.Manuscript on file, York County Public Library, York County, Virginia.History, photos, map, newspaper clippings, etc., which relate to this church.Micou, Mary D.1908 The Colonial Churches of York County, Virginia. In Colonial Churches in theOriginial Colony of Virginia. Southern Churchman Publishing, Richmond,Virginia.History of Yorke Church and Grace Church.Morris, Eli, Jr.1983 Footprints: A History of York County Public School. Manuscript on file, YorkCounty Public Library, York County, Virginia.History, map of Penniman City, location, building type, and some photos.National Park Servicen.d. Reports on individual buildings (historical, archaeological, and architectural).Yorktown, Virginia.Included within the park are military earthworks, monuments, roadways,ruins and foundations.Oliver, Vicki Dale1973 Twenty-Five Years: History of the Yorktown Baptist Church. Manuscript on file,York County Public Library, York County, Virginia.History of the church.Peterson, Charles E.1935 The Physical History of the Moore House,1930-1934. Colonial NationalHistorical Park, National Park Service, Yorktown, Virginia.Extensive photos, description of house, and architectural detail drawings.115

Riley, Edward M.1942 The Colonial Court Houses of York County, Virginia. William and MaryQuarterly 22(2nd series): 399-414.Plans of the excavations of the courthouse and jail.Saunders, Robert L., Jr.1977 History of Grafton Baptist Church. Mark Enterprises, Virginia.History and some photos of the church.Smith, Elizabeth1973 Old Yorktown and Its History. Yorktown, Virginia.History and photos of Main Street.Snyder, Joe1973 History of Yorkminster Presbyterian Church. Manuscript on file, York CountyPublic Library, York County, Virginia.History of the church.Swem, Earl G.1946 View of Yorktown and Gloucester Town, 1755. Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography 54: 100-105.View of the river photocopied from two drawings and descriptions of buildings.Thompson, Erwin N.1976 British Defenses of Yorktown, 1781. Colonial National Historical Park,National Park Service, Washington, DC.History of the battle and description of the British defenses with maps.Trudell, Clyde F.1938 Report on the Restoration of the Lightfoot House. Manuscript on file,Yorktown, Virginia.1971 Colonial Yorktown. Viking Press, New York.White, Robert E.1950 History of Providence Methodist Church. Tidewater Printings, Hilton Village,Virginia.History of the church and two photos.1978 History of Providence United Methodist Church. Prestige Press, Virginia.History and photos of the church.116

Appendix 6.Bibliographic Essays on SecondaryHistorical LiteratureJeff Holland, Cassandra Newby, David T. Roberts, Alan D.Strange, Kathrine Walker, and J. Thomas Wren

APPENDIX 6.BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAYS ON SECONDARYHISTORICAL LITERATUREAvast amount of historical research on the Chesapeake, and the Tidewater area inparticular, has formed the basic context within which historic architectural propertiesand archaeological sites must be evaluated. To comprehensively deal with this literaturein the study unit narratives would have made them so long and unwieldy as to be almostuseless. It was felt, however, that some sort of bibliographic guide would be most worthwhile.These essays, kindly written by interns from the History Department of the College ofWilliam and Mary under the supervision of Dr. James Whittenburg, identify and describe muchof the periodical literature specifically associated with local cultural resources, along with someof the most important books and monographs on the subject. They have been left in theiroriginal formats; no attempt was made to standardize styles of citation or bibliographic form. Itshould be noted that the time periods and major themes differ slightly from those in the studyunit narratives in Volume I, but the focus and general outline is roughly analogous.119

120

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY:THE EARLY SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY CHESAPEAKEKathrine WalkerDepartment of History, College of William and MaryPeriodical literature concerning the seventeenth century Chesapeake is sparse, especiallywhen limited to the James City County area. Although in recent years there hasbeen a surge of interest in the founding of America, linked largely to the rise of the NewSocial History, historiographical/ bibliographical work remains difficult. Only the most basicand obvious of questions have been covered by a small number of historians. But perhaps agood place to start is with “A New Guide to the Indispensable Sources of Virginia History”(William and Mary Quarterly (WMQ) 1958) by Julian Boyd. The guide is a product of theColonial Records Project and is a valuable list of contemporary sources in Virginia history.The early voyages of discovery and the first settlement at Jamestown have been a continuoussubject of interest to historians. This interest includes seventeenth-century mapmakers/cartographers and the discoverers of the Chesapeake Bay and the founders of Jamestown.Collie Verner’s article “The First Maps of Virginia, 1590 to 1673” (Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography (VMHB) 1950) is the most complete listing of early maps besidesSwem’s. Work has also been done on the maps of Tindall, Smith, Raleigh, and Argall. Thework of Captain John Smith and the story of Smith and Pocahontas have drawn much attentionfrom scholars, the most prominent of these being Philip L. Barbour. Other Smith enthusiastsinclude Everett H. Emerson, Keith Glenn, William Randel, and George B. Raup. EdwinC. Rozwend’s “Captain John Smith’s Image of America” (WMQ 1959) and works by Raupand Jay B. Hubbell stress Smith’s role as a contemporary historian of seventeenth-centuryVirginia and bring up the issue of the veracity of Smith’s work. Other works on early explorationinclude Barbour’s “The Earliest Reconnaissance of the Chesapeake Bay Area” (WMQ1971), Martha Hiden’s “A Voyage of Fishing and Discovery” (VMHB 1957), David B. Quinn’s“Thomas Hariot and the Virginia Voyage of 1602” (WMQ 1970), and Louis Dow Scisco’s“Discovery of the Chesapeake Bay, 1525 to 1573” (Maryland Historical Magazine (MHM)1945). A work by Nicholas P. Canny, “The Ideology of English Colonization: From Ireland toAmerica” (WMQ 1973) discusses the English view of colonization and reaction towards conqueredpeoples.Indians and ethnography may be one of the most prominent issues of early Americanhistory. Works by Alden T. Vaughn, William S. Powell, Gary B. Nash, Wesley Frank Craven,W. Stitt Robinson, and Maurice A. Mook investigate geographic location and ethnology fromcontemporary sources and look at Anglo-Indian relations. Maurice Mook looks at geographicaland ethnological aspects of the Virginia Indians based on Tindall’s reconnaissance mapsand the Relations of Smith, Archer, Spellman, and Percy. In “The Anthropological Position ofthe Indian Tribes of Tidewater Virginia” (WMQ 1943), Mook also looks at some of the archaeologicalwork of T.D. Stewart. Randel and Keith look to Smith’s accounts as a contemporaryview of the Indians, differing greatly in their interpretations. Gary B. Nash’s “The Imageof the Indian in the Southern Colonial Mind” (WMQ 1972) investigates the two English121

views of the Indians - as a savage or a backwards human, settling on savage to rationalize thetaking of their lands.The Indian Massacre of 1622, the ensuing Indian War, and the development of EnglishIndian policy are recognizably important issues of early colonial history. Wesley F. Craven’s“Indian Policy in Early Virginia” (WMQ 1944) and W. Stitt Robinson’s work on the legalstatus of the Indians are excellent sources. William S. Powell deals specifically with the aftermathof the massacre, as does Alden T. Vaughn’s “Expulsion of the Savages” (WMQ 1978).This is one area where good secondary work has been done, leaving a base for further archaeologicalresearch.Work has also been done on the Virginia Company, especially on the lottery system.Robert C. Johnson has written about the valuable financial support provided by the lotterysystem in “The `Running Lotteries’ of the Virginia Company” (VMHB 1960) and “Lotteries ofthe Virginia Company” (VMHB 1966). Peter Walne has also written about the `Running Lottery.’Terence H. O’Brien’s article “The London Livery Companies and the Virginia Company”(VMHB 1960) discusses financial support provided by the London guilds. WesleyFrank Craven’s “The Dissolution of the Virginia Company for Virginia” (American HistoricalReview (AHR) 1931) investigates the commercial failure of the Virginia Company. Since theVirginia Company played such an important role in the settlement of Virginia, this is a relativelysmall amount of work, and there is room for further research.Perhaps most important to the subject of cultural resource management is the work doneon the early settlement of Virginia. Work on the location of the Indians has already beendiscussed. Surprisingly little has been done outside of archaeological reports on English settlement.A.W. Bohannon’s work “Jamestown Island and the Surry Side” (VMHB 1947) coversthe most ground. Henry Chandlee Forman deals with the suburbs of Jamestown in his article“The Bygone Subberbs of James Cittie” (WMQ 1940). There are a few articles on the surroundingplantations, including Louis R. Caywood’s on Green Spring. There is room in thisarea for published archaeological work, and a great need. In this area one must now resort tooriginal documents for information.The subject of production and manufacturing is better covered. In the late 1930s WorthBailey wrote articles on baking ovens, pewter, and lime preparation at Jamestown. CharlesE. Hatch’s “Mulberry Trees and Silkworms: Sericulture in Early Virginia” (VMHB 1957) isgood in its description of the English process of developing production in the colonies. Otherarticles have been written on milling, cattle-raising, and early Jamestown brickmaking. Tobaccohas been of primary interest as Virginia’s subsistence crop and because of its marketingproblems. Two early but good articles are L.C. Gray’s “The Market Surplus Problems ofColonial Tobacco” (WMQ 1927-1928) and Alfred Rive’s “A Brief History of the Regulationand Taxation of Tobacco in England” (WMQ 1929). Russ Menard’s “A Note on ChesapeakeTobacco Prices 1618 to 1660” (VMHB 1976) is an excellent summary of the tobacco marketsand production cycles.Two more general articles on early economics in Virginia are by Edmund S. Morgan.“The First American Boom, Virginia 1618 to 1630” (WMQ 1971) deals with the idea ofprivate enterprise and white servitude. “The Labor Problem at Jamestown, 1607 to 1618”(AHR 1971) discusses the labor shortage and apathy. One more important article is “Originsof the Southern Labor System” (WMQ 1950) by Oscar and Mary Handlin, which is aboutslavery in the seventeenth-century Chesapeake.122

Five articles deal with types of immigration to Virginia. Russell Menard’s “Immigration tothe Chesapeake Colonies in the Seventeenth Century” (MHM 1973) is a general article. “ServantEmigration to the Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century” (James Horn, in Thad W. Tateand David L. Ammerman, eds., The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays onAnglo-American Society and Politics (New York: W.W. Norton and Company), 1979)and “The `Spiriting’ of Children to Virginia, 1648 to 1685" (VMHB 1975) by Peter WilsonColdham both deal with immigration of “indentured” servants - whether legal or illegal. BothAbbot Emerson Smith and Charles Edgar Wilson dispel the myth that the early population ofVirginia was comprised largely of convicts. Edmund S. Morgan’s article “Headrights andHeadcounts” (VHMB 1972), a review of Craven’s Red, White and Black, uses headrights torecord migration as a phenomenon of finished terms for indentured servants.The issue of disease and environment and their effects on the population of early Virginiahas drawn an unusual amount of attention. Wyndham B. Blanton wrote “Epidemics, Real andImaginary, and Other Factors Influencing Virginia’s Population” (Bulletin of the History ofMedicine 1957). With renewed interest in social history more articles have been written,including Darrett and Anita Rutman’s “Of Agues and Fevers” (WMQ 1976) and Carville Earle’s“Environment, Disease and Mortality” (in Tate and Ammerman 1979). An interesting articlewhich equates apathy in early Jamestown to malnutrition is Karen Ordahl Kupperman’s “Apathyand Death in Early Jamestown” (Journal of American History (JAH) 1979).Demographic and social history has become very popular in recent years, and the studyof early Virginia has benefited from this. It is important to note that some earlier historians havedealt with demography - for example, Herbert Moller’s “Sex Composition and CorrelatedCulture Patterns of Colonial America” (WMQ 1945). A good source for demographic work inearly Virginia is Irene Hecht’s “The Virginia Muster of 1624-1625 As a Source for DemographicHistory” (WMQ 1973). Daniel Blake Smith’s “Mortality and the Family in the ColonialChesapeake” (Journal of Interdisciplinary History 1978) is useful because it links deathwith its societal aspects. “Death in the Chesapeake: Two Life Tables for Men in Early ColonialMaryland” (MHM 1974) is useful for the comparisons that can be drawn between the Upperand Lower Chesapeake.Several other articles are of interest to those studying early Virginia history. SigmundDiamond’s “From Organization to Society - Virginia in the Seventeenth Century” (AmericanJournal of Sociology 1957/58) and Lee A. Gladwin’s “Tobacco and Sex: Some FactorsAffecting Non-Marital Sexual Behavior in Colonial Virginia” (Journal of Social History 1978)discuss some societal aspects of early Virginia. Alden T. Vaughn deals with early black historyin his article “Blacks in Virginia: A Note on the First Decade” (WMQ 1972). MichaelG. Kammen’s “Virginia at the Close of the Seventeenth Century: An Appraisal by James Blairand John Locke” (VMHB 1966) is a commentary on John Locke’s 1697 essays of selfexaminationand seems an appropriate conclusion to the list.There is room for work in all areas of early Virginia history. The subjects of ethnographyand tobacco are better covered than most, and the New Social History is producing newdemographic work. But little work has been done on English settlement, a crucial area as faras cultural resource management is concerned.Several books may also be useful to the study of seventeenth-century Virginia: PhilipL. Barbour, The Three Worlds of Captain John Smith, Part II (Boston, 1964); WarrenK. Billings, ed., The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A Documentary Historyof Virginia, 1606 to 1689 (Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1975); Wesley Frank Craven, Red,123

White and Black (Charlottesville, 1971) and “The Southern Colonies in the SeventeenthCentury, 1607 to 1689” in History of the South (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1949); BenC. McCary, Indians in Seventeenth-Century Virginia (Williamsburg, 1957); JohnC. Rainbolt, From Prescription to Persuasion (Port Washington, New York, 1974); JohnW. Reps, Tidewater Towns: City Planning in Colonial Virginia and Maryland(Charlottesville, 1972); James Morton Smith, ed., Seventeenth-Century America: Essaysin Colonial History (Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1959); and Alden T. Vaughn, AmericanGenesis: Captain John Smith and the Founding of Virginia (Boston, 1975).BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PERIODICAL LITERATUREBailey, Worth, “A Jamestown Baking Oven of the Seventeenth Century,” WMQ 2nd s., 17(October 1937), 496-500.Bailey, Worth, “Lime Preparation at Jamestown in the Seventeenth Century,” WMQ 2nd s.,18 (January 1938), 1-12.Bailey, Worth, “Notes on the Use of Pewter in Virginia During the Seventeenth Century,”WMQ 2nd s., 18 (April 1938), 227-241.Barbour, Philip L., “Captain John Smith and the London Theatre, “VMHB 83 (July 1975),277-279.Barbour, Philip L., “The Earliest Reconnaissance of the Chesapeake Bay Area - Maps andVocabulary (I & II),” VMHB 79 (July 1971), 280-302.Barbour, Philip L., “A Possible Clue to Samuel Argall’s Pre-Jamestown Activities,” WMQ3rd s., 29 (April 1972), 301-306.Blanton, Wyndham B., “Epidemics, Real and Imaginary, and Other Factors InfluencingSeventeenth Century Virginia’s Population,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 31(1957), 454-462.Bohannon, A.W., “Jamestown Island and the `Surry Side’,” VMHB 55 (April 1947), 126-136.Boyd, Julian P., “A New Guide to the Indispensable Sources of Virginia History,” WMQ 3rds., 15 (1958), 3-13.Canny, Nicholas P., “The Ideology of English Colonization: From Ireland to America,”WMQ 3rd s., 30 (October 1973), 573-598.Caywood, Louis R., “Green Spring Plantation,” VMHB 65 (January 1957), 67-83.Clark, John B., “The Fire Problem in Colonial Virginia,” VMHB 57 (July 1949), 244-251.Coldham, Peter Wilson, “The `Spiriting’ of Children to Virginia, 1648 to 1685,” VMHB 83(July 1975), 280-287.Cook, Minnie G., “The Susan Constant and the Mayflower,” WMQ 2nd s., 17 (October1937), 469-480.Craven, Wesley Frank, “The Dissolution of the Virginia Company for Virginia,” AHR 37(October 1931), 14-24.Craven, Wesley Frank, “Indian Policy in Early Virginia,” WMQ 3rd s., 1 (1944), 65-82.Craven, Wesley Frank, “A New Edition of the Works of Captain John Smith,” WMQ 3rds., 29 (July 1972), 479-486.124

Davis, Richard Beale, “The First American Edition of Captain John Smith’s True Travelsand General History,” VMHB 48 (April 1939), 97-108.Diamond, Sigmund, “From Organization to Society, Virginia in the Seventeenth Century,”American Journal of Sociology, 63 (1957-1958), 457-475.Earle, Carville E., “Environment, Disease and Mortality in Early Virginia,” in Tate andAmmerman, eds., The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century, 1979, 96-125.Emerson, Everett H., “Captain John Smith as Editor: The General Histories,” VMHB 75(April 1967), 143-156.“Evidences Relating to Westover,” VMHB 47 (July 1939), 191-216.Forman, Henry Chandlee, “The Bygone `Subberbs of James Cittie’,” WMQ 2nd s., 20(October 1940), 475-486.Gilliam, Charles Edgar, “Jail Bird Immigrants to Virginia,” VMHB 52 (July 1944), 180-182.Gladwin, Lee A., “Tobacco and Sex: Some Factors Affecting Non-Marital Sexual Behaviorin Colonial Virginia,” Journal of Social History, 12 (Fall 1978), 57-75.Glenn, Keith, “Captain John Smith and the Indians,” VMHB 52 (October 1944), 228-248.Gray, L.C., “The Market Surplus Problems of Colonial Tobacco, Parts I & II,” WMQ 2nds., 7 (October 1927), 231-245 and 8 (January 1928), 1-16.Gregory, George C., “Jamestown — The First Brick Statehouse,” VMHB 43 (July 1935),139-199.Handlin, Oscar and Mary Handlin, “Origins of the Southern Labor System,” WMQ 3rd s., 7(1950), 199-222.Harrington, J.C., “Seventeenth Century Brickmaking and Tilemaking at Jamestown, Virginia,”VMHB 58 (January 1950), 16-40.Hatch, Charles E., Jr., “The Great Road,” VMHB 57 (January 1949), 14-21.Hatch, Charles E., Jr., “Mulberry Trees and Silkworms: Sericulture in Early Virginia,”VMHB 65 (January 1957), 3-61.Hecht, Irene W.D., “The Virginia Muster of 1624/25 as a Source for Demographic History,”WMQ 3rd s., 30 (January 1973), 65-92.Hiden, Martha Woodroof, “A Voyage of Fishing and Discovery, 1609,” VMHB 65 (January1957), 62-66.Horn, James, “Servant Emigration to the Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century,” in Tateand Ammerman, eds., The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century, 1979, 51-95.Hubbel, Jay B., “The Smith - Pocahontas Story in Literature,” VMHB 65 (July 1957), 275-300.Isaac, Erich, “Kent Island,” MHM 52 (July 1957) & 52 (September 1957), 210-232.Johnson, Robert C., “Lotteries of the Virginia Company 1512-1621,” VMHB 74 (July1966), 156-165.Johnson, Robert C., “The `Running Lotteries’ of the Virginia Company,” VMHB 58 (April1960), 156-165.Kammen, Michael G., ed., “Virginia at the Close of the Seventeenth Century: An Appraisalby James Blair and John Locke,” VMHB 74 (April 1966), 141-169.125

Kupperman, Karen Ordahl, “Apathy and Death in Early Jamestown,” JAH 66 (June 1979),24-40.Kupperman, Karen Ordahl, “The Puzzle of the American Climate in the Early ColonialPeriod,” AHR 87 (December 1982), 1262-1289.Laing, Wesley N., “Cattle in Seventeenth-Century Virginia,” VMHB 67 (1959), 143-163.Menard, Russell R., “Immigration to the Chesapeake Colonies in the Seventeenth Century,”MHM 68 (1973), 323-329.Menard, Russell R., “A Note on Chesapeake Tobacco Prices, 1618-1660,” VMHB 84(October 1976), 401-410.Mook, Maurice A., “The Anthropological Position of the Indian Tribes of the TidewaterVirginia,” WMQ 2nd s., 23 (January 1943), 27-40.Mook, Maurice A., “The Ethnological Significance of Tindall’s Map of Virginia, 1608,”WMQ 2nd s., 23 (October 1943), 371-408.Mook, Maurice A., “Virginia Ethnology from an Early Relation,” WMQ 2nd s., 23 (April1943), 101-129.Moller, Herbert, “Sex Composition and Correlated Culture Patterns of Colonial America,”WMQ 3rd s., 2 (1945), 113-153.Morgan, Edmund S., “The First American Boom, Virginia 1618-1630,” WMQ 3rd s., 28(April 1971), 169-198.Morgan, Edmund S., “Headrights and Headcounts,” VMHB 80 (July 1972), 361-371.Morgan, Edmund S., “The Labor Problem at Jamestown, 1607-1618,” AHR 76 (June1971), 595-611.Nash, Gary B., “The Image of the Indian in the Southern Colonial Mind,” WMQ 3rd s., 23(April 1972), 197-230.O’Brien, Terence H., “The London Livery Companies and the Virginia Company,” VMHB58 (April 1960), 137-155.Peterson, Arthur G., “Flour and Grist Milling in Virginia,” VMHB 43 (April 1935), 97-108.Powell, William S., “Aftermath of the Massacre: The First Indian War, 1622-1632,” VMHB66 (January 1958), 44-75.Powell, William S., “Books in the Virginia Colony Before 1624,” WMQ 3rd s., 5 (April1948), 177-189.Quinn, David B., “Advice for Investors in Virginia, Bermuda and New Foundland, 1611,”WMQ 3rd s., 23 (January 1966), 136-145.Quinn, David B., “Thomas Hariot and the Virginia Voyage of 1602,” WMQ 3rd s., 27(April 1970), 268-281.Randel, William, “Captain John Smith’s Attitudes Towards the Indians,” VMHB 47 (July1939), 218-229.Raup, George B., “Captain John Smith, Adventurer Extraordinary,” VMHB 61 (April1953), 186-192.Rive, Alfred, “A Brief History of the Regulations and Taxation of Tobacco in England,”WMQ 2nd s., 9 (April 1929), 73-87.126

Robinson, W. Stitt, Jr., “Tributary Indians in Colonial Virginia,” VMHB 67 (January 1959),49-64.Rozwend, Edwin C., “Captain John Smith’s Image of America,” WMQ 3rd s., 33 (1976),27-36.Rutman, Darrett, and Anita Rutman, “Of Agues and Fevers,” WMQ 3rd s., 33 (1976), 31-60.Scisco, Louis Dow, “Discovery of the Chesapeake Bay 1525-1573,” MHM 40 (December1945), 277-286.Scisco, Louis Dow, “Voyage of Vicente Gonzalez in 1588,” MHM 42 (June 1947), 95-100.Shirley, John W., “George Percy at Jamestown 1607-1612,” VMHB 57 (July 1949), 227-248.Skelton, R.A., “Raleigh as a Geographer,” VMHB 71 (April 1963), 131-149.Smith, Abbot Emerson, “The Transportation of Convicts to the American Colonies in theSeventeenth Century,” AHR 39 (January 1934), 232-249.Smith, Daniel Blake, “Mortality and the Family in the Colonial Chesapeake,” Journal ofInterdisciplinary History (Winter 1978), 403-428.Vaughn, Alden T., “Blacks in Virginia: A Note on the First Decade,” WMQ 3rd s., 29 (July1972), 469-478.Vaughn, Alden T., “Expulsion of the Savages,” WMQ 3rd s., 35 (January 1978), 57-84.Verner, Collie, “The First Maps of Virginia 1590-1673,” VMHB 58 (January 1950), 3-15.Walne, Peter, “The `Running Lottery’ of the Virginia Company in Reading in 1619 and inChester in 1616,” VMHB 70 (January 1962), 30-34.Walne, Peter, “The Great Seal Deputed of Virginia,” VMHB 66 (January 1958), 3-21.Walsh, Lorena S., and Russell R. Menard, “Death in the Chesapeake: Two Life Tables forMen in Early Colonial Maryland,” MHM 69 (Summer 1974), 211-227.127

128

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY:THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DISTINCTIVE ANGLO-VIRGINIAN LIFESTYLE IN RESPONSE TO THECONDITIONS OF THE CHESAPEAKE, 1630-1689J. Thomas WrenDepartment of History, College of William and MaryIntroductionIn Virginia history the period from the demise of the Virginia Company in 1624 until the endof the seventeenth century was a time of fundamental importance to the rise of key economic,political, and social institutions of the colony. The dynamics of these developmentshave incited great interest on the part of historians. Until relatively recently our understandingof this period has rested largely on works such as Thomas J. Wertenbaker’s study of thetobacco economy of seventeenth-century Virginia, and the relationship between tobacco cultivationand the social structure. Thad Tate provides a useful introduction to this and similarefforts in his bibliographic essay of works on the Chesapeake (in Tate and Ammerman 1979).In recent years a number of scholars have brought new approaches to the questions posed byWertenbaker. Using new, chiefly quantitative, approaches to the sources, this new “Chesapeakeschool” has focused on the role of the tobacco economy and its impact on economicopportunity and social structure. These scholars have also advanced to the analysis of demographictrends in Chesapeake society and their concomitant impact upon family life and socialstability (Tate 1979; Kulikoff 1979). While the focus has been on narrow topics, there havealso been a few attempts at synthesis (Morgan 1975; Kulikoff 1979).This essay will provide a brief review of the current literature addressing the creation ofan Anglo-Virginian lifestyle in the Chesapeake, together with some suggestions for furtherresearch.Achievement of Domination over the IndiansWithout question one of the most important developments of the seventeenth century was theelimination of the Indian as a threat to the establishment of an Anglo-Virginian society. Adequatescholarly treatment of an event of this magnitude is surprisingly thin. Edmund Morganprovides perhaps the best description of the demise of the Indians in Virginia as part of hislarger study of the impact of the development of the labor system of Virginia society. WesleyFrank Craven and Gary Nash also provide summaries (Morgan 1975; Craven 1971; Nash1974). While these provide a good overview, there is a need for more detailed description andanalysis of Indian-white relations in seventeenth-century Virginia.A beginning has been made in some areas which might provide an agenda for furtherresearch. For example, Morgan and Bernard Sheehan have pioneered an ideational approachto intercultural contact, focusing especially on the impact of the Europeans’ “cultural baggage”on their perceptions and expectations of the Indians (Morgan 1975; Sheehan 1980). A broaderand more useful approach has been that of some “ethnohistorians” who attempt to see the129

conflict between societies in culturally relative terms (Lurie 1959; Craven 197l). It is perhapshere that the greatest opportunity for research lies. There is a pressing need to understand theframe of reference of the Indian as well as that of the white settler within the context of specificpoints of cultural contact. There have also been some “spin-off” types of analyses, such asW. Stitt Robinson’s study of the status of Indians within the colonial legal system (Robinson1953). The field is open for endeavors of this sort as well.Pierre Marambaud’s treatment of the letters of William Byrd I reveals that, contrary topopular wisdom, there were numerous instances of trouble with the Indians, especially alongthe Fall Line, as late as the 1690s (Marambaud 1974). This suggests one further, culminatingpossibility for research; there is a need to establish when and to what extent Indians becameassimilated into— or obliterated by— the white world.Development of a Staple Crop Agricultural SystemSince the time of Wertenbaker there has been a recognition of the central role tobacco hasplayed in the Chesapeake economy and its society. Recent scholarship has built upon thisfoundation. Indeed the operation of the Atlantic economy stands at the center of the newChesapeake history (Kulikoff 1979). A hallmark of the new Chesapeake school has been afocus on the “staple thesis,” that is, the proposition that the production of a staple crop such astobacco largely determines the nature and structure of society. The importance of tobacco ispervasive in the literature concerning all aspects of Chesapeake society; it necessarily forms apart of the discussion of subsequent topical sections of this essay.Some excellent work on the rise of the tobacco staple has been recently published. Twobook-length studies of the emergence and implications of a staple crop economy head the field(Earle 1975; Main 1982), while Edmund Morgan’s work of synthesis is based on the assumptionthat the production of tobacco essentially explains Virginia’s social history (such as thesocial organization of production and the social relations between groups producing tobacco)(Morgan 1975; see also Kulikoff 1979). There have also been numerous narrower pieces ofscholarly analysis in the periodical literature.One of the areas of analysis has focused on the “boom and bust” cycles of the Chesapeaketobacco economy and their implications. Morgan described the general trends in tobaccoprices in the seventeenth century. Despite short-term variations, after an initial boomlasting until near 1630, there was a gradual decline in prices culminating in a severe depressionat the end of the century. Russell Menard expanded this analysis as he traced a general periodof economic growth from the 1620s to the 1680s, followed by a period of stagnation (and,ultimately, further growth in the eighteenth century). Menard ties economic development totobacco prices, but his approach is sophisticated enough to account for the impact of increasedproductivity even in the face of long-term declines in tobacco prices (Morgan 1975;Menard 1976). This analysis went generally unchanged until the autumn of 1984 when CharlesWeatherell questioned both the reality of cyclical price behavior and the relationship betweentobacco prices and production (Weatherell 1984). The intriguing controversy thus initiatedsuggests that there is room for more scholarly insight into the economic aspects of the tobaccotrade.A related set of studies undertakes to analyze the mechanics of the international trade intobacco together with its internal marketing system (Gray 1927, 1928a, 1928b; Rive 1929;Coulter 1945; Middleton 1945). While there has been significant scholarship into these topics130

as they relate to the eighteenth century, there is an opportunity for further research into suchareas as the beginnings of the tobacco consignment system in the seventeenth century and itsimpact on the social relations within the Virginia colony.More important than market economics are the social implications of the Virginians’commitment to tobacco. The Chesapeake school of scholars maintains that the region’s socialdevelopment was closely linked to the production of tobacco (more detailed analyses of theensuing discussion can be found under subsequent topical headings, infra). According tothese scholars the production of tobacco dominated virtually every sphere of society. Thiseconomic system shaped settlement patterns (Earle 1975; Kelly 1979), the style of life (Morgan1975), and the system of labor (Wertenbaker 1922; Morgan 1975; Land 1969; Menard1977). It also determined the degree of economic opportunity available and thereby wasfundamental to the evolution of the Chesapeake social structure and political stability (Morgan1975; Kulikoff 1979; Rainbolt 1970; Bailyn 1959).The emphasis on tobacco should not detract from a parallel development in Virginiaagriculture that would come to have important consequences in the eighteenth century. Partlyas a result of a depression in the tobacco industry after 1680, there was a move in some areasto a more diversified agriculture, based chiefly on grain (Kulikoff 1979; Gill 1978). While thisdevelopment has been studied in its eighteenth-century context, very little substantive workhas been completed concerning its seventeenth-century origins.In sum, there has been much excellent work done in the area of the development oftobacco as a staple crop in seventeenth-century Virginia. However, one of the weaknesses ofthe “staple thesis” may be that it is too unidimensional— that there may have been powerfulforces other than tobacco in the seventeenth-century Chesapeake that may partially accountfor the dynamics of social development. For example, Kulikoff in his attempt at synthesissuggests that religion may be underrated as a developmental influence (Kulikoff 1979). Part ofthe reason for the narrow focus of the Chesapeake school may be a bias inherent in thesources used by these historians. Focusing on quantifiable records such as tax lists, parishregisters and estate inventories, these scholars may slight (or find unobtainable) the sourceswhich would tend to provide a more balanced view. Any new scholarship in this field should beundertaken with an eye toward the possibility of utilizing a broader frame of reference.The Stabilization and Maturation of a Native WhitePopulationOne of the achievements of the seventeenth century was the establishment of a stable socialorder in Virginia. But this stability came neither quickly nor easily. There had been efforts,particularly during the rule of the Virginia Company, to establish a hierarchical society modeledon that of England. This failed miserably, partly because of a lack of sufficient gentry to createa hierarchical leadership, but mostly due to the impact of the production of tobacco. Theestablishment of a tobacco economy made the possibility of a hierarchically-controlled societydisappear, and in its place came instability and disarray (Kulikoff 1979). Edmund Morgan inan article (and subsequently in his book-length treatment of seventeenth-century Virginia) providesthe classic description of the decades after the introduction of tobacco. The “boom” intobacco yielded a boom-town psychology. Everything was geared to tobacco production,and the goal was to “get rich quick,” and then to spend the proceeds on alcohol and otherboom-town diversions. There was no concept of Virginia as a place to settle and live; it was a131

place to make a quick buck, and then to return to England (Morgan 1971, 1975). Scholarshave noted that the passion for planting tobacco affected all aspects of society, from the typeof housing (Morgan 1975), to the nature of immigration (Menard 1973; Morgan 1971), to thetreatment of labor (Morgan 1975). Traditional societal restraints were lacking (Kulikoff 1979).Most important, leadership in the colony fell to a group of men notable chiefly for their abilityto survive and turn a profit. These were ruthless men looking for the main chance and whosought not a stable community life but opportunities for continued profiteering (Morgan 1971,1976; Bailyn 1959; Rainbolt 1970; Thorton 1968).If the instability created by the tobacco boom were not enough, added to that must bethe demographics of the early Chesapeake. Some of the best of recent scholarship has beendone in this area. In looking to the demographic patterns of the Chesapeake, scholars havecompleted sophisticated quantitative analyses in a number of distinct areas. One of these hasbeen with respect to the nature of white immigration to the area. It has been generally acceptedthat the nature of immigration in the early years was dominated by unmarried white malesimported as indentured servants. Within this consensus, however, there has been room forconsiderable debate. James Horn has disputed the notion that these immigrants were the“dregs of society,” and instead posited that they sprang from the English middling classes(Horn 1979). There has also been a debate over when the great majority of immigrants arrived.Morgan has held the traditional view that the high tide of immigration occurred in the firsthalf of the century, while Craven and Menard suggest it may have been as late as the thirdquarter of the century (Craven 1971; Morgan 1971; Menard 1973; Kulikoff 1979). Clearlythere is room for further work on this subject.More important for the social stability and structure of society was the high level ofmortality in the Chesapeake, especially during the first half of the seventeenth century. TheChesapeake school of historians have traced the nature of this experience. Young males dominatedthe immigration to the Chesapeake during this period. The heavy mortality sustained bynew arrivals and continuing immigration culminated in what Gloria Main called a populationwith “bizarre” characteristics: foreign born, heavily male, and concentrated in the 16-40 agegroup. The combination of high mortality and few females led to a low birth rate and a failureto achieve population growth through natural reproduction (Main 1977; Walsh and Menard1974; Smith 1978; Kulikoff 1979). Eventually improved life expectancies, more balanced sexratios and earlier marriage permitted natural population increases and a more stable society(although the Rutmans found that in Middlesex County, at least, this was not a linear progression)(Smith 1978; Kulikoff 1979; Rutman and Rutman 1980). There has been some debateover the causes of the high mortality. The Rutmans attribute it to a high incidence of malaria,which weakened resistance to other, more lethal, diseases, while Carville Earle suggests that,in some instances at least, it may have resulted from contaminated drinking water (Rutman andRutman 1976; Earle 1979).While much good work has been done on the statistical aspect of Chesapeake demography,the pride of the Chesapeake school is its application of those dry figures to the realitiesof life in seventeenth-century Virginia and Maryland. The works of Lois Carr, Lorena Walsh,Darrett and Anita Rutman, and Daniel Blake Smith have revealed that the demographic experienceof the Chesapeake hindered the development of family units. The sexual imbalance andpoor economic status of the population retarded marriage. Early death made for short marriagesand small families. Orphans were the norm. With frequent remarriages, householdswere complex, and extended kinship ties were a necessary part of the system. Little in the way132

of family wealth could be accumulated to pass on to a new generation. On the other hand,many marriages were freed of traditional parental supervision, and the likelihood that a womanwould outlive several husbands gave her an expanded role in the family and an enlarged economicstake in society (Carr and Walsh 1977; Walsh 1979; Rutman and Rutman 1979; Smith1978; Morgan 1975). In sum, it is clear that the strength of the recent scholarship on theseventeenth-century Chesapeake is centered in this area. The sources lend themselves well tothis type of analysis, and the scholars working this lode have created an impressive body ofmaterial.Despite the seemingly chaotic and unstable nature of Virginia society in the mid-seventeenthcentury, there were forces of change leading to a more stable social order. As we haveseen, this was grounded at least in part in the gradual development of a native-born populationwhich lived longer, married earlier, and bore more children. Thus a more family-oriented existencebegan to appear (Carr and Walsh 1977; Rutman and Rutman 1980). Moreover, tobaccoproduction continued to provide opportunities for the settler. Though men could nolonger make great fortunes in tobacco, most could improve their condition and live comfortablyas a landowner (Kulikoff 1979). Now, settlers had more of an opportunity to achieve acontinuity in family life, form cohesive social groups, accumulate wealth, and establish morestable political institutions (Walsh and Menard 1974).The scholarship on the dynamics of the stabilization process is only beginning, and thereis ample opportunity for further contributions. Morgan has noted that after the booms (andabuses) of earlier decades, by mid-century Virginians were working toward establishing aliveable society. Perceiving Virginia now as a home, they sought to re-create English institutionsin their counties, county courts, and vestries. Moreover, they attempted to maintain asense of community (Morgan 1975). While Morgan has delineated the outline of events, muchof the portrait remains to be painted. Perhaps most attention has been paid to the formation ofthe county court system, which in turn altered the nature and functioning of the Assembly andlaid the basis for the emergence of a local elite (Billings 1974; Morgan 1975). Several studiesof a more narrow focus have suggested that the Virginia legal system both imitated and divergedfrom its English predecessor (Billings 1981; Bowler 1977; Seiler 1949; Rankin 1964).One English institution that was not introduced on any large scale in the seventeenth centurywas the town. This failure has generated a spate of literature on the subject (Carr 1974; Earleand Hoffman 1976; Riley 1950; Rainbolt 1950). These studies, by their very narrowness,suggest the scope of further work that needs to be done with respect to the middle decades ofthe seventeenth century.One important issue which has sparked investigation and debate, but which remainsunresolved, is the question of the status of the small planter in the years after 1650. One of thecontinuing problems with this analysis for all scholars has been the bias in the sources used.Probate records and the like draw from a sharply restricted section of society, and conclusionsto be derived therefrom must be adjusted accordingly. Most scholars are meticulous in thisrespect. Morgan saw the continuing fall in tobacco prices and posited a relative decline in thestatus of new freedman together with an increase in their sense of frustration and alienation.Studies by Carr, Menard, Harris and Walsh seem to place the decline at a later date (theChesapeake remained “a good poor man’s country”) and suggested that any dissatisfactionwas expressed not by aggression but by immigration (Morgan 1976; Carr and Menard 1979;Menard, Harris and Carr 1974; Menard, Carr and Walsh 1983). The resolution of this debate,particularly in view of the discussion concerning Bacon’s Rebellion (infra), is of signifi-133

cant consequence. Regardless, it is generally agreed that by the 1680s (at the latest), tobaccoproduction was down (as was new settlement) and prospects for the lower classes significantlydeclined (Kulikoff 1979).Any discussion of the stabilization of Virginia society must come to grips with the fact thata full-scale civil war erupted in the eighth decade of the seventeenth century. The story ofBacon’s Rebellion has been a recurrent theme for historians, but in many ways the definitiveanalysis of this crisis remains to be written. One of the earlier interpretations is Wertenbaker’scharacterization of Bacon as a leader of a popular uprising. In this view the common peoplesought to end the harsh rule of Governor Berkeley and establish democratic reforms. Thisposition has recently been restated by Webb. In reaction to Wertenbaker, Washburn portraysBerkeley as a benevolent leader seeking to restore order and accomplish reform. Washburncontends that the rebellion was due to Indian troubles and to frontier trouble-makers likeBacon. Morgan takes the argument to another plane of sophistication. He contends that economichard times and elite mismanagement did create a sense of malaise and unrest, but thatthis never crystallized in any formal way. Indian troubles were probably the catalyst of theuprising. Perhaps the best explanation is provided by Bailyn, who suggested that Bacon’sRebellion began as an unauthorized frontier war against Indians, and ended as an upheaval thatthreatened the entire basis of social and political authority. The transformation was due toresentment of elite behavior at two levels— the county elite upset at the perogatives of theprovincial elite, and ordinary settlers upset at the abuses of the county elite. While the Bailyn-Morgan approach has come to dominate the field, it has its detractors. Carr and Menardquestion Morgan’s reliance on a group of restless and destructive poor freedmen. Their researchesreveal that most of the poor, when faced with disappearing opportunities, did notremain in the area and vent their rage against the social order, but left the region in search ofprospects elsewhere. And Billings attacks Bailyn, stating that what was really occurring was acomplicated series of factional fights within localities, where power really lay. Rainbolt rejectsBailyn on a different ground— that the rebellion was not over a redistribution of power, butbecause of a feeling that leadership should be more open and that it should attempt to persuadethe lower planters rather than dictate to them. The discussion need go no further toreveal that the true causes and meaning of Bacon’s Rebellion are still open to question, andthat there remains an opportunity to make a significant scholarly contribution in this area(Wertenbaker 1922; Washburn 1957; Webb 1983; Morgan 1976; Bailyn 1959; Carr andMenard 1979; Billings 1970; Rainbolt 1970).Given the fact of civil war in 1676, it would be safe to assume that Virginia society hadnot yet reached total stability by that time. Yet it is generally agreed that within the next fortyyears such a stabilization did appear. Scholars put forward two related hypotheses to explainthe happenings of the last decades of the seventeenth century: the social consequences of thelarge-scale introduction of slavery, and the establishment of a “creole elite” which succeededin earning the respect of all levels of society. These developments are encompassed in the nexttwo sections of this essay.The Establishment of a Political ElitePart of the explanation for the emergence of a political elite at the end of the century is basedsimply on the changing demography of the Chesapeake. The high levels of mortality earlier inthe century worked to keep the social order fluid. Social position and political power were134

arely inherited, and prominence went to those strong enough to succeed. As a major consequenceof improved health in the later decades, first- and second-generation “creole” Virginiansbegan to replace the English-born in positions of political authority. Gloria Main providesa plausible explanation for this development of a “creole elite.” According to her, native-bornresidents were thrice-blessed. They gained independence at an earlier age than their predecessors,they tended to live longer, and since the sex ratio was naturally balanced betweenthem, marriages were more easily come by. Thus proportionately more men were able to livelonger. Native-born fathers ere better able to help their sons to make a start in life, thusperpetuating the gains of one generation in the income potential of another (Main 1977).At this time there were also economic forces at work which led toward gentry dominanceof the society. The closing years of the century were ones of economic stagnation, andonly the larger planter could weather the storm and actually increase his holdings. This was duenot only to his larger scale of production, but also due to his greater access to credit, his“occupational versatility” (he was also involved in mercantile and financial activities), and hisability to continue to acquire unfree labor (now, slaves) (Main 1977; Gray 1927, 1928a,1928b).The key development in this period was not so much the rise in the inequality of wealth inthe Chesapeake, but rather the fact that this new elite came to be accepted as legitimate by alllevels of society and were thus able to consolidate and perpetuate their status. Bernard Bailynhas given the classic articulation of this process of achieving legitimacy. As Morgan shows,part of this process involved an increased attention to securing and maintaining the goodwill ofthe smaller planters who made up the bulk of the population (Bailyn 1959; Rainbolt 1970;Morgan 1975). David Jordan describes the result in his analysis of Maryland society. There,by 1700 accessibility to high office depended increasingly upon one’s family name and connectionsas well as upon high economic status. These families further concentrated their powerthrough extensive intermarriage. In the eighteenth century, these “first families” in both colonieswould dominate provincial affairs in the “golden age” of deferential politics (Jordon 1969;Morgan 1976; Bailyn 1959). There were further implications which would resound into theeighteenth century. According to Carol Shammas, these creole elite had a self-consciousnessof their provincial status. In response the native leaders attacked the English way of life (espousingthe virtues of simplicity) and set about building colonial institutions which would beless dependent on the mother country (Shammas 1979).The Development of the Institution of SlaveryThe rise of slavery in seventeenth-century Virginia was a development of fundamental importance,and it has accordingly received considerable attention from historians. Undoubtedly thebest overall treatment of the subject is Morgan’s classic American Slavery, American Freedom(1975). He notes that the boom in tobacco placed labor at a premium, and with abundantland, the only way to acquire the necessary labor was to import unfree labor. At first thiswas usually white indentured servants, who were exploited mercilessly. Near the end of thecentury there was a turn to black slave labor, with momentous consequences. While the economicnature of the labor supply was essentially unchanged (unfree labor), the social consequenceswere of surpassing importance. According to Morgan, the turn to slavery solved theproblem of the rebellious lower classes. No longer would there be a continual influx of newfreedmen to compete for scarce resources. More important, the small planter began to ac-135

quire social, psychological and political advantages as a result of the development of a newlower caste. Now all whites, small and large planter alike, began to identify with one another.Thus this move to slavery helped to stabilize Virginia society. It also, according to Morgan,gave the elite the luxury of espousing rhetoric about “freedom” which became an integral partof the coming of the American Revolution (Morgan 1975; Menard 1977).Morgan’s interpretation has been generally unchallenged, but the above summary masksseveral important issues around which scholarly debate still rages. One of these is the timingand dynamics of the rise of racism in early Virginia. Craven assumes that racism was a necessaryprecondition to slavery (as does Degler), while the Handlins suggest that slavery hadevolved slowly and the slavery came before racism. Winthrop Jordon takes a middle road,holding that they developed simultaneously (see Tate 1979). For his part, Morgan notes that inthe early going in Virginia, blacks could be either salves, servants or free, but that there was noevidence of racism; all poor were despised, and blacks were not singled out for special treatment.This changed during the course of the seventeenth century. Morgan posits that racismwas consciously fostered by the white elite to create class consciousness (Morgan 1975). Thisdoes not appear to be the only, or even the best, interpretation, and there is continued opportunityfor scholarly work in this area.Another issue that has sparked controversy has been the debate over the timing andimpetus for the shift to slaves as the major source of forced labor. Although the precise timingof the switch is the subject of discussion, it is generally accepted that until the last decades ofthe century (chiefly after 1690) blacks came to be the dominant part of the colonial laborforce. Once begun, the transformation of Virginia’s labor force (in the older, settled counties atleast) proceeded fairly rapidly (Menard 1976; Kulikoff 1977; Main 1977). A larger issue hasbeen the impetus for this switch. Morgan seemed to suggest that the move to slaves beganwhen lengthening life expectancies made the investment in expensive slaves more attractivethan in short-term white labor. Menard subsequently turned this on its head, suggesting (ratherconvincingly) that planters turned to slaves in the first instance chiefly because the supply of thepreferred white servants dried up. The Rutmans’ study of Middlesex county tends to reinforceMenard, as do some primary sources (letters of William Byrd I) collected by Pierre Marambaud(Morgan 1975; Menard 1977; Rutman and Rutman 1980; Marambaud 1974).Perhaps the most significant issue in the rise of slavery in the seventeenth century has onlyjust begun to be addressed, and the field is open for further contributions. That is the questionof the nature and quality of slave life itself. The leaders in this area have been Allen Kulikoff andRussell Menard. Ironically, they have found that even as racism was on the rise in Virginiasociety, slave life was nevertheless improving due to the increasing number of native-bornblacks who were able to begin to form their own communities and culture (Kulikoff 1978;Menard 1976). It is to be hoped that more scholars will enter this field.ConclusionThe history of seventeenth-century Virginia is rich in opportunities for scholarly endeavor. Thisessay has attempted to suggest a few of them. There is also need, however, for another look atthe larger picture— a need for synthesis. The best to date has undoubtedly been EdmundMorgan’s American Slavery, American Freedom. Allen Kulikoff has also made an attempt(1979). But both have weaknesses, and later scholarship has called into question some of theirconclusions. It remains for a future historian to write the definitive history of the Chesapeake.136

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PERIODICAL LITERATUREBailey, Worth1938 “Notes on the Use of Pewter in Virginia During the Seventeenth Century,”William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd series, 18 (April), 227-241.Berry, Thomas1977 “Poverty and the Social Order in Seventeenth-Century Virginia,” VirginiaMagazine of History & Biography, 85 (April), 141-154.Billings, Warren M.1970 “The Causes of Bacon’s Rebellion: Some Suggestions,” Virginia Magazine ofHistory & Biography, 78 (October), 409-435.1974 “The Growth of Political Institutions in Virginia, 1634-1676,” William andMary Quarterly, 3rd series, 31 (April), 225-242.1981 Pleading, Procedure, and Practice: The Meaning of Due Process of Law inSeventeenth-Century Virginia,” Journal of Southern History, 47 (November),569-584.Bohannon, A. W.1947 “Jamestown Island and the `Surry Side’,” Virginia Magazine of History &Biography, 55 (April), 126-136.Breen, T. H.1977 “Horses and Gentlemen: The Cultural Significance of Gambling Among theGentry of Virginia,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 34 (April), 239-257.Brewer, James H.1955 “Negro Property Owners in Seventeenth-Century Virginia,” William and MaryQuarterly, 2nd series, 12 (October), 575-580.Carr, Lois Green, and Lorena S. Walsh1977 “The Planter’s Wife: The Experience of White Women in Seventeenth CenturyMaryland,” Williams and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 34 (October1977),542-571.Clark, John B.1949 “The First Problem in Colonial Virginia,” Virginia Magazine of History &Biography, 57 (July), 244-251.Coldham, Peter Wilson1975 “The `Spiriting’ of London Children to Virginia, 1648-1685,” Virginia Magazineof History & Biography, 83 (July), 280-287.Coulter, Calvin B.1945 “The Import Trade of Colonial Virginia,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rdseries, 2 (July), 296-314.137

Craven, Wesley Frank1971 “The Dissolution of the Virginia Company for Virginia,” American HistoricalReview, 37 (October), 14-24.Forman, Henry Chandlee1940 “The Bygone `Subberbs of James Cittie’,” William and Mary Quarterly, 2ndseries, 20 (October), 475-486.Gladwin, Lee A.1978 “Tobacco and Sex: Some Factors Affecting Non-Marital Sexual Behavior inColonial Virginia,” Journal of Social History, 12 (Fall), 57-75.Gray, L. C.1927 “The Market Surplus Problems of Colonial Tobacco, Part I,” William andMary Quarterly, 2nd series, 7 (October), 231-245.1928a“The Market Surplus Problems of Colonial Tobacco, Part II,” William andMary Quarterly, 2nd series, 8 (January), 1-16.1928b “The Market Surplus Problems of Colonial Tobacco,” Agricultural History, 2(January), 1-34.Gregory, George C.1935 “Jamestown—The First Brick Statehouse,” Virginia Magazine of History &Biography, 43 (July), 193-199.Harrington, J. C.1950 “Seventeenth-Century Brickmaking and Tilemaking at Jamestown, Virginia,”Virginia Magazine of History & Biography, 58 (January), 16-40.Hatch, Charles E. Jr.1949 “The Great Road: Earliest Highways Used and Developed by the English atJamestown,: Virginia Magazine of History & Biography, 57 (January), 14-21.Hilldrup, Robert Leroy1959 “A Campaign to Promote the Prosperity of Colonial Virginia,” Virginia Magazineof History & Biography, 67 (October), 410-428.Jordan, Weymouth T.1969 “Some Problems of Colonial Tobacco Planters: A Critique,” AgriculturalHistory, 43 (January), 87-90.Kupperman, Karen Ordahl1982 “The Puzzle of the American Climate in the Early Colonial Period,” AmericanHistorical Review, 87 (December), 1262-1289.Land, Aubrey C.1969 “The Tobacco Staple and the Planters’ Problems: Technology, Labor andCrops,” Agricultural History, 43 (January), 69-82.138

Main, Gloria L.1977 “Inequality in Early America: The Evidence from Probate Records of Massachusettsand Maryland,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 8 (Spring),559-582.Marambaud, Pierre1974 “Colonel William Byrd I: A Fortune Founded on Smoke,” Virginia Magazineof History & Biography, 82 (October), 430-457.Menard, Russell R.1976 “A Note on Chesapeake Tobacco Prices, l6l8-l660,” Virginia Magazine ofHistory & Biography, 84 (October), 401-410.Menard, Russell R., Lois Green Carr, and Lorena S. Walsh1983 “A Small Planter’s Profits: The Cole Estate and the Growth of the Early ChesapeakeEconomy,” William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd series, 40 (April), 171-196.Menard, Russell R., Peter Michael Harris, and Lois Green Carr1974 “Opportunity and Inequality: The Distribution of Wealth on the Lower WesternShore of Maryland, l635-l705,” Maryland Historical Magazine, 69 (Summer),l69-184.Middleton, Arthur Pierce1946 “The Chesapeake Convoy System, 1662-1763,” William and Mary Quarterly,2nd series, 3 (April), 182-207.Morgan, Edmund S.1971 “The First American Boom: Virginia 1618 to 1630,” William and Mary Quarterly,2nd series, 28 (April), 169-198.1972 “Headrights and Headcounts: A Review Article of Wesley Frank Craven’sWhite, Red, and Black: The Seventeenth-Century Virginian,” Virginia Magazineof History & Biography, 80 (July), 361-371.Rainbolt, John C.1969 “The Absence of Towns in Seventeenth-Century Virginia,” Journal of SouthernHistory, 35 (August), 343-360.1970 “The Alteration in the Relationship Between Leadership and Constituents inVirginia, 1660 to 1720,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 27 (July),411-434.1971 “The Case of the Poor Planters in Virginia Under the Law for Inspecting andBurning Tobacco,” Virginia Magazine of History & Biography, 79 (July),314-321.Rankin, Hugh F.1964 “Criminal Trial Proceedings in the General Court of Colonial Virginia,” VirginiaMagazine of History & Biography, 72 (January), 50-74.139

Riley, Edward M.1950 “The Town Acts of Colonial Virginia,” Journal of Southern History, 16(August), 306-323.Rive, Alfred1929 “A Brief History of the Regulation and Taxation of Tobacco in England,”William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd series, 9 (April), 73-87.Robinson, W. Stitt, Jr.1953 “The Legal Status of the Indian in Colonial Virginia,” Virginia Magazine ofHistory & Biography, 61 (July), 247-259.1959 “Tributary Indians in Colonial Virginia,” Virginia Magazine of History &Biography, 67 (January), 49-64.Rutman, Darrett B., and Anita H. Rutman1976 “Of Agues and Fevers: Malaria in Early Chesapeake,” William and MaryQuarterly, 3rd series, 33 (January), 31-60.1980 “`More True and Perfect Lists’: The Reconstruction of Censuses for MiddlesexCounty, Virginia, 1668-1704,” Virginia Magazine of History & Biography,88 (January), 37-74.Seiler, William H.1949 “Land Processioning in Colonial Virginia,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rdseries, 6 (July), 416-456.Smith, Abbot Emerson1934 “The Transportation of Convicts to the American Colonies in the SeventeenthCentury,” American Historical Review, 39 (January), 232-249.Smith, Daniel Blake1978 “Mortality and Family in the Colonial Chesapeake,” Journal of InterdisciplinaryHistory, (Winter), 403-428.Thornton, J. Mills III1968 “The Thrusting Out of Governor Harvey: A Seventeenth Century Rebellion,”Virginia Magazine of History & Biography, 76 (January), 11-26.Walsh, Lorena S., and Russell R. Menard1974 “Death in the Chesapeake: Two Life Tables for Men in Early Colonial Maryland,”Maryland Historical Magazine, 69 (Summer), 211-227.Weatherell, Charles1984 “`Boom and Bust’ in the Colonial Chesapeake Economy,” Journal of InterdisciplinaryHistory, 15 (Autumn), 185-210.Williams, A. R.1971 “The Gloucestershire Tobacco Trade,” Virginia Magazine of History &Biography, 79 (April), 145-152.140

Additional SourcesBailyn, Bernard1959 “Politics and Social Structure in Virginia,” in James Morton Smith, ed., Seventeenth-CenturyAmerica: Essays in Colonial History (Chapel Hill), 90-115.Bowler, Clara Ann1977 “Carted Whores and White Shrouded Apologies: Slander in the County Courtsof Seventeenth-Century Virginia,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography85, 411-426.Carr, Lois G.1974 “The Metropolis of Maryland: A Comment on Town Development Along theTobacco Coast,” Maryland Historical Magazine, 69, 124-145.Carr, Lois G., and Russell R. Menard1979 “Immigration and Opportunity: The Freedman in Early Colonial Maryland,” inThad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., The Chesapeake in the SeventeenthCentury: Essays on Anglo-American Society and Politics (NewYork: W.W. Norton and Company), 206-242.Craven, Wesley F.1971 White, Red, and Black: The Seventeenth Century Virginian (Charlottesville:University of Virginia Press).Earle, Carville V.1975 The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System: All Hollow’s Parish,Maryland, 1650-1783 (Chicago).1979 “Environment, Disease, and Mortality in Early Virginia,” in Thad W. Tate andDavid L. Ammerman, eds., The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century:Essays on Anglo-American Society and Politics (New York: W.W. Nortonand Company), 96-125.Earle, Carville, and Ronald Hoffman1976 “Staple Crops and Urban Development in the Eighteenth-Century South,” inPerspectives in American History X, 1-78.Gill, Harold B., Jr.1978 “Dr. Sequeyera’s `Diseases of Virginia’,” Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 86, 281-294.Horn, James1979 “Servant Emigration to the Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century,” in ThadW. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., The Chesapeake in the SeventeenthCentury: Essays on Anglo-American Society and Politics (New York:W.W. Norton and Company), 51-95.141

Jordan, David W.1979 “Political Stability and the Emergence of a Native Elite in Maryland,” in ThadW. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., The Chesapeake in the SeventeenthCentury: Essays in Anglo-American Society and Politics (New York:W.W. Norton and Company), 243-273.Kelly, Kevin P.1979 “In dispers’d Country Plantations: Settlement Patterns in Seventeenth-CenturySurry County, Virginia,” in Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., TheChesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays in Anglo-AmericanSociety and Politics (New York: W.W. Norton and Company), 183-205.Kulikoff, Allen1977 “A Prolific People,” Southern Studies 16.1978 “The Origins of Afro-American Society,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd s.,XXXV, 226-259.1979 “The Colonial Chesapeake: Seedbed of Antebellum Southern Culture,” Journalof Southern History XLV, 513-540.Lurie, Nancy O.1959 “Indian Cultural Adjustment to European Civilization,” in Smith, Seventeenth-Century America, pp. 33-60.Main, Gloria L.1982 Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Maryland 1650-1720 (Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press).Menard, Russell R.1973 “Immigration to the Chesapeake Colonies in the Seventeenth Century: AReview Essay,” Maryland Historical Magazine, 68, 323-329.1977 “From Servants to Slaves,” Southern Studies, 16.Menard, Russell R., P.M.G. Harris, and Lois G. Carr1974 “Opportunity and Inequality: The Distribution of Wealth on the Lower WesternShore of Maryland, 1635-1705,” Maryland Historical Magazine, 69, 169-184.Morgan, Edmund S.1975 American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia(New York: W.W. Norton and Company).Nash, Gary B.1974 Red, White and Black: The People of Early America (Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey).Rutman, Darrett B., and Anita H. Rutman1979 “Now-Wives and Sons-in-Law: Parental Death in a Seventeenth- CenturyVirginia County,” in Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., The Chesa-142

peake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society andPolitics (New York: W.W. Norton and Company), 153-182.1984 A Place in Time: Middlesex County, Virginia, 1650-1750 (New York:W.W. Norton and Company).Shammas, Carole1979 “English-Born and Creole Elites in Turn-of-the-Century Virginia,” in ThadW. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., The Chesapeake in the SeventeenthCentury: Essays on Anglo-American Society and Politics (New York:W.W. Norton and Company), 274-296.Sheehan, Bernard W.1980 Savagism and Civility: Indians and Englishmen in Colonial Virginia(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Tate, Thad W.1979 “The Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake and Its Modern Historians,” in ThadW. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., The Chesapeake in the SeventeenthCentury: Essays on Anglo-American Society and Politics (New York:W.W. Norton and Company), 3-50.Walsh, Lorena S.1979 “Till Death Us Do Part: Marriage and Family in Seventeenth-Century Maryland,”in Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., The Chesapeake in theSeventeenth Century: Essays in Anglo-American Society and Politics (NewYork: W.W. Norton and Company), 126-152.Washburn, Wilcomb1957 The Governor and the Rebel (Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress).Wertenbaker, Thomas J.1922 The Planters of Colonial Virginia (Princeton: Princeton University Press).143

144

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY:EXPANSION AND DIFFERENTIATION OF COLONIALVIRGINIA’S SOCIETY AND ECONOMY, 1689-1783J. Thomas WrenDepartment of History, College of William and MaryVirginia at the beginning of the eighteenth century stood at the threshold of a new era.Much of the instability and disunity of the past appeared to be merging into a timecharacterized by a growing economy and a stable, deferential society superintendedby a gentry elite. Indeed, the middle decades of the century have often been deemed byhistorians the “Golden Age” of Virginia society. Yet this static image of a stable society hasbegun to crumble before the onslaught of recent historical scholarship. The result has been anew appreciation of the dynamism of eighteenth-century society. The reign of a deferentialage, for example, has been constantly narrowed as historians have uncovered more and morecracks in the veneer of a gentry-dominated culture. Moreover, the institution of slavery continuedto expand and contributed to society contradictory influences of stabilization and discontent.Equally as important was the dynamism exhibited by the colonial economy as it adjustedto both the expansion of tobacco production and the diversification of agriculture. At the sametime Virginia experienced incipient urbanization and industrialization. Finally, as the periodwound to a close the specter of disunion from Great Britain suffused all aspects of colonial life.Viewed in these terms, Virginia society in the eighteenth century might be seen as nearly asvolatile as its seventeenth-century counterpart.With some notable exceptions, eighteenth-century Virginia society has not had the benefitof the kind of rigorous and systematic dissection that the “Chesapeake school” of historianshave completed with respect to the previous century. Nor has there been a major work ofsynthesis akin to Edmund Morgan’s classic work on early Virginia. Nevertheless, much in theway of excellent scholarship has been completed, and the gaps in the reappraisal of eighteenth-centuryVirginia life should be viewed not so much as a failure of recent historians but asan opportunity for further and significant scholarly contributions. This essay attempts to delineatethe main trends in recent historiography and to suggest areas where further research mayprove fruitful.The Growth and Solidification of the Gentry ClassOne of the most dramatic divides in the history of the Virginia colony occurred between 1680and 1720 when the gentry class achieved social prominence. The rise of the gentry to dominancein Virginia society had its roots in the developments of the seventeenth century. A numberof scholars have chronicled and analyzed the process. The wellsprings of the change canbe found in many areas. In the late seventeenth century natural reproduction of the whitepopulation and increased longevity permitted for the first time an opportunity for wealth (andpolitical power) to be passed from one generation to the next. Coupled with this was aneconomic downturn at the end of the century which allowed the larger planters to distancethemselves from their poorer brethren (who were faced with declining economic opportuni-145

ties). This was exaggerated by a change in the labor supply. The supply of white indenturedservants slowed to a trickle, and there was a concomitant turn to slave labor, which only thewealthy could afford. The key element in all this was not so much the increasing inequality inwealth between the rich and the middling and lower classes as the rise in the gentry’s politicaland social position. In the course of the last decades of the seventeenth century this new elitecame to be accepted as legitimate by all levels of society and was thus able to consolidate andperpetuate their power (Bailyn 1959; Rainbolt 1970; Morgan 1975; Main 1977; Kulikoff1979).As the eighteenth century progressed, the gentry continued to consolidate their power.Their path was eased by the fact that the entire society seemed to share a base of consensus.Jack Greene notes that the fact that tobacco was the lifeblood of the entire economy and everysegment of society meant that there was a common interest among all classes (Greene 1959).More important, white racial feeling and the white need to control blacks led to social andpolitical peace among the whites of the region (Kulikoff 1979).Despite all of this, the distance between the small planters and the elite planting gentrywidened considerably during the eighteenth century. This was due to a number of factors. Anexpanding economy helped whites of all classes, but in particular it aided wealthier whites toobtain more land and slaves (Kulikoff 1979). Moreover, as Aubrey Land has found, the greatplanters had roles different in kind from those of the small producer, and this set them apart.The gentry were not “small planters writ large”; the great planters were also entrepreneursactive as petty merchants, tobacco factors, creditors, land speculators, slave traders, and thelike (Land 1965, 1967).Not only were the gentry planters gaining in wealth, they also continued to consolidatetheir hold on the social system. There was an accelerated development of the deferentialsociety initiated at the end of the previous century. It appears that after 1720 whites organizedsociety around values of patriarchy, localism, and hierarchy (Kulikoff 1979). Rhys Isaac in hisrecent book provides a classic description of the symbols and functioning of this deferentialsociety (Isaac 1982), and Greg Roeber reinforces this on a smaller scale with his study ofcourt day in Virginia. Isaac and others stress the fact that there were reciprocal obligationsbetween the great and small planters in this social system. It was a system of confirmed socialrank, but at the same time one of mutual obligation and shared values (Isaac 1982; Roeber1980).All of this had political implications. In a classic work Charles Sydnor traces the path topower of Virginia’s eighteenth-century political elite. He concluded that a “sifting” processdiscarded most men, while making those selected for leadership responsive to the populace atlarge (Sydnor 1952). Jack Greene and Jackson T. Main have described the nature of thisplanting elite who reached the pinnacle of power. Virtually all were wealthy planters sprungfrom one of the “great” Virginia families, and all had experience in local politics before advancingto the provincial level. In another essay Greene went on to expound upon the implicationsof this social and political system for society. Once the leading families were ensconced inpower, there was a turn to noblesse oblige. Third- and fourth-generation Virginians lookedless to the accumulation of wealth and more to public service as the area in which to excel(Greene 1959).Despite all the evidence adduced as to the rise of gentry power, some historians assertthat the “Golden Age” of unquestioned gentry dominance did not long persist. Rhys Isaac hasbeen the leader in this revisionist view of eighteenth-century society. According to Isaac, the146

deferential society had begun to crumble as early as 1740, when members of Baptist andMethodist congregations challenged the hegemony of the gentry in many parts of Virginia.These evangelicals were a rejection of the gentry society; they did not seek a leveling ofsociety or the redistribution of worldly wealth, but they constituted a genuine challenge to thesystem of deference, and they espoused values that significantly differed from those of the elite(Isaac 1982). The planter gentry, no longer unchallenged as masters of their world, reacted byattempting to re-establish the legitimacy of the social order. In the last decades of the eighteenthcentury the social harmony of the past disappeared. Briefly, at the onset of the Revolution,gentry patriotic fervor merged with evangelical enthusiasm. The alliance was not longlasting.To at least some degree the “Popular movement” co-opted the gentry position, as theRevolution came to an end the potential for instability continued (Kulikoff 1979; Isaac 1982).This brief summary makes evident the vital need for more research in this area— theneed for a synthesis of the two views of Virginia society. Several areas of investigation can besuggested. First, there should be a more detailed investigation into the question of who constitutedthe gentry class. In particular, more work needs to be done on the growth of the “urbangentry”— the emerging merchant class that became a part of the upper social stratum. Second,there is the larger issue of the actual degree of deference that existed. This has been thesubject of significant scholarly debate. Sydnor extols it, the Browns minimize it. The issueremains unresolved. Third, there is the important issue of the nature of the challenge to thesocial order. Isaac provides the starting point, but there are several areas that need furtherinvestigation. For example: from what geographic regions did the unrest come? What motivatedit? (Isaac seems to rely almost too heavily on the evangelical expansion.) How strongwas it? (Isaac may overemphasize the amount of discord involved.) Finally, there is muchambiguity over the situation at the close of the Revolution. This is a complex period thatpractically begs for further scholarly analysis. A general suggestion for the entire period is tocall for more of the detailed, quantitatively-based research that has made similar studies of theseventeenth century so impressive. A beginning has been made by such historians as the Rutmansfor Middlesex County and Carville Earle in Maryland. Their work should provide the impetusfor further research (Rutman and Rutman 1984; Earle 1965). In particular, poor and middlingfarmers and other less well-documented segments of eighteenth- century Virginia society shouldreceive further, detailed attention.The Institution of SlaveryBy the eighteenth century slavery was a fundamental part of Virginia society. Given its importance,it is surprising that so few scholars have turned their attention to the institution of slaveryin this period and to its social implications. There have been studies of the rise of slavery in theseventeenth century, and of its heyday in the nineteenth, but little in between. General overviewshave been provided by Craven and Nash, and Thad Tate has supplied some importantinformation in his narrower work on blacks in Williamsburg. In addition, Allen Kulikoff hascompleted some suggestive studies. Despite this, the field appears to be wide open for furtherscholarship (Craven 1971; Nash 1979; Tate 1965; Kulikoff 1978, 1979).The sharp increase in number of slaves coming to Virginia began in the last decade of theseventeenth century (Menard 1976; Kulikoff 1977). In the eighteenth century there continuedto be a rapid rise in the slave population (Clemens 1980). Much of this increase stemmed froma continued importation of slaves, but Kulikoff notes that by the middle decades of the century147

there was natural increase among the slave population as well (1978). While there was acontinuing increase in the slave population of Virginia, it is probably more important to noteTate’s insight that slaveholding was widespread in the colony’s society (at least in the Tidewaterand Piedmont). While relatively few planters held large numbers of slaves, Tate reports that75 percent of families in the Tidewater and Piedmont owned at least some slaves. The socialimplications of this fact have yet to be fully developed.There appears to be no detailed analytical study of the economic contribution of blackslaves in eighteenth-century Virginia, although Tate addresses this issue with respect to urbanslaves as field hands, while a few were house servants or skilled or semi-skilled craftsmen.Here, again, there is a need for much additional research.A key issue is the quality of slave life itself. Here Kulikoff has made an important contribution,noting that with the emergence of a native black population there came with it theemergence of a black subculture which made slave life much more tolerable (Kulikoff 1978;Menard 1976). Thad Tate has made an important contribution in this vein as well. He takes adetailed look at the life of blacks in Williamsburg: their work, social life, education and religion.This excellent beginning deserves expansion.The Development of a Market EconomyThe title to this section of the essay is in many respects a misnomer, since Virginia had beendeeply immersed in a market economy almost from the beginning of its existence. The fundamentalfact of Virginia’s colonial economy is that it was chiefly agrarian. During the seventeenthcentury virtually every planter grew tobacco, almost to the exclusion of everything else (althoughthere was some diversification late in the century in some areas). This staple cropformed an essential part of a market-oriented Atlantic economy (Kulikoff 1979). Even thosewho switched to other crops remained within that same nexus. Furthermore, Aubrey Land hasfound that in the eighteenth-century Chesapeake there was barely a trace of subsistence farming;the countryside was peopled with commercial farmers who depended upon a cash cropand a market nexus. And, as Robert Mitchell has pointed out, even the farmers of the Valley(the “frontier”) were not subsistence oriented, but grew crops for local markets as well as forPhiladelphia and beyond (Land 1967; Mitchell 1973; Jensen 1969). Thus in speaking of the“development” of a market economy, we are speaking of necessity about changes within aneconomy that was essentially market-oriented from start to finish.One evidence of the dynamism of the eighteenth-century Virginia economy is the merefact of its expansion. The tobacco trade, as the dominant influence, is perhaps the best measure.After the 1720s tobacco exports began to increase, and the result was a burgeoningeconomy throughout much of the pre-revolutionary period. Moreover, these were major changestaking place in the workings of Virginia’s economy which reinforce the sense of dynamism itexudes. The tobacco trade dominated the economy, so it to that which we must first direct outattention. The tobacco staple called for some sort of marketing organization to handle thecrop— to forward it to the wharves and thence to England (Land 1967). Several scholarshave endeavored to depict this process as it operated in the eighteenth-century Chesapeake.The traditional marketing system involved the “consignment” of tobacco to English merchants.Samuel Rosenblatt has taken the lead in studying this method, and notes that despite the rise ofalternative marketing schemes, consignment merchants continued to exert a significant influenceon the tobacco trade and on the general economy of Virginia up to the outbreak of the148

Revolution (Rosenblatt 1962, 1964). However, it cannot be gainsaid that one of the moreimportant economic developments of the eighteenth century was the creation of a new anddifferent system for the marketing of tobacco. In a series of articles Jacob Price notes thatduring the course of the century the Scots came to dominate the tobacco trade. This waspartially due to the fact that the trade route north of Ireland was the quickest and safest; moreimportant, however, was the more efficient marketing system established by the Scottish merchants.They established salaried agents in permanent stores (mostly in the newer, tobaccoproductiveregions peopled mainly by small planters). Goods were sold to the planters oncredit, on the condition the Scottish merchant would receive the planter’s crop of tobaccowhen it was ready for market. Price also discerned the development of a third type of marketingsystem in Virginia. This method involved a group of native Virginia merchants who purchasedBritish goods wholesale via the “cargo” system and exchanged them for tobacco in thecolony (Price 1954, 1983).Vastly important was the role the international tobacco trade played in the domesticeconomy of Virginia. Several scholars have analyzed the role of credit in the colonial economy.Aubrey Land has concluded that the Chesapeake economy was a “tissue of debt” but, contraryto popular perception, this debt was chiefly domestically-held; it was not primarily theprovince of British capitalists. Land found two principal types of credit arrangements. The firstemanated from an English merchant and was extended to a colonial storekeeper or planter,and thence to the smaller planter. The second, more common, type of credit came from thegreat planter himself. The obligation to repay was in the form of a mortgage, bond, or note thatbecame as asset in the hands of the creditor which could be transferred, used as security, andthe like (Land 1967). Rosenblatt and Price analyzed the role this credit played in the continuedexpansion of Virginia’s economy and society in the eighteenth century. Mercantile credit was anecessary ingredient for the growth and development of the Virginia economy. Not only didthe merchant finance the tobacco trade, but also by extending credit he financed every activityof the planter. Credit not only provided the planter with the means of acquiring the economicnecessities of life, it also enabled him to improve his economic status. In effect it allowed him todivert to long-range projects cash and labor which otherwise would have had to be allocatedto the needs of the hour. Thus the planter could speculate in land, buy slaves, or clear his landfor cultivation. Jacob Price went so far as to comment that Glasgow may be said to havefinanced the Piedmont frontier (Land 1967; Rosenblatt 1962; Price 1954).Beyond the mere economic implications of the tobacco trade was its impact on the restof the society. Allen Kulikoff maintains that one must examine the operation of the NorthAtlantic economy to understand the Chesapeake social structure. For example, the change inthe method of marketing tobacco had an impact on the influence and power of the plantergentry, since the smaller planter could now secure necessary supplies and the like independentof the local large planter. (This reinforces the notion suggested earlier that Rhys Isaac mayhave succumbed to tunnel vision in his emphasis on the evangelical movement as a cause forsocial breakdown.)While tobacco dominated the Virginia economy and society, other elements of this dynamic,developing social system were also becoming important. Ensuing sections of this essaywill address the incipient diversification of Virginia agriculture, the emergence of urban centers,and the colony’s continued expansion to the frontier.149

The Diversification of Tidewater AgricultureOne development of fundamental importance was the move toward diversification in Tidewateragriculture. While several historians have analyzed this trend, there remains an opportunityto make significant contributions in this area. An initial issue has been the question of the degreeand timing of diversification. Much of the analysis of this matter has been on a relatively superficial,macroscopic plane. Merrill Jensen, Allen Kulikoff and Harold B. Gill have provided uswith the basic information. Some crop diversification occurred as early as the last quarter ofthe seventeenth century, chiefly as a result of a depression in the tobacco market. The areasthat experienced this switch (such as the regions along the lower Eastern Shore) returned totobacco in the early decades of the eighteenth century. But changes were afoot. The EasternShore became a major grain-producing region by mid-century, as did scattered regions in themainland Tidewater area (grains were a major crop from the inception of settlement in Virginia’sValley). All in all, Gill is essentially correct when he said that by the 1770s wheat had becomea second staple crop in Virginia. This should not disguise the fact of tobacco’s continuingimportance. A large part of the Chesapeake continued to grow great quantities of tobacco untilthe Revolution (Jensen 1969; Kulikoff 1979; Gill 1978; Mitchell 1973). While the abovegeneralities appear to be correct, there has been precious little hard data amassed that cansupply the details of this emerging phenomenon. More work is needed.One matter that has occupied the attention of historians is the planter rationale for changing—and not changing— crops. And, indeed, there seems to be some dispute over the question.W.A. Low provided the classic explanation for switching from tobacco to grain when heattributed that move to the effects of soil depletion and to adverse economic conditions. In arecent work, however, Paul G. E. Clemens suggests that the switch did not come in responseto bad economic conditions so much as from a perceived opportunity to increase profits in theface of a new market for grain (Low 1951; Clemens 1980). Clearly there is opportunity forfurther analysis. Equally important are the reasons farmers had for refusing to move from thetraditional tobacco staple. Historians have suggested several answers. First, tobacco priceswere never consistently low enough to threaten ruin to individual farmers. Second, the smallproducer could not afford to experiment with a new crop, immersed as he was in the colony’s“tissue of debt.” Third, those planters that had slave labor could ill-afford to make the switch.Not only would the advantage of slave labor’s low input costs be largely lost in raising grain,but there also was considerable doubt whether the return from growing wheat would actuallyexceed that of tobacco. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, farmers in the eighteenth centurywere (as always) conservative about adopting new practices (Land 1967; Rasmussen 1969;Earle and Hoffman 1976). Given all these reasons for continuing in the tobacco economy, thewonder is that so many did turn to wheat and corn. While Clemens’ market-oriented explanation(supra) is suggestive, there is perhaps room for further speculation and study on this issue.As always, there were social implications from this change in the economy. These havebeen largely unexplored in the case of the diversification of the Tidewater agriculture. The bestwork to date has been a recent book by Paul G. E. Clemens which focuses on the EasternShore of Maryland. His study should provide a blueprint for historians of the Virginia Tidewater.Clemens looks to the impact on social structure, patterns of landholding and the emergenceof new urban-rural relationships. He is particularly perceptive in the latter area as heexplains how farmers came within the commercial orbit of Philadelphia, which thereafter suppliedmarkets, credit facilities, and the like (Clemens 1980).150

Clemens’ perceptive analysis leads us to another major innovation in eighteenth- centuryVirginia economy and society, the rise of urban centers.Early Urbanization and Urban-Rural RelationshipsA major development of eighteenth-century Virginia was the beginnings of urbanization (Reps1972). However, it is wise at the outset of any discussion of nascent urbanization to takenotice of the observation of Merrill Jensen: Virginia society at the outbreak of the Revolutionwas an overwhelmingly agricultural society. Whatever inroads Virginia’s incipient urban centerswere to make on this reality must be acknowledged to be quite small. Indeed, an area thatdeserves further study is the actual extent of an urban environment in the colony in the eighteenthcentury.If a similar study were to be completed for the seventeenth century, the conclusion wouldundoubtedly be that Virginia had no urban centers of importance. A number of scholars haveventured an explanation. Carville Earle and Ronald Hoffman have suggested that a number offactors militated against urban development. In the seventeenth-century Chesapeake, tobaccothwarted urban growth. Tobacco plantations were dispersed, and there was therefore littleincentive for urban merchants or craftsmen to set up shop. Moreover, the tobacco economyhad few “backward linkages”; that is, it generated little consumer demand. What retail tradeexisted was conducted by merchant-planters at their private wharves (Earle and Hoffman1976). Lois Carr extended this analysis. The seventeenth-century tobacco marketing systemhad no middlemen. As a result, there was no need for a centralized location to offer servicesand the like. Hence “towns” in early Virginia history were not a rational exercise (Carr 1969).This was reinforced by the continued failure to “legislate” towns in the seventeenth century(Rainbolt 1969; Riley 1950; Earle and Hoffman 1976).By the eighteenth century conditions had changed enough to warrant at least the semblanceof incipient urbanization. Earle and Hoffman not that changes in the Virginia tobaccoeconomy now made cities feasible. With the increase in European demand, there was a needfor improvements in the tobacco marketing system. This took the form (in consignment-orientedareas) of a centralizing tendency, evidence by the arrival of British residential agents. Asa result, a number of “tobacco towns” emerged along the coast. Piedmont “tobacco towns”had a different impetus. There, the development of a mercantile network of Scottish storesbecame the center of small hamlets. By the middle of the eighteenth century there was also afew larger tobacco warehousing centers (such as Petersburg and Richmond). The growth ofthese areas was greatly aided by the passage of the Tobacco Inspection Acts (Earle andHoffman 1976; Carr 1974).A key point, however, is that these “urban” centers were not yet fulfilling the functions ofa traditional city. Carr, Earle and Hoffman all agree that the economic functions provided bythese towns were at best elementary. There were no mills, craft shops, schools or churches,and British cities still handled the marketing, financing and processing of tobacco (Carr 1974;Earle and Hoffman 1976). At some point increased population, local capital, tobacco inspectionwarehouses, and the life created a demand for more services, goods and exchange, butmuch more research is needed to understand the dynamics of this evolution (Soltow 1958;Carr 1974).151

The best study of this sort is Robert Mitchell’s analysis of the rise of towns in theShenandoah Valley. Unfortunately, there is no certainty that this study is relevant for the Tidewaterand Piedmont (Mitchell 1977).Two cities of some consequence in the eighteenth century held a somewhat unique position:Williamsburg as the colonial capital and Norfolk as a shipping center located at the edgeof a grain-producing hinterland. While Williamsburg has been the focal point of much scholarlyresearch, surprisingly little of that effort has found its way into the journal literature. The workof the scholars working for the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation should be made more accessiblein this regard. One scholar who has published an article on the colonial capital’seconomic role is James Soltow. Given its primary function as a governmental center, Williamsburgwas concerned chiefly with retail and service trades. But Soltow found that Williamsburg hadanother role; it serviced as a kind of centralized “exchange” of merchants in which the colony’smercantile interests determined the exchange rate of sterling, made pricing decisions for tobacco,enforced contracts, planned future endeavors, and the like. Thus in this senseWilliamsburg was key to the functioning of Virginia’s economy (Soltow 1958). The city ofNorfolk was quite different from other Virginia urban centers. Thomas Wertenbaker has writtenan important book-length study of this city, but little good recent scholarship has beencompleted (Wertenbaker 1931).One aspect that made Norfolk unique— the nature of its “hinterland”— opens up anissue of considerable importance. It appears that the urban-rural relationship was largely determinedby the nature of the city’s surrounding region. Earle and Hoffman, for example, havesuggested that a tobacco growing region will spawn, at most, “tobacco towns,” with no realurban system evolving, while a wheat-growing region will yield a configuration of sizable portssupplied from the interior (Earle and Hoffman 1976). Perhaps the clearest example of this isClemens’ study of Maryland’s Eastern Shore, where the region evolved from one system tothe other. Beginning as a tobacco-growing region with no sizeable towns, the area moved towheat production and thereby came within Philadelphia’s commercial sphere (Clemens 1980).Mitchell describes a similar situation in the Valley (Mitchell 1977).Another aspect of urban-rural relations is the question of where the balance of politicaland economic power lies. Very little work has been done on this topic for colonial Virginia, butit would appear that despite the rise of a “merchant-gentry” in the cities, throughout the periodthe planter aristocracy held the reins of power. Although the urban centers continued to growand expand, the rural landholdings continued to be the base upon which the economy— andpolitics— depended.Incipient Industrialization and the Development of LocalCraft SpecialtiesA subject of some interest is the dynamics of incipient industrialization and the development oflocal craft specialties in Tidewater Virginia. This is a topic of obvious importance, but therehave been virtually no generally- accessible works published on the issue. The best work onthe dynamics of early industrialization is Mitchell’s work on the Valley (Mitchell 1977). Therehave been isolated efforts at describing the fishing industry or the rise of “ordinaries” and theirregulation, but the periodical literature is largely silent on this subject (Riley 1943; Yoder 1979;Pearson 1942a, 1942b, 1943a, 1943b, 1943c, 1943d). There is obviously a great need for152

further research, and an equally important need for a dissemination of the work completed inthis area by scholars of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.Population Growth and the Expansion to the FrontierThere is no question but that one of the most dynamic aspects of Virginia’s eighteenth-centurysociety was the continual expansion to the frontier. Allen Kulikoff notes that the existence ofthousands of acres of virgin land and the spatial expansion these lands encouraged acted as amajor impetus to white opportunity and economic growth (Kulikoff 1979). The rate of theexpansion was impressive. In 1700, nearly all the inhabitants of Virginia lived within a fewmiles of the great rivers. In the next seventy years all of Tidewater and much of the Piedmontwas settled. Meanwhile, the frontier moved into the Valley of Virginia in the 1730s and 1740s,and thence into the “West Virginia” and Kentucky regions. The Southside was also becomingpopulated (Kulikoff 1979).The extent of this migration, its wellsprings, nature, and consequences provide a fertilefield for scholarly inquiry, one that has only just begun to be cultivated. One important issue hasbeen the nature of the population that comprised the migration. Very little detailed scholarshiphas been completed, and there remains a great opportunity for the historian. Kulikoff suggeststhat the Piedmont was peopled mainly by the sons and daughters of poor Tidewater plantersand tenants, but provides little in the way of documentation. Robert Mitchell gives a fulleraccount of migration into the Valley, describing it as a mixture of small farmers from southeasternPennsylvania and planters from the Tidewater. The Southside has been largely ignored. Anunderstanding of the emerging society of eighteenth-century Virginia would be greatly facilitatedby an in-depth study of migration patterns and the social and political implications whichcan be derived therefrom (Kulikoff 1979; Mitchell 1977).Another item of importance is the economic role these newly-settled areas played withinthe colony and, more broadly, the Atlantic economy. Again, little analysis has been completed,although it apparently is presumed that the tobacco growing regions of the Piedmont andSouthside fit within the traditional tobacco economy (albeit there were variations in the marketingsystems). This superficial presumption deserves much more rigorous testing. With respectto the Valley, Mitchell provides an excellent analysis. He maintains that the settlers in thatregion were commercially-oriented from the inception of settlement, and that this “frontier”area quickly became a hinterland of the Atlantic seaport cities (Kulikoff 1979; Mitchell 1977).A key issue— as always— is the impact this population expansion has on social relationswithin the colony. There has been a difference of opinion on this matter. W. A. Low suggeststhat the frontier conditions fostered a sense on independence from the planter gentry. He notedthat the rich lands of the West, together with the increase in wheat production in both the Valleyand Piedmont, tended to protect the economic prospects of the small farmer against anypotential overlordship of the large planters. Mitchell, to the contrary, notes that the frontier wasnot necessarily an area of independent yeoman farmers. He found in the Valley an increasingconcentration of land ownership, high rates of tenancy, and the general development of socialstratification (Low 1951; Mitchell 1977). This issue is of such fundamental importance that itvirtually begs for further study.A more esoteric issue that has occupied scholars has been the construction of a “model”for frontier growth. One such attempt has been by Allen Kulikoff, who posits a three-stagedevelopmental model. Settled areas become crowded, and more sparsely populated regions153

ecome more attractive. Pioneers move into the new areas. constructing roads and the like,thus reducing the cost of settling on the frontier. Thereupon more migrants are drawn there tosettle and cultivate the land. The patterns then repeats itself. Mitchell adds a model of thenature of the developing pioneer society. It begins with a pioneer phase of steady populationgrowth, rapid land acquisition, and a relatively homogeneous yeoman economy and society.The society then moves into a “post-frontier” phase, where there is rapid demographic changeand the increasing commercialization of agriculture. Finally, the area becomes “settled,” with astabilization of population growth, more social stratification, and increased commerce, manufacturingand trade (Kulikoff 1979; Mitchell 1977).The preceding discussion should make clear some of the opportunities for further researchin this vibrant area. Mitchell’s excellent work can serve as both a primer and an agendafor future scholarship. In his work on the Valley, Mitchell analyzes the reasons for emigration,the nature of the settlers, the role played by the availability of land, the evolving social structureof the newly settled area, the nature of the pioneer economy and its move toward specializationand diversification. Studies of this type in other frontier areas would be a significant additionto our current scholarship.ConclusionThe study of Virginia’s eighteenth-century economic and social development is a subject ofunending fascination, yet it is one which has only begun to yield to scholarly analysis. Thisessay has attempted to suggest some area in particular need for further research. It should beclear that there remains much to do, particularly in the area of early urbanization and industrialization.Moreover, there is a need for something more— a synthesis of existing studies.Students of the period could then have the benefit of an overarching framework within whichto place their further contributions to the history of the eighteenth-century Chesapeake.BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PERIODICAL LITERATUREAmes, Susie M.1931 “A Typical Business Man of the Revolutionary Era,” Journal of EconomicHistory, (May), 407-423.Barker, T. C.1954 “Smuggling in the Eighteenth Century: The Evidence of the Scottish TobaccoTrade,” Virginia MagazineHistory & Biography, 62 (October ), 387-399.Bliss, Willard F.1950 “The Rise of Tenancy in Virginia,” Virginia Magazine of History & Biography,58 (October), 427-441.Bowler, Clara Ann1977 “The Virginia County Committees of Safety, 1774-1776,” Virginia Magazineof History & Biography, 79 (July), 322-337.154

Breen, T. H.1973 “George Sonne’s `Virginia Regisited’: A 1638 Plan to Reform Colonial Society,”William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 30 (July), 449-466.Bruce, Kathleen1932 “Virginian Agricultural Decline to 1860,” Agricultural History, 6 (January), 3-13.Carson, Cary1974 “The `Virginia House’ in Maryland,” Maryland Historical Magazine, 69(Summary), 185-196.Clark, John B.1949 “The Fire Problem in Colonial Virginia,” Virginia Magazine of History &Biography, 57 (July), 244-251.Clemens, Paul G. E.1975 “The Operation of an Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake Tobacco Plantation,”Agricultural History, 49 (July), 517-531.Coulter, Calvin B.1945 “The Import Trade of Colonial Virginia,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rdseries, 2 (July), 296-314.Evans, Emory G.1962 “Planter Indebtedness and the Coming of the Revolution in Virginia,” Williamand Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 19 (October), 511-533.Gill, Harold B., Jr.1978 “Wheat Culture in Colonial Virginia,” Agricultural History, 52 (July), 380-393.Gipson, Lawrence H.1961 “Virginia Planter Debts Before the American Revolution,” Virginia Magazine ofHistory & Biography, 69 (July), 259-277.Gladwin, Lee A.1978 “Tobacco and Sex: Some Factors Affecting Non-Marital Sexual Behavior inColonial Virginia,” Journal of Social History, l2 (Fall), 57-75.Gray, L.C.1927 “The Market Surplus Problems of Colonial Tobacco, Part I,” William andMary Quarterly, 2nd series, 7 (October), 231-245.1928a“The Market Surplus Problems of Colonial Tobacco, Part II,” William andMary Quarterly, 2nd series, 8 (January), 1-16.1928b “The Market Surplus Problems of Colonial Tobacco,” Agricultural History, 2(January), 1-34155

Greene, Jack P.1959 “Foundations of Political Power in the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1720-1776,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 26 (October), 485-506.Gundersen, Joan Rezner, and Gwen Victor Gampel1982 “Married Women’s Legal Status in Eighteenth-Century New York and Virginia,”William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 39 (January), 114-134.Herndon, G. Melvin1978 “Agricultural Reform in Antebellum Virginia: William Galt, Jr., A Case Study,”Agricultural History, 52 (July), 394-406.1979 “From Scottish Orphan to Virginia Planter: William Galt, Jr., 1801-185l,”Virginia Magazine of History & Biography, 87 (July), 326-343.1982 “Elliot L. Story: A Small Farmer’s Struggle for Economic Survival in AntebellumVirginia,” Agricultural History, 56 (July), 516-527.Jordan, Weymouth T.1969 “Some Problems of the Colonial Tobacco Planters: A Critique,” AgriculturalHistory, 43 (January), 67-90.Kammen, Michael G.1966 “Virginia at the Close of the Seventeenth Century: An Appraisal by James Blairand John Locke,” Virginia Magazine of History & Biography, 74 (April),141-169.Kemmerer, Donald L.1949 “The Pre-Civil War South’s Leading Crop, Corn,” Agricultural History, 23(October), 236-239.Klingaman, David C.1962 “The Development of the Coastwise Trade of Virginia in the Late ColonialPeriod,” Maryland Historical Magazine, 57 (June), 133-149.Kukla, Jon1980 “Robert Beverley Assailed: Appellate Jurisdiction and the Problem of Bicameralismin Seventeenth Century Virginia,” Virginia Magazine of History &Biography, 88 (October), 415-429.Kulikoff, Allan1979a “The Colonial Chesapeake: Seedbed of Antebellum Southern Culture,” Journalof Southern History, 45 (November), 513-540.1979b“The Economic Growth of the Eighteenth Century Chesapeake Colonies,”Journal of Economic History, 39 (March), 275-288.Land, Aubrey C.1965 “Economic Base and Social Structure: The Northern Chesapeake in the EighteenthCentury,” Journal of Economic History, 25 (December), 639-659.156

1967 “Economic Behavior in a Planting Society: The Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake,”Journal of Southern History, 33 (November), 469-485.1969 “The Tobacco Staple and the Planters’ Problems: Technology, Labor andCrops,” Agricultural History, 43 (January), 69-82.Lewis, Jan1982 “Domestic Tranquility and the Management of Emotion Among the Gentry ofPre-Revolutionary Virginia,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 39(January), 135-149.Low, W. A.1951 “The Farmer in Post-Revolutionary Virginia, 1783-1789,” Agricultural History,25 (July), 122-127.1952 “The Freedmen’s Bureau and Education in Maryland,” Maryland HistoricalMagazine, 47 (March), 29-39.Main, Gloria L.1977 “Inequality in Early America: The Evidence from Probate Records of Massachusettsand Maryland,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 8 (Spring),559-582.Main, Jackson Turner1954 “The Distribution of Property in Post-Revolutionary Virginia,” MississippiValley Historical Review, 41 (September).1959 “The One Hundred,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 11 (July), 334-384.Menard, Russell R.1976 “A Note on Chesapeake Tobacco Prices, 1618-1660,” Virginia Magazine ofHistory & Biography, 84 (October), 401-410.Middleton, Arthur Pierce1946 “The Chesapeake Convoy System, 1662-1763,” William and Mary Quarterly,2nd series, 3 (April), 183-207.Mitchell, Robert D.1973 “Agricultural Change and the American Revolution: A Virginia Case Study,”Agricultural History, 47 (April), 119-132.Namier, Lewis P.1929 “An Eighteenth Century Merchant,” Journal of Economic History, 2 (November),20-70.Olson, Alison G.1983 “The Virginia Merchants of London: A Study in Eighteenth Century Interest-Group Politics,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 40 (July), 363-388.157

Pearson, John C.1942a “The Fish and Fisheries of Colonial Virginia,” William and Mary Quarterly,2nd series, 22 (July), 213-220.1942b1943a1943b1943c1943d“The Fish and Fisheries of Colonial Virginia, continued,” William and MaryQuarterly, 2nd series, 22 (October), 353-360.“The Fish and Fisheries of Colonial Virginia, continued,” William and MaryQuarterly, 2nd series, 23 (January), 1-7.“The Fish and Fisheries of Colonial Virginia, continued,” William and MaryQuarterly, 2nd series, 23 (April), 130-135.“The Fish and Fisheries of Colonial Virginia, continued,” William and MaryQuarterly, 2nd series, 23 (July), 278-284.“The Fish and Fisheries of Colonial Virginia, continued,” William and MaryQuarterly, 2nd series, 23 (October), 435-439.Price, Jacob M.1954 “The Rise of Glasgow in the Chesapeake Tobacco Trace, 1707-1775,” Williamand Mary Quarterly, 2nd series, 11 (April), 179-199.1957 “The French Farmers-General in the Chesapeake: The Mackercher-HuberMission of 1737-1738,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 14 (April),125-153.1962 “Who was John Norton? A Note on the Historical Character of Some EighteenthCentury London Virginia Firms,” William and Mary Quarterly, 2ndseries, 19 (July), 400-407.1983 “Buchanan and Simson, 1759-1763: A Different Kind of Glasgow Firm Tradingto the Chesapeake,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 60 (January), 3-41.Rainbolt, John C.1970 “The Alteration in the Relationship Between Leadership and Constituents inVirginia, 1660 to 1720,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 27 (July),411-434.Rasmussen, Wayne D.1969 “The American Revolution and American Agriculture: A Comment,” AgriculturalHistory, 43 (January), 125-128.Riley, Edward M.1943 “The Ordinaries of Colonial Yorktown,” William and Mary Quarterly, 2ndseries, 23 (January), 8-26.1950 “The Town Acts of Colonial Virginia,” Journal of Southern History, 16(August), 306-323.158

1952 “Suburban Development of Yorktown, Virginia, During the Colonial Period,”Maryland Historical Magazine, 60 (October), 522-536.Roeber, A. G.1980 “Authority, Law, and Custom: The Rituals of Court Day in Tidewater Virginia,1720 to 1750,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 37 (January), 29-52.Rosenblatt, Samuel M.1962 “The Significance of Credit in the Tobacco Consignment Trade: A Study of JohnNorton & Sons, 1768-1775,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 19(July), 383-394.1964 “Merchant-Planter Relations in the Tobacco Consignment Trade: John Nortonand Robert Carter Nicholas,” Virginia Magazine of History & Biography, 72(October), 454-470.Rutman, Darrett B., and Anita H. Rutman1976 “Of Agues and Fevers: Malaria in Early Chesapeake,” William and MaryQuarterly, 3rd series, 33 (January), 31-60.Shepard, E. Lee1982 “Breaking into the Profession: Establishing a Law Practice in AntebellumVirginia,” Journal of Southern History, 48 (August), 393-410.Shorrocks, D. M. M.1960 “Transportation of Felons from Sandwich to Virginia, 1721-1773,” VirginiaMagazine of History & Biography, 68 (July), 295-300.Soltow, James H.1958 “The Role of Williamsburg in the Virginia Economy, 1750-1775,” William andMary Quarterly, 3rd series, 15 (October), 467-482.Sornow, William Frank1954 “The Tariff Policies of Virginia, 1775-1789,” Virginia Magazine of History &Biography, 62 (July), 306-319.Swem, Earl Gregg1946 “Views of Yorktown and Gloucester Town, 1755,” Virginia Magazine ofHistory & Biography, 54 (April), 99-105.Tate, Thad W.1962 “The Coming of the Revolution in Virginia: Britain’s Challenge to Virginia’sRuling Class, 1763-1776,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 19 (July),323-343.Turner, Charles W.1952 “Virginia Agricultural Reform, 1815-1860,” Agricultural History, 26 (July),80-88.1955 “A Virginia Small Farmer’s Life After the Civil War: The Journal of WilliamJ. Hart,” Virginia Magazine of History & Biography, 63 (July), 286-305.159

Waterman, Thomas Tileston1935 “The Bay System in Colonial Virginia Building,” William and Mary Quarterly,2nd series, 15 (April), 117-122.Weatherell, Charles1984 “`Boom and Bust’ in the Colonial Chesapeake Economy,” Journal of InterdisciplinaryHistory, 15 (Autumn), 185-210.Williams, A. R.1971 “The Gloucestershire Tobacco Trade,” Virginia Magazine of History &Biography, 79 (April), 145-152.Williams, D. Alan1969 “The Small Farmer in Eighteenth Century Virginia Politics,” AgriculturalHistory, 43 (January), 91-102.Yoder, Paton1979 “Tavern Regulation in Virginia: Rationale and Reality,” Virginia Magazine ofHistory & Biography, 87 (July), 259-278.Additional SourcesBailyn, Bernard1959 “Politics and Social Structure in Virginia,” in James Morton Smith, ed., Seventeenth-CenturyAmerica: Essays in Colonial History (Chapel Hill: Universityof North Carolina Press), 90-115.Brown, Robert E., and B. Katherine Brown1964 Virginia: Democracy or Aristocracy? (East Lansing: Michigan State UniversityPress).Carr, Lois G.1974 “Metropolis of Maryland: A Comment on Town Development Along the TobaccoCoast,” Maryland Historical Magazine, 69, 124-145.Craven, Wesley F.1971 White, Red and Black: The Seventeenth-Century Virginian (Charlottesville:University of Virginia Press).Clemens, Paul G.E.1980 The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland’s Eastern Shore: FromTobacco to Grain (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).Earle, Carville1975 The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement Pattern: All Hollow’s Parish,Maryland, 1650-1783, University of Chicago Department of Geography,Research Paper No. 170, Chicago.160

Earle, Carville, and Ronald Hoffman1978 “Staple Crops and Urban Development in the Eighteenth-Century South,”Perspectives in American History, 10, 1-78.Greene, Jack P.1976 “Society, Ideology, and Politics: An Analysis of the Culture of Mid-Eighteenth-Century Virginia,” in Richard M. Jellison, ed., Society, Freedom, and Conscience:The American Revolution in Virginia (New York: W.W. Norton andCompany), 14-76.Isaac, Rhys1982 The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790 (Chapel Hill: University of NorthCarolina Press).Jensen, Merrill1969 “The American Revolution and American Agriculture,” Agricultural History,43, 107-124.Kulikoff, Allen1977 “A Prolific People,” Southern Studies, 16.1978 “The Origins of Afro-American Society,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd s.,XXXV, 226-259.1979 “The Colonial Chesapeake: Seedbed of Antebellum Southern Culture,” Journalof Southern History XLV, 513-540.Main, Gloria L.1977 “Inequality in Early America: The Evidence from Probate Records of Massachusettsand Maryland,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 8, 559-582.Menard, Russell R.1977 “From Servants to Slaves,” Southern Studies, 16.Mitchell, Robert D.1977 Commercialism and Frontier: Perspectives on the Early ShenandoahValley (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press).Morgan, Edmund S.1975 American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia(New York: W.W. Norton and Company).Nash, Gary B.1974 Red, White and Black: The People of Early America (Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey).Rainbolt, John C.1969 “The Absence of Towns in Seventeenth-Century Virginia,” Journal of SouthernHistory, 35, 343-360.161

Reps, John W.1972 Tidewater Towns: City Planning in Colonial Virginia and Maryland(Williamsburg).Rutman, Darrett B., and Anita H. Rutman1984 A Place in Time: Middlesex County, Virginia, 1650-1750 (New York:W.W. Norton and Company).Sydnor, Charles S.1965 American Revolutionaries in the Making: Political Practices in[1952] Washington’s Virginia [Gentlemen Freeholders] (New York: Free Press).Tate, Thad W.1965 The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg (Williamsburg).Wertenbaker, Thomas J.1931 Norfolk: Historic Southern Port (Durham: Duke University Press).162

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY:THE WORLD THE SLAVES AND SLAVEHOLDERSMADE, 1783-1865Jeff HollandDepartment of History, College of William and MaryThe periodical literature of the history of slavery in the Tidewater in the last half-century,despite the rise of the new social history, has not addressed the racial, cultural, andsocial issues of slavery as well as might be hoped. There are some notable exceptions,however, and it must be remembered that a lack of reliable statistical information on slaverymakes generalized studies difficult. Hence, the majority of articles on slavery in the Tidewaterdeal with political, moral, and economic issues rather than cultural ones. Nevertheless, a numberof historians have done an excellent job of taking their data as far as they can and gettingsome insight into slave life as refracted through the clouded glass of recorded information.One area in particular that has received a great deal of attention is the origins of the slavesystem and the development of racial attitudes that would determine the nature of slavery in the19th century. Starting from the beginning, and addressing the question of which came first—slavery or prejudice,— Alden T. Vaughn 1 argues that although early blacks in the colonieswere not automatically relegated to chattel slavery they nevertheless suffered a degraded statusbelow that of even the lowliest servant or foreigner. A good overview of the early 17thcentury economy and how it contributed to the rise of a slave labor system is Edmund Morgan’s“The First American Boom: Virginia, 1618 to 1630.” 2 Morgan discusses how a tobaccoeconomy and its attendant labor problems contributed to the development of chattel slavery.Warren Billings’ 3 article concerning court cases of blacks suing for their freedom reachesconclusions similar to Vaughn’s. He found that the status of blacks in 17th-century Virginia wasnot carefully regulated and could be influenced by factors such as religious conversion, but thatby the 1660’s the importance of slavery to the economy had resulted in the passage of stricterlaws for its enforcement.Moving into the 18th century, perhaps the most successful synthesis of our knowledge ofcolonial slavery is Allan Kulikoff’s “The Origins of Afro-American Society in Tidewater Marylandand Virginia, 1700-1790.” 4 This excellent overview article addresses sociological questionsabout the nature of developing societies and concludes that slave culture was unique anddynamic, borrowing from African and Western traditions but independent of either. This is anindispensable article for the student of slavery and the colonial South in general. Kulikoff’sarticle “Economic Growth of 18th Century Chesapeake Colonies” (Journal of EconomicHistory, 39 (March 1979), 275-288) is useful for understanding the agricultural economy ofthe period, as are Aubrey C. Land’s “The Tobacco Staple and the Planters’ Problems: Technology,Labor and Crops” (Agricultural History, 43 (January 1969), 69-82) and PaulClemens’ “The Operation of an Eighteenth Century Tobacco Plantation” (Agricultural History,49 (July 1975), 517-531).On a more specific level, a number of excellent articles examine the evolving (or devolving)legal status of blacks in colonial Virginia. Articles by Linda DePaul ,5 Adele Hast, 6 andDarold Wax 7 illustrate how the colonists, motivated by prevailing economic conditions and163

their own fears of the rising slave population fought to maintain and control the slave system byincreasingly stern and restrictive measures during the 18th century. Benjamin Klebaner 8 carriesthis theme into the 19th century in discussing manumission laws that made it increasinglydifficult for slave owners to free their charges.As the 19th century progressed slavery became more of a moral and political issue thanan economic one, and proponents on both sides of the issue used every kind of argument tomake their points. The historical literature in this area is quite complete, covering all aspects ofthe slave debate. A good place to start is Wax’s 9 review article of C. Vann Woodward’sAmerican Counterpoint: Slavery and Racism in the North-South Debate. Wax finds thiscollection of essays on the intellectual and social dialogue of race relations “stimulating andinformative” rather than “adversarial and argumentative.” The book also contains useful bibliographicsources. Keith Bailor’s 10 article about John Taylor of Caroline discusses what Bailorsees as a changing Southern attitude toward slavery from that of Jefferson’s “grim acceptance”to an open defense of slavery as economic and social necessity, as well as a constitutionalright. Also dealing with the early National Period is James David Essig’s 11 article on SouthernBaptists and their anti-slavery position. Touching on religious themes are biographies by Faust 12and Hickin 13 of 19th-century religious moralists who opposed slavery. Other biographicalstudies of the slavery debate include Hickin’s 14 article on John C. Underwood; McMaster’s 15study of colonial anti-slavery proponent Arthur Lee; and Evelyn Pugh’s 16 look at the exchangeof letters between the wife of President John Tyler and the wife of an English aristocrat concerningthe wisdom of slavery.Underlying all of the moral posturing, the major concern of Virginians was with the economicvalue of slavery. Could and would the slave system adapt to the increasingly industrialeconomy of the world, or would the South forever maintain its backward rural economy andattempt to support slavery? Was the “peculiar institution” on the wax or the wane as thecountry went to war? While these questions are still being debated, a wealth of articles concerningthe economy of slavery have contributed to the realization that whether on the rise ordecline. Slavery was changing in the 19th century in response to changing economic conditions.One of the earlier attempts to deal with the relative economy of slavery was made by theeminent agricultural historian Lewis C. Gray 17 in 1930. Although somewhat dated, it is a goodplace to start for understanding the economy of slavery as a labor system. Another ratherdated analysis is that of Robert Russel 18 whose 1937 article is peppered with racist comments(e.g., the economic history of slavery “must be written with the native traits of Negroes inmind.”) Russell feels that slavery was a more viable system than free labor and, like Gray,feels that slavery was not on the decline in 1860. As plantation-style slavery became lessimportant in the Tidewater, slave owners increasingly turned to hiring-out practices to put theirslaves to work and to earn extra money. Slaves were hired out as domestics, skilled artisans,and factory workers. Clement Eaton’s 19 article on slave hiring in the Upper South is perhapsthe best discussion of this practice. Eaton, studying slave-hiring in Richmond, sees this as aweakening of the slave system because of the increased independence it allowed the slavesand because of the owner’s desires to get rid of their surplus slaves. Marianne Buroff Sheldon, 20also writing about Richmond, found a similar erosion of the importance of slavery as far backas 1782. Sarah Hughes, 21 however, studying agricultural slave hiring, sees it as a strengtheningfactor because it separated families, weakened master/servant relationships, and discouragedmanumissions. It seems than, that with regard to this question, careful distinction must be madebetween rural and urban slavery, “Old” and “New” South.164

The importance of slaves in industries other than agriculture has not been overlooked.Articles by Sydney Bradford, 22 Kathleen Bruce, 23 Charles B. Dew, 24 Roland L. Lewis, 25 JohnO’Brien, 26 and John E. Stealey 27 discuss the use of slaves in Virginia industries back to colonialtimes— mostly in iron works, but also salt and coal mining. Lewis’ articles are especiallygood in pointing out the social and cultural as well as the economic ramifications of employingslaves in industry. Slaves were employed in every aspect of these operations including overseeing,and combined with incentive programs and overtime bonuses, slaves were often ableto provide themselves and their families with a little bit extra, as well as gain a measure of selfrespect.Despite the advantages of this kind of labor, factory and mine workers often workedin extreme conditions and were faced with constant occupational hazards. Todd Savitt’s 28article on slave insurance policies provides an interesting perspective on the problems of slavehiringand how slave owners and hirers dealt with them.Recent work by demographers and social historians, although not very numerous, hasnevertheless been useful in providing detailed figures on life expectancy, marriage and familydata, and living conditions. Unfortunately, the lack of accurate and comprehensive records onslaves hinders the progress of such work. Russell Menard, who has done excellent work inthis area with the white population of Colonial Maryland, has extended his work to slaverywith a synthesis of Maryland records on slavery from 1658-1730. 29 Menard traces life expectancy,marriage age and other family statistics and concludes that slaves lives in this periodbore many similarities to the lives of their owners. Isolation, living on small farms, and a lack ofwomen, among other factors, contributed to a slow natural growth rate. It was not until the1720’s that demographic conditions and a realization by planters of the value of a naturallyincreasing labor supply combined to stabilize the natural population growth of slaves. RichardS. Dunn, 30 Bennett H. Wall, 31 and C. G. Holland 32 use the records of specific plantations fortheir data. For the most part, their conclusions are that life on the plantations was better thanMenard’s figures indicate, but it must be remembered that these plantations were large andwell-organized, and run by owners educated and far-seeing enough to keep detailed records.New work on slave culture in and of itself has been extremely sparse. In fact, the onlyarticles that deal in any real way with slave culture and society are the demographic pieces andthe articles dealing with slaves in industry, particularly Lewis, Savitt, Hughes, and O’Brien.Mary Bratton’s 33 autobiography of a 19th-century slave also provides insight into slave life.Finally, James Hugo Johnston’s 34 article on the participation of white men in Negro insurrectionsprovides one of the only studies concerned directly with the usually popular controversialsubject of slave resistance.One area of black history that has not been overlooked, however, is the study of blackparticipation in American wars. Sylvia Frey 35 and Luther P. Jackson 36 provide two differenttypes of articles on blacks in the American Revolution. Jackson, writing in 1942, gives a ratherencyclopedic list of black accomplishments in the war. The article is a useful one, however, inthat it provides an extensive bibliography, lists of names of those who served, and informationabout the ships they fought on, distinctions and rewards earned, casualties, manumissions, andpensions and grants given to these black soldiers. Frey is more concerned with slaves whodefected to the British, reinforcing her contention that slaves were not docile and content withtheir lot, and many risked their lives to run to any enemy they knew little about. Frank Cassell 37has a similar piece on blacks in the War of 1812. Threatened and actual defections and insurrectionswere enough to frighten Virginians into passing stricter control laws on slaves, but wasnot enough to shake the ever-hardening Southern faith in slavery as an institution. Thomas165

Preisser 38 looks at the political debate surrounding the use of Negroes by the Confederacy inthe Civil War. The debate addressed philosophical, moral, political and practical questions,and is a good lesson in Southern attitudes toward blacks.Three articles of note discuss free blacks during different periods of slavery in Virginia.Billings’ article mentioned earlier starts at the beginning when the status of blacks in Americawas not strictly defined, and a number of blacks sued for their freedom. James Brewer 39reinforces Billings’ interpretation of blacks in the 17th century, finding that the ownership ofland by free blacks declined in the last two decades of the century as legal restrictions onblacks increased. Luther Jackson’s old but excellent article on free black land ownership in the19th century 40 is a good starting place for any study of free blacks in Virginia. Jackson concludesthat the small number of free black farmers in 1860 were probably better of than theirbrethren in 1890, after emancipation.ENDNOTESAbbreviationsAH = Agricultural HistoryJEH = Journal of Economic HistoryJNH = Journal of Negro HistoryJSH = Journal of Southern HistoryMHM = Maryland Historical MagazineMVHR = Mississippi Valley Historical ReviewVMHB = Virginia Magazine of History and BiographyW&MQ = William and Mary Quarterly1Alden T. Vaughn, “Blacks in Virginia: A Note on the First Decade,” W&MQ, 3rd s.,29(July 1972), 469-478.2Edmund S. Morgan, “The First American Boom: Virginia 1618 to 1630,” W&MQ,2nd s., 28(April 1971), 169-198.3Warren M. Billings, “The Cases of Fernando and Elizabeth Key: A Note on the Statusof Free Blacks in Seventeenth Century Virginia,” W&MQ, 3rd s., 30(July 1973), 467-474.4Allan Kulikoff, “The Origins of Afro-American Society in Tidewater Maryland andVirginia, 1700-1790,” W&MQ, 3rd s., 35(April 1978), 226-259.5Linda Grant DePaul, “Land of the Unfree: Legal Limitations on Liberty in Pre-RevolutionaryAmerica,” MHM, 68(Winter 1973), 355-378.6Adele Hast, “The Legal Status of the Negro in Virginia, 1705-1765,” JNH, 14(July1969), 217-239.7Darold D. Wax, “Whither the Comparative History of Slavery?,” VMHB, 80(January1972), 85-93.8Benjamin Joseph Klebaner, “American Manumission Laws and the Responsibility forSupporting Slaves,” VMHB, 63(October 1955), 443-453.166

9Wax, “Negro Import Duties in Colonial Virginia: A Study in British Commercial Policyand Local Public Policy,” VMHB, 79(January 1971), 29-44.10Keith M. Bailor, “John Taylor of Caroline: Continuity, Change, and Discontinuity inVirginia’s Sentiments Towards Slavery, 1790-1820,” VMHB, 75(July 1967), 290-304.11James David Essig, “A Very Wintry Season: Virginia Baptists and Slavery, 1785-1797,” VMHB, 88(April 1980), 170-185.12Drew Gilpen Faust, “Evangelicalism and the Meaning of the Proslavery Argument: TheReverend Thornton Stringfellow of Virginia,” VMHB, 85(January 1977), 3-17.13Patricia Hickin, “Gentle Agitator: Samuel M. Janney and the Antislavery Movement inVirginia, 1842-1851,” JSH, 37(May 1971), 159-190.14Hickin, “John C. Underwood and the Antislavery Movement in Virginia, 1847-1860,”VMHB, 73(April 1975), 156-168.15Richard K. MacMaster, “Arthur Lee’s `Address on Slavery’: An Aspect of Virginia’sStruggle to End the Slave Trade, 1765-1774,” VMHB, 80(April 1972), 141-157.16Evelyn L. Pugh, “Women and Slavery: Julia Gardiner Tyler and the Dutchess ofSutherland,” VMHB, 88(April 1980), 186-202.17Lewis C. Gray, “Economic Efficiency and Competitive Advantages of Slavery Underthe Plantation System,” AH, 4(April 1930), 31-47.18Robert R. Russel, “The Economic History of Negro Slavery in the United States,” AH,11(October 1937), 308-321.19Clement Eaton, “Slave-Hiring in the Upper South: A Step Towards Freedom,”MVHR, 46(March 1960), 663-378.20Marianne Buroff Sheldon, “Black-White Relations in Richmond, Virginia, 1782-1820,” JSH, 45(February 1979), 27-44.21Sarah S. Hughes, “Slaves for Hire: The Allocation of Black Labor in Elizabeth County,Virginia, 1782-1810,” W&MQ, 3rd s., 34(April 1978), 260-286.22Sydney S. Bradford, “The Negro Ironworker in Antebellum Virginia,” JSH, 25(May1959), 194-206.23Kathleen Bruce, “Slave Labor in the Virginia Iron Industry, Part I,” W&MQ, 2nd s.,6(October 1926), 289-302; and “Slave Labor in the Virginia Iron Industry, Part II,”W&MQ, 2nd s., 7(January 1927), 21-31.24Charles B. Dew, “David Ross and the Oxford Iron Works: A Study in IndustrialSlavery in the Nineteenth Century South,” W&MQ, 3rd s., 31(April 1974), 189-224.25Roland L. Lewis, “`The Darkest Abode of Man’: Black Miners in the First SouthernCoal Field, 1780-1865,” VMHB, 87(April 1979), 190-202; “Slave Families at theEarly Chesapeake Ironworks,” VMHB, 86(April 1978), 169-179; “Slavery onChesapeake Iron Plantations Before the American Revolution,” JNH, 59 (July 1974),242-254.26John T. O’Brien, “Factory, Church and Community: Blacks in Antebellum Richmond,”JSH, 44(November 1978), 509-536.167

27John Edward Stealey III, “Slavery and the Western Virginia Salt Industry,” JNH,59(April 1974), 105-131.28Todd L. Savitt, “Slave Life Insurance in Virginia and North Carolina,” JSH, 43(November1977), 583-600.29Russel R. Menard, “The Maryland Slave Population, 1658-1730: A DemographicProfile of Blacks in Four Counties,” W&MQ, 3rd s., 32(January 1975), 29-54.30Richard S. Dunn, “A Tale of Two Plantations: Slave Life at Mesopotamia in Jamaicaand Mount Airy in Virginia, 1799-1829,” W&MQ, 3rd s., 34(January 1977), 32-65.31Bennett H. Wall, “Medical Care of Ebenezer Pettigrew’s Slaves,” MVHR, 37(December1950), 451-470.32C.G. Holland, “The Slave Population on the Plantation of John C. Calhoun, Jr.,Nansemond County, Virginia 18ll-1863: Selected Demographic Characteristics,”VMHB, 80(July 1972), 333-340.33Mary J. Bratton, “Field’s Observations: The Slave Narrative of a Nineteenth CenturyVirginia,” VMHB, 88(January 1980), 75-93.34James Hugo Johnston, “The Participation of White Men in Virginia Negro Insurrections,”JNH, 16(April 1931), 158-167.35Sylvia R. Frey, “Between Slavery and Freedom: Virginia’s Blacks in the AmericanRevolution,” JSH, 49(August 1983), 375-378.36Luther P. Jackson, “Virginia Negro Soldiers and Seamen in the American Revolution,”JNH, 27(July 1942), 247-287.37Frank A. Cassell, “Slaves of the Chesapeake Bay Area and the War of 18l2,” JNH,57(April 1972), 144-155.38Thomas M. Preisser, “The Virginia Decision to Use Negro Soldiers in the Civil War,1864-1865,” VMHB, 83(January 1975), 98-113.39James H. Brewer, “Negro Property Owners in Seventeenth-Century Virginia,”W&MQ, 2nd s., 12(October 1955), 575-580.40Luther P. Jackson, “The Virginia Free Negro Farmer and Property Owner, 1830-1860,” JNH, 16(April 1939), 390-439.168

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY:INDUSTRIALIZATION AND THE TRANSPORTATIONREVOLUTION, 1800 TO THE PRESENTDavid T. RobertsDepartment of History, College of William and MaryThe body of historical literature that deals with the expansion and improvement ofVirginia’s transportation network is, as a whole, fairly large, but the amount of coveragethat it offers varies from topic to topic. Of all the subjects within this area, thehistory of railroads has been the indisputable favorite among Virginia historians. The amount ofresearch that has been done on the state’s turnpikes and canals, though not nearly as great asthat done on its railroads, is also significant. However, other topics within this field, not tomention the twentieth-century history of just about every form of transportation in Virginia, hasbeen severely neglected.A similar situation characterizes research into this history of industrialization in Virginia. Afew types of heavy industry, most notably ironmaking and coal mining, have nearly monopolizedthe attention of historians in this field. Discussions in this area have also tended to addressone problem, the procurement of labor for these industries, almost to the exclusion of all otherissues. Other important aspects of industrialization in the state, such as the mechanization ofagriculture, have not been studied nearly as extensively, although some of these issues havebeen the subject of several regional studies. Nevertheless, the body of literature in this field ofVirginia history is rather large and, considering the fact that some topics within this field havereceived a great deal of attention in recent years, it promises to grow significantly in the nearfuture.TransportationVirginia’s railroads have been the subject of a very large number of works. In many ways,however, coverage has been limited to relatively few topics.Works on the history of individual railroads are particularly numerous, and just aboutevery major rail line in the state has been the subject of at least one such study. CharlesW. Turner, far and away the most prolific scholar of Virginia railroad history, has produced aseries of articles dealing with the nineteenth-century history of several individual lines. Theseinclude “The Louisa Railroad, 1836-1850” (North Carolina Historical Review 1947), “TheRichmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad at War, 1861-1865” (The Historian 1946),“The Virginia South-Western Railroad at War, 1861-1865” (NCHR 1947) and “The VirginiaCentral Railroad at War, 1861-1865” (Journal of Southern History 1946). Other contributionsof this type include a series of articles written by Frank Helvestine for the Norfolk andWestern Magazine (1923) dealing with the history of the rail links between Norfolk and therest of the state, J. Randolph Kean’s “The Development of the `Valley Line’ of the Baltimoreand Ohio Railroad” (Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 1952) and JohnB. Mordecai’s A Brief History of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad(1940). As can be seen from even this very incomplete selection, those railroads that have169

een studied are spread throughout the state and are not concentrated in a few geographicregions.More general works about the state’s railroad network are also abundant, but, evenmore so than the studies of individual lines, these are limited almost exclusively to the developmentsof the mid-1800’s. Charles W. Turner has written articles on numerous aspects of therailroad movement in antebellum Virginia. One of the best available pieces on the events of thel820’s and l830’s is his article entitled “The Early Railroad Movement in Virginia” (VMHB1947), which places particular emphasis on the state government’s role in providing financialassistance for the establishment of Virginia’s first rail lines. This article, together with anotherTurner piece entitled “Virginia Railroad Development, 1845-1860” (The Historian 1947),provides rather thorough coverage of the major events in the railroad development of antebellumVirginia.The history of Virginia’s railroads during the Civil War has been the subject of even moreworks than the developments of the antebellum period. These include the Turner articles concerningthe roles played by individual lines during the war that are mentioned above, as well asseveral articles by Angus J. Johnston. The most complete study on this topic, however, isJohnston’s Virginia Railroads in the Civil War (1961), which concentrates primarily on themilitary importance of the state’s railroads during the war.Students of the changes that were experienced by the state’s railroads during Reconstructionand the end of the 1800’s will more likely find it necessary to consult sources thatdeal with the South in general. Fortunately, there are several good works on this subject.Among the best of these are E. G. Campbell’s “Indebted Railroads: A Problem of Reconstruction”(JSH 1940) and Carter Goodrich’s “Public Aid to Railroads in the ReconstructionSouth” (Political Science Quarterly 1956). John F. Stover’s “Southern Railroad Receivershipin the 1870’s” (VMHB 1955) deals with the process of default, foreclosure, receivershipand subsequent reorganization that most Southern railroads experienced after the Panic of1873 and which resulted in a significant increase in Northern control of these lines. This workis very thorough in its analysis of how various factors such as length, capitalization and controlaffected a railroad’s ability to survive this economic slump. Stover traces similar themes in hisbook The Railroads of the South, 1865-1900: A Study in Finance and Control (1955). Agood study of the railroad construction boom that Virginia experienced during the last threedecades of the nineteenth century can be found in Allen W. Moger’s “Railroad Practices andPolicies After the Civil War” (VMHB 1959). This piece includes an account of the completionof the Chesapeake and Ohio line to Newport News. Moger concludes, however, that Northerncontrol of important lines in Virginia was detrimental to the state’s economic development,and that Virginia’s ports in particular suffered at the hands of Northern economic interests.In spite of the large number of works on Virginia’s railroads, the scope of issues addressedby this body of literature is remarkably limited. The overwhelming majority of theseworks appeared during the 1940’s and 1950’s, a period when business history was especiallypopular. As a result, these pieces tend to focus on railroad companies and entrepreneurs, onthe roles played by various levels of government in chartering, financing and regulating theselines, on the financial ups and downs of the railroad industry, and on such issues as competition,profitability and corporate control. The military significance of these lines has also beenthoroughly examined within the context of the Civil War. The political dimension of the railroadissue has been examined less exhaustively and has been largely limited to discussions of thebitter jealousies that arose between sections and communities within the state whenever the170

construction or extension of a rail line was proposed. Such issues are the subject of Turner’s“Virginia Antebellum Railroad Disputes and Problems” (NCHR 1950), and of an article byPeter C. Stewart entitled “Railroads and Urban Rivalries in Antebellum Eastern Virginia” (VMHB1973), which examines commercial competition between Norfolk, Richmond and Petersburg.A reader interested in a systematic study of the impact that railroads had on economicdevelopment must turn to some of the more general works that have been written since 1960.These works by economic historians tend to be very analytical and make extensive use ofsocial science methodologies. These include such works as Robert W. Fogel’s Railroads andAmerican Economic Growth (1964) and Albert Fishlow’s “American Railroads and theTransformation of the Ante-Bellum Economy (1965). There have been no serious attemptsto systematically analyze the effects that railroads had on Virginia’s economy in particular.Another aspect of Virginia railroad history that has yet to be dealt with adequately is thedevelopment of the state’s railroad network after Reconstruction. This is most unfortunate foranyone who is interested in transportation on the Virginia Peninsula because the railroad didnot reach this part of the state, or much of Tidewater for that matter, until after 1880. Fortunately,there is one thorough source that describes the coming of the railroad to the Peninsula.This is Cerinda Evans’s two-volume biography of the entrepreneur who promoted constructionof a Peninsula line, Collis Porter Huntington (1954). Though limited in perspective tothe accomplishments of one man, this work provides a very complete discussion not only ofthe extension of the railroad into the Peninsula, but also of the emergence of Newport News asa leading commercial and shipbuilding center, which was another aspect of Huntington’s schemefor the economic development of the entire region.Prospects are not as bright for those interested in twentieth-century Virginia railroadhistory. Virtually nothing has been written in this field. One exception is John B. Mordecai’sThe Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad in the Second World War (1948).However, a very interesting work on the twentieth-century activities of American railroads ingeneral, as well as one that tries to show at least some aspects of the important relationshipbetween railroads and economic development, is a very recent study by Roy V. Scott entitledRailroad Development Programs in the Twentieth Century (1985). This work examinesattempts by the railroads to increase demand for their services by encouraging both settlementand the exploitation of resources along their rights-of-way. Within the scope of this study,Scott examines such issues as the promotion of immigration by railroad agencies, the railroad’simpact on farming techniques, and industrial growth along rail routes from 1900 until the 1970’s.Other forms of overland transportation have received much less attention from Virginiahistorians, although some research has been done on Virginia’s antebellum turnpikes. A fewstudies are available on individual turnpikes, such as Walter K. Wood’s article, “HenryEdmundson, the Alleghany Turnpike, and `Fotheringay’ Plantation, 1805-1847" (VMHB 1975).Also, Robert F. Hunter has written a few statewide studies, such as “The Turnpike Movementin Virginia, 1816-1860” (VMHB 1961) and “Turnpike Construction in Antebellum Virginia”(Technology and Culture 1963). Like the works on the state’s railroads, these articles focuson the companies that built and operated the turnpikes, on competition and the profitability ofthese ventures, on the state government’s internal improvement policy, and on sectional disputesover the desirability and location of such projects. Hunter has also done some significantresearch into the technical aspects of the construction and maintenance of the roadways andbridges that formed the network of turnpikes in antebellum Virginia. However, such topics as171

the impact that Virginia’s turnpikes had on settlement patterns, local economies and the socialstructures of the communities that they served have yet to be examined adequately.Most other aspects of the history of land-based transportation, such as stagecoach routes,the expansion of the state’s public road network, the impact of the Interstate Highway system,and the development of urban transit systems, have received no significant attention fromVirginia historians. The neglect of twentieth-century transportation developments is most unfortunatebecause these made possible some of the most extensive social and economic transformationsever experienced by the state, such as the rise of the tourist industry and the rapidpost-World War II suburbanization of many parts of Virginia.Studies on the development of water transportation in Virginia are far fewer in numberthan those on land-based transportation. They also deal far more exclusively with the historiesof individual projects and companies. Again, the issues that are discussed in these works aresimilar to those that are the focus of works on the railroads and turnpikes. Those on canalsaddress primarily the financial assistance provided by the state government before the CivilWar and the attempts to secure federal aid afterward. They also devote a great deal of attentionto the companies that ran the canals. This is particularly true of Wayland F. Dunaway’sHistory of the James River and Kanawha Company (1922). Alexander C. Brown hasproduced a far more antiquarian-style account entitled The Dismal Swamp Canal (1967).However, since this canal survived into the twentieth century, and since Brown traces thehistory of his subject beyond 1900, he is able to describe an important event not normallycovered in works on other internal improvements. That event is the permanent federal takeoverof a transportation facility. In the case of the Dismal Swamp Canal, this took place in1929. Philip M. Rice’s article, “The Early Development of the Roanoke Waterway-A Study inInterstate Relations” (NCHR 1954), addresses another familiar theme— disputes betweenantebellum communities with diverging commercial interests over the construction of a transportationfacility. However, in this particular case, the dispute involved communities in bothVirginia and North Carolina. Rice traces the very interesting process of negotiation and compromisethat was necessary to accommodate the various interests concerned and to reconciledifferences in the internal improvement policies of the two states. In the end, however, thesedisputes delayed construction of the waterway for so long that it was no longer of much use bythe time it was completed. An interesting company history that examines another type of watertravel is Alexander Brown’s “The Old Line of the Chesapeake: A Sketch of a Hundred Yearsof Steamboat Operation” (William and Mary Quarterly 1938). This provides a descriptiveaccount of the history of the steamboat line that linked Norfolk and Baltimore beginning in1839. Brown provides a very brief mention of the temporary federal take-over of all rail andsteamship lines during the First World War. Other facilities for water-borne travel and commerce,such as the state’s ferries and harbors, have received virtually no significant attentionfrom historians.The impact of the arrival of air-travel and the construction of airport facilities is yet anotheraspect of Virginia’s transportation history that has been largely ignored.Comprehensive works on the development of Virginia’s transportation network as awhole are likewise scarce. This is unfortunate given the fact that the works on individual internalimprovements tend to focus on competition between various forms of transportation (ifthey address these relationships at all) and not on the coordination of various forms of travelthat was a prerequisite for Virginia’s economic development. One general piece that is worthmentioning, however, is Carter Goodrich’s “The Virginia System of Mixed Enterprise: A Study172

of State Planning of Internal Improvements” (Political Science Quarterly 1949). The subjectof this article, one which is examined far less exhaustively in several of the works mentionedabove, is the Virginia government’s regular practice of purchasing a major portion of the sharesof stock offered by companies that proposed to construct and operate internal improvementswithin the state. It was through this policy that the state promoted numerous projects forexpanding and improving Virginia’s transportation network between the 1810’s and the 1860’s.IndustrializationLike the body of literature on the history of transportation in Virginia, that on industrialization inthe state includes a relatively large number of works but addresses a rather narrow range oftopics. The overwhelming bulk of the secondary material on the state’s industries, like that onthe state’s transportation network, focuses on the events of the antebellum and Civil Waryears. Works that address later events, as well as works that trace the development of industryfrom the antebellum period into the postbellum years, are extremely rare.The number of different industries that have been the subject of such studies is alsolimited. The state’s iron industry has attracted by far the most attention. The classic work in thisarea is Kathleen Bruce’s Virginia Iron Manufacture in the Slave Era (1931). This workplaces particular emphasis on the conflicts between the state’s planters and industrialists, onthe use of slave labor in ironworks, and on antebellum Virginia’s most important industrialenterprise, the Tredegar Ironworks in Richmond. Charles B. Dew has written a very thoroughbook on the role that this particular ironworks played during the Civil War entitled Ironmakerto the Confederacy: Joseph R. Anderson and the Tredegar Iron Works (1966). Among theissues addressed in this work are Tredegar’s military importance, the financial assistance offeredby the Confederate government, the impact of the Northern blockade and the wartimelabor shortage, and the importance of railroad-related contracts to the ironwork’s wartimeoperations.Among the other types of industry that have attracted at least some attention from Virginiahistorians are mining (especially coal mining), textile and tobacco manufacturing, andflour milling. Otis K. Rice’s article, “Coal Mining in the Kanawha Valley to 1861: A View ofIndustrialization in the Old South” (JSH 1965), is worth mentioning because it places heavyemphasis on the retarding effect that the lack of adequate transportation facilities had on heavyindustry in a particular part of antebellum Virginia. One interesting piece on a rarely-studiedtype of antebellum industry is Carol H. Quenzel’s “The Manufacture of Locomotives and Carsin Alexandria in the l850’s” (VMHB 1954).With the predominance of studies that deal with the antebellum period, it is not surprisingthat the questions that have dominated historical discussions in this field are related almostexclusively to the place that heavy industry occupied in an agrarian economy that wad dominatedby slave labor and the plantation system. Historians writing in the 1920’s and 1930’sseem to have been most concerned with determining the viability of manufacturing enterpriseswithin this context. For example, the main point of Kathleen Bruce’s article “Slave Labor in theVirginia Iron Industry” (WMQ 1926), a piece that is riddled with the author’s unenlightenedracial comments, seems to be to prove that slave labor did provide an effective and profitablemeans of manning these operations, while Lester I. Cappon, in “Trend of the Southern IronIndustry under the Plantation System” (Journal of Economic and Business History 1930),concludes that the plantation system retarded the growth of Southern industry because of its173

inflexibility and in the characteristic lack of capital. Cappon does, however, briefly discuss therole that the region’s expanding transportation network had on the South’s iron industry.Postwar historians have examined similar problems from a new perspective. While theissue of slave labor in factories and mines is still the dominant topic of discussion in this field,attention has shifted in the last few decades from questions about the profitability of this sourceof labor to the study of the impact that industrialization had on the lives of the slaves themselves.Interest in this topic has resulted in a rather large number of works. One very goodarticle that marks the transition between the prewar and postwar approaches to this theme isS. Sydney Bradford’s “The Negro Ironworker in Ante Bellum Virginia” (JSH 1959). Bradfordconcludes that the living conditions experienced by slaves in this industry were poor, and thatthe reliance upon slave labor contributed to the failure of the state’s ironmakers to improvetheir manufacturing methods, which, in turn, reduced their competitiveness. Thus, according toBradford, industrial slavery benefited neither the slave nor the master. Charles B. Dew, on theother hand, uses accounts from the letterbook of an antebellum Virginia ironmaker to show, inan article entitled “David Ross and the Oxford Iron Works: A Study of Industrial Slavery in theEarly Nineteenth-Century South” (WMQ 1974), that slaves did derive significant advantagesfrom industrial work, or at least from the paternalism of this one important industrialist. RonaldL. Lewis has written a number of important articles on industrial slavery in Virginia. One of themost noteworthy is entitled “Slave Families at Early Chesapeake Ironworks” (VMHB 1978),which attempts to show that slaves in Virginia’s iron works had a stable family structure. Lewishas also published a very comprehensive book entitled Coal, Iron and Slaves: IndustrialSlavery in Maryland and Virginia, 1715-1865 (1979).No other aspect of Virginia’s antebellum industrial growth has received such exhaustivestudy. Except for the usually brief discussions that are included in some of the works mentionedabove, very little has been written about the relationship between the expansion of thestate’s transportation network and the growth of antebellum industry. Nor have there been anysignificant studies on Northern and foreign investment in Virginia’s industry, on free labor duringthe antebellum period, on what, if any, part the government played in encouraging theseenterprises (with the exception of the Confederate government’s assistance to the TredegarWorks), or on the impact that the presence of an industrial plant had on an antebellum Virginiacommunity’s standard of living and social structure.As far as the postbellum history of Virginia’s industry is concerned, historians have yet toeven scratch the surface. A few pieces have been written about the state’s industrial growthduring the last few decades of the 1800’s. One particularly noteworthy study is AllenW. Moger’s “Industrial and Urban Progress in Virginia from 1880-1900” (VMHB 1958).Moger provides a generous amount of statistics that compare Virginia’s industrial growth duringthis period with that of the South and the nation in general. He also discusses each of thestate’s ten most important industries, describes the growth experienced by Danville, Lynchburg,Roanoke, Petersburg, Richmond, Norfok and Newport News during this period, an analyzesthe impact that industrialization had in the state’s political sphere. Joseph Fry has published aninteresting account entitled “Rayon, Riot, and Repression: The Covington Sit-Down Strike of1937” (VMHB 1976), which describes how industrial leaders and local police and governmentofficials cooperated to defeat Virginia’s first major sit-down strike. However, given thesignificance of the industrial progress that Virginia has made since the Civil War, the amount ofhistorical research that has been done in this area is appallingly scant. Even logical extensionsof the themes that have dominated studies of the state’s antebellum industry, such as the tran-174

sition from slave to free labor and the experiences of black industrial workers in the latenineteenthand twentieth centuries, have yet to be touched by Virginia’s historians. No topic inthe post-Civil War history of Virginia’s industrialization has been examined adequately.The mechanization of agriculture is another aspect of industrialization that has receivedsurprisingly little attention given the importance of agriculture in Virginia’s economy. However,several secondary works treat this subject on a regional or national basis. Wayne D. Rasmusson,an official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, produced a very general survey entitled“The Impact of Technological Change on American Agriculture, 1862-1962” (Journal ofEconomic History 1962), and A. N. Johnson published a much shorter account entitled “TheImpact of Farm Machinery on the Farm Economy” (Agricultural History 1950). Far morepertinent to Virginia history is Heywood Fleisig’s “Slavery, the Supply of Agricultural Labor,and the Industrialization of the South” (JEH 1976), which contends that reliance on slaverydiscouraged the mechanization of Southern agriculture. However, for the most part, the issueof agricultural mechanization in Virginia has yet to receive attention commensurate with itsimportance.Another issue closely related to industrialization is immigration, for immigrants provided amajor portion of the labor that allowed the nation’s industries to grow. Unfortunately, very littleresearch has been done on the immigrants who settled in Virginia during the nineteenth andtwentieth centuries. Some attention has been given to immigration to the South in general, butthis has focused primarily on the reception that immigrants received from native Southernersand not on the economic and social conditions that these immigrants faced or on the impactthat immigration had on Southern economic growth. Among the better articles in this field isRowland T. Berthoff’s “South Attitudes Toward Immigration, 1865-1914” (JSH 1951). Accordingto Berthoff, late nineteenth-century Southern reactions to immigration were mixed.While planters, land speculators, railroads, industrialists and state governments actively, thoughunsuccessfully, sought to encourage immigration, a strong but latent nativism existed among theregion’s small farmers, blacks and laborers. In the decade before World War I, however,nativism became far more pervasive and drastically altered Southern reactions to immigration.Bert J. Loewenberg published an earlier and more specific study entitled “Efforts of the Southto Encourage Immigration” (South Atlantic Quarterly 1934), which deals with roughly thesame period. Loewenberg describes the movement to create state commissions for the promotionof immigration in the 1860’s and 1870’s, and the increasingly important role played bythe immigration agencies established by Southern railroads after 1880. Anyone interested inmore systematic studies of the relationship between immigration and industrialization must turnto works that deal with the issue on a national basis, such as Charlotte Erikson’s AmericanIndustry and the European Immigrant, 1860-1885 (1957), or Joseph M. Perry’s The Impactof Immigration on Three American Industries, 1865-1914 (1978). Unfortunately, thegeneral works on immigration usually display very marked biases toward immigration to theNorth and West and pay very little attention to those immigrants who were attracted to theSouth.TourismOne aspect of Virginia’s economic growth that is very closely related to the expansion of itstransportation network is the rise of tourism in the state. Unfortunately, despite the importantpart that tourism has played in the state’s economy during the twentieth century, virtually noth-175

ing has been written about the historical development of this industry. One article that describesan early attempt to attract visitors to a Virginia city is Carl Abbott’s “Norfolk in theNew Century: The Jamestown Exposition and Urban Boosterism” (VMHB 1977). However,the sponsors of this 1907 celebration were less concerned with the establishment of a permanenttourist industry than they were with attracting the publicity that they hoped would encouragethe city’s commercial growth. For the most part, though, the history of the rise of thestate’s tourist industry has been left untold.Thus, while some topics in this field of Virginia history have been the subject of impressiveamounts of research, many have been left largely untouched. There is also a great need forworks that relate the findings on one topic to those on another. Improvements in transportation,the growth of various industries, the mechanization of agriculture, the arrival of immigrantsand the rise of tourism have always shown a high degree of interrelatedness. Although somehistorians have made attempts at analyzing these relationships, the general practice has been toexamine each of these topics individually and, as a result, to ignore these important connection.Finally, the area that is in most desperate need of further research is the twentieth-centuryhistory of each of the topics discussed above. The transitions that Virginia’s economy hasexperienced since 1900 have been both fundamental and far-reaching. Yet far more researchis necessary if we are to fully understand these changes and fully appreciate their importance.BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PERIODICAL LITERATUREAbbott, Carl1977 Norfolk in the New Century: The Jamestown Exposition and UrbanBoosterism. Virginia Magazine of History & Biography 85:86-96.Berry, Thomas S.1970 The Rise of Flour Milling in Richmond. Virginia Magazine of History &Biography 78:387-408.Bradford, S. Sydney1959 The Negro Ironworker in Ante Bellum Virginia. Journal of Souther History25:194-206.Brown, Alexander Crosby1938 The Old Bay Line of the Chesapeake: A Sketch of a Hundred Years of SteamboatOperation. William and Mary Quarterly 18(2nd series):389-4051966 The Canal Boat ‘Governor McDouell’: Virginia’s Pioneer Iron Steamer. VirginiaMagazine of History & Biography 74:336-345.Bruce, Kathleen1926 Slave Labor in the Virginia Iron Industry, Part I. William and Mary Quarterly6(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. Agricultural History 6:3-13.176

Cappon, Lester J.1930 Trend of the Southern Iron Industry Under the Plantation System. Journal ofEconomic and Business History 2:253-281.Dew, Charles B.1974 David Ross and the Oxford Iron Works: A Study of Industrial Slavery in theEarly Nineteenth-Century South. William and Mary Quarterly 31(3rd series):189-224.Eavenson, Howard N.1942 Some Side-Lights on Early Virginia Coal Mining. Virginia Magazine & Biography50:199-208.Fry, Joseph A.1976 Rayon, Riot, and Repression: The Covington Sit-Down Strike of 1937. VirginiaMagazine of History & Biography 84:3-18.Heath, Milton S.1950 Public Railroad Construction and the Development of Private Enterprise in theSouth Before 1861. Journal of Economic History 10:40-53.Herndon, G. Melvin1978 Agricultural Reform in Antebellum Virginia: William Galt, Jr., A Case Study.Agricultural History 52:394-406.Hunter, Robert F.1961 The Turnpike Movement in Virginia, 1816-1860. Virginia Magazine of History& Biography 69:278-289.Johnston, Angus J., Jr.1955 Disloyalty on Confederate Railroad in Virginia. Virginia Magazine of History& Biography 63:410-426.1957 Virginia Railroad in April 1861. Journal of Southern History 23:307-330.Lewis, Roland L.1978 Slave Families at Early Chesapeake Ironworks. Virginia Magazine of History& Biography 86:169-179.1979 ‘The Darkest Abode of Man’: Black Miners in the First Southern Coal Field,1780-1865. Virginia Magazine of History & Biography 87:190-202.Moger, Allen W.1951 Railroad Practices and Policies in Virginia After the Civil War. Virginia Magazineof History & Biography 59:423-457.1958 Industrial and Urban Progress in Virginia from 1880 to 1900. Virginia Magazineof History & Biography 66:307-336.177

Northington, O. F., Jr.1936 Revival of the Iron Industry in Eastern Virginia as Exemplified By the History ofthe Catharine Furnace in Spotsylvania County. William and Mary Quarterly16(2nd series):71-80.Peterson, Arthur G.1930 Wheat and Corn Prices Received by Producers in Virginia, 1801-1928.Journal of Economic and Business History 2:382-391.1935 Flour and Grist Milling in Virginia: A Brief History. Virginia Magazine ofHistory & Biography 43:97-108.Robert, Joseph Clarke1933 The Rise of the Tobacco Warehouse Auction System in Virginia, 1800-1860.Agricultural History 7:170-182.Stewart, Peter C.1973 Railroad and Urban Rivalries in Antebellum Eastern Virginia. Virginia Magazineof History & Biography 81:3-22.Stover, John F.1955 Southern Railroad Receivership in the 1870’s. Virginia Magazine of History &Biography 63:40-52.Thomas, Jerry B.1976 Jedediah Hotchkiss, Gilded-Age Propagandist of Industrialism. VirginiaMagazine of History & Biography 84:187-202.Turner, Charles W.1946 The Virginia Central Railroad at War, 1861-1865. Journal of SouthernHistory 12:510-533.1947 The Early Railroad Movement in Virginia. Virginia Magazine of History &Biography 55:350-371.1948 Railroad Service to Virginia Farmers, 1828-1860. Agricultural History22:239-248.1950 Early Virginia Railroad Entrepreneurs and Personnel. Virginia Magazine ofHistory & Biography 58:323-334.1955 A Virginia Small Farmer’s Life After the Civil War: The Journal of WilliamJ. Hart. Virginia Magazine of History & Biography 63:286-305.Wettereau, James O.1942 The Branches of the First Bank of the United States. Journal of EconomicHistory 2:66-100.178

Additional SourcesArticles:Berthoff, Rowland, T.1951 Southern Attitudes Toward Immigration, 1865-1914. Journal of SouthernHistory 17:328-360.Brydon, G. MacLaren1934 The Bristol Iron Works in King George County. Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography 42:97-102.Campbell, E. G.1940 Indebted Railroads: A Problem of Reconstruction. Journal of SouthernHistory 6:167-188.Coleman, Elizabeth Dabney1953 Southwest Virginia’s Railroad: Lynchburg Started It, Virginia Built It, the YankeesWrecked It. Virginia Cavalcade 2:20-28.Fleisig, Heywood1976 Slavery, the Supply of Agricultural Labor, and the Industrialization of the South.Journal of Economic History 36:572-596.Fleming, Walter L.1905 Immigration to the Southern States. Political Science Quarterly 20:276-297.Goodrich, Carter1949 The Virginia System of Mixed Enterprise: A Study of State Planning of InternalImprovements. Political Science Quarterly 64:355-387.1956 Public Aid to Railroads in the Reconstruction South. Political Science Quarterly71:407-442.Green, Fletcher M.1937a Gold Mining in Ante-Bellum Virginia. Part I. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 45:227-235.1937bGold Mining in Ante-Bellum Virginia. Part II. Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography 45:357-366.Handley, Harry E.1964 The James River and Kanawha Canal. West Virginia History 25: 92-101.Helvestine, Frank1923a The Beginning of a Great Railroad. Norfolk and Western Magazine 1:6-6, 78.1923b The Development of a Great Railroad. Norfolk and Western Magazine 1:12-14, 73-75, 77.1923c History of the Norfolk and Petersburg. Norfolk and Western Magazine 1:13-14, 77, 79.179

1923d The Third Link in the N & W Chain. Norfolk and Western Magazine 1:15-17,72-73.Hunter, Robert F.1963 Turnpike Construction in Antebellum Virginia. Technology and Culture 4:177-200.Johnson, A. N.1950 The Impact of Farm Machinery on the Farm Economy. Agricultural History24:58-61.Kean, Jefferson Randolph1952 The Development of the ‘Valley Line’ of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 60:537-550.Laing, James R.1966 The Early Development of the Coal Industry in the Western Counties of Virginia,1800-1865. West Virginia History 27:144-155.Lewis, Ronald L.1977 The Use and Extent of Slave Labor in the Virginia Iron Industry: The Ante-Bellum Era. West Virginia History 38:141-156.Loewnberg, Bert J.1934 Efforts of the South to Encourage Immigration. South Atlantic Quarterly33:363-385.Quenzel, Carol H.1954 The Manufacture of Locomotives and Cars in Alexandria in the 1850’s. VirginiaMagazine of History and Biography 62:181-189.Ramsdell, Charles W.1917 The Confederate Government and the Railroads. American Historical Review22:794-810.Rasmusson, Wayne D.1962 The Impact of Technological Change on American Agriculture, 1862-1962.Journal of Economic History, 22:578-591.Rice, Otis K.1965 Coal Mining in the Kanawha Valley to 1861: A View of Industrialization in theOld South. Journal of Southern History 31:393-416.Rice, Philip M.1954 The Early Development of the Roanoke Waterway - A Study in InterstateRelations. North Carolina Historical Review 31:50-74.Riegel, Robert E.1922 Federal Operation of Southern Railroads During the Civil War. MississippiValley Historical Review 9:126-138.180

Steeley, John Edmund, III1974 Slavery and the Western Virginia Salt Industry. Journal of Negro History59:105-131.Taylor, Robert T.1957 The Jamestown Tercentennial Exposition of 1907. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 65:169-208.Turner, Charles W.1946 The Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad at War, 1861-1865.The Historian:111-130.1947a The Louisa Railroad, 1836-1850. North Carolina Historical Review 24:34-57.1947b Virginia Railroad Development, 1845-1860. The Historian 10:43-62.1947cThe Virginia Southwestern Railroad at War, 1861-1865. North CarolinaHistorical Review 24:467-484.1950 Virginia Ante-Bellum Railroad Disputes and Problems. North Carolina HistoricalReview 27:314-335.1952 Virginia Agricultural Reform, 1815-1860. Agricultural History 26:80-88.Wood, Walter K.1975 Henry Edmundson, the Alleghany Turnpike, and ‘Fotheringay’ Plantation, 1805-1847. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 83:304-320.Books:Alexander, John1942 The Iron Industry of Wythe County from 1702. Wytheville, Virginia: SouthwestVirginia Enterprise.Armitage, Laura E.1949 Transportation in the James River Valley, 1785-1890. Richmond.Brown, Alexander C.1967 The Dismal Swamp Canal. Chesapeake, Virginia: Norfolk County HistoricalSociety, 1967.Bruce, Kathleen1931 Virginia Iron Manufacture in the Slave Era. New York: The Century Co.Danaway, Wayland F.1922 History of the James River and Kanawha Company. New York: ColumbiaUniversity.181

Dew, Charles B.1966 Ironmaker to the Confederacy: Joseph R. Anderson and the Tredegar IronWorks. New Haven: Yale University Press.Dozier, Howard Douglas1920 A History of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad. Boston.Erikson, Charlotte1957 American Indistry and the European Immigrant, 1860-1885. Cambridge,Massachusetts.Evans, Cerinda1954 Collis Potter Huntington. 2 vols. Newport News, Virginia: Mariner’s Museum.Fishlow, Albert1965 American Railroads and the Transformation of the Ante-Bellum Economy.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Fogel, Robert W.1964 Railroads and American Economic Growth. Baltimore: The Johns HopkinsPress.Gray, Lewis C.1933 History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860, 2 Vols.Washington: Carnegie Institution.Johnston, Angus J.1961 Virginia Railroad in the Civil War. Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress, 1961.Lemert, Benjamin F.1933 Cotton Textile Industry of the Southern Appalachian Piedmont. ChapelHill: University of North Carolina Press.Lewis, Ronald L.1979 Iron and Slaves: Industrial Slavery in Maryland and Virginia, 1715-1865.Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.Mitchell, Broadus, and George S. Mitchell1930 The Industrial Revolution in the South. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.Mitchell, George S.1931 The Textile Revolution and the South.Mordecai, John B.1940 A Brief History of the Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad.Richmond.1948 The Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad in the SecondWorld War. Richmond.182

Perry, Joseph M.1978 The Impact of Immigration on Three American Industries, 1865-1914.New York: Arno Press.Robert, Joseph C.1938 The Tobacco Kingdom: Plantation, Market, and Factory in Virginia andNorth Carolina, 1800-1860. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.Rogin, Leo1931 The Introduction of Farm Machinery in its Relation to the Productivity ofLabor in the Agriculture of the United States During the NineteenthCentury. Berkeley: University of California Press.Saunders, Richard1978 The Railroad Mergers and the Coming of Conrail. Westport, Connecticut:Greenwood Press.Scott, Roy V.1985 Railroad Development Programs in the Twentieth Century. Ames: IowaState University Press.Smith, Robert S.1960 Mill on the Dan: Dan River Mills, 1882-1950.Stover, John F.1955 The Railroads of the South, 1865-1900: A Study in Finance and Control.Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Taylor, George R.1951 The Transportation Revolution, 1815-1860. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.Tostlebe, Alain S.1957 The Capital in Agriculture: Its Formation and Financing Since 1870.Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.183

184

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY:VIRGINIA AFRO-AMERICAN HISTORYCassandra L. NewbyDepartment of History, College of William and MaryIn the historiographic essay, “The Afro-American: From Myth to Reality,” John Blassingamecalls for the abandonment of white supremacists’ mythology that blacks were largely powerlessand unheroic, with a presentation of the reality for the black experience in America. 1Blassingame goes on to observe that typically, the role of whites in black history has beenemphasized, rather than the activities of black individuals and communities. 2 Although it isdifficult for historians to emphasize the role of blacks in society from the black perspectivebecause of a lack of diaries, personal papers, and memoirs written by blacks, it is not impossible.The post-World War II period was a major turning point for the historiography of blackhistory. Pioneered in the mainstream sectors by white scholars such as Kenneth Stampp, thesehistorians began to utilize autobiographies, recent sociological and anthropological studies ofAmerican blacks, newspaper files and plantation manuscripts to view slavery from the perspectiveof the slave rather than the slaveowner. 3 In the 1952 article, “The Historian andSouthern Negro Slavery,” 4 Kenneth Stampp stressed the same concerns and suggestions inwriting Afro-American history that John Blassingame stressed twenty years later. This factgives one the impression that the historical profession has not moved far from what Stampphas called historical literature’s one fundamental problem: the biased historian. 5The majority of periodicals collected for review in this essay examine black history fromthe perspective of whites. But with the coming of the 1960s and 1970s, there were a fewarticles which showed a definite trend towards redirecting that emphasis and exploring thoserecords that were left behind by blacks—both free and bond. The new scholarly interest instatistical analysis has helped in utilizing county records so as to give the study of black historya new and fresh approach. Although the change is still meager, white scholars have begun toemphasize what many black scholars have been emphasizing for years—the role of blacks inAmerican history.The following discussion will examine selected articles on Afro-American history as itrelates to the state of Virginia. This essay will also comment on the various trends throughwhich the study of Afro-American history has passed, discuss areas that need to be addressedin the future by scholars, and compare the selected articles reviewed with John Blassingame’shistoriographic essay which outlined trends in past scholarly works—trends which either perpetuatedthe myth or broke new ground into the realities of black history.In the July 1972 issue of the William and Mary Quarterly, Alden Vaughn wrote anarticle which dealt with a commonly accepted, but meagerly research area: blacks in the firstdecade of Virginia. 6 In examining a variety of records, Vaughn, very convincingly, piecedtogether data leading to the following general conclusions: (1) there were more than the previouslyaccepted number of twenty blacks living in Virginia by 1629; (2) by 1629, Englishmenhad developed a deep-rooted antipathy towards blacks; (3) in the 1624 Census, blacks as agroup received the scantiest and most impersonal entries while the 1625 Census relegated185

lacks to an inferior social position in white Virginia; and (4) between 1619 and 1629, blackswere subjected or on their way in being subjected to permanent and inheritable bondage. 7The following year, Warren Billings examined the deteriorating status of blacks as a resultof the hardening of white attitudes between 1619 and 1640. 8 Using two case studies, Billingsdemonstrated how the changing laws affected the status of blacks in Virginia by linking thesetwo cases with the Acts of 1662 and 1667. 9 Both of these articles along with another edited byEmory Evans, 1 do concentrate on what Blassingame termed, the “chicken or egg” debate—0which came first, prejudice or slavery—rather than on the problem of adjustment and resistanceto the enslavement process. 1 However, neither Billings nor Vaughn ignored the enslavementprocess. They simply did not have enough source material from which to work, thus1preventing them from concentrating on the area suggested by Blassingame.The period 1630 to 1775 was a time of great transition for blacks in Virginia. The lawsgoverning the institution of slavery were codified, the status of free blacks was significantlyreduced to that closely resembling chattel, and white servitude was all but eliminated in favorof black slavery. The story of these events has been sufficiently addressed in excellent monographicworks by Edmund Morgan, John Hope Franklin, Robert McColley, Gerald Mullinand Benjamin Quarles. 12An area not adequately addressed in those monographs, however, was the developmentof an Afro-American society—specifically in Virginia. Allan Kulikoff, in his innovative essay 13addresses just that area. Allan Kulikoff supports the contention that slave migrants and theirdescendants created indigenous social institutions within the framework of white rule. Kulikoff’spremise repudiates the traditional notion that the white population was so large in the Chesapeakethat the slaves (a minority in comparison) were forced to accept Anglo-American beliefs,values and skills. Kulikoff further states that although blacks developed their own socialinstitutions, cultural autonomy did not become favorable for them until the middle of the eighteenthcentury. 14 Obviously, Kulikoff’s article addressed many of the issues called for by bothStampp and Blassingame in the study of Afro-American history; but at the same time, gave acall for more research on the internal life of slaves quarters, interaction of blacks and whites,and changes in the Piedmont due to heavy African slave settlement in the 1750s and 1760s. 15Selected periodicals examining the role of blacks in the American Revolution approachthe topic from the perspective of active decision-making by blacks, rather than passive submissionto events in white society beyond their control. Luther P. Jackson is a well-knownhistorian who has dedicated his life to bring light to the active participation of blacks in theirown destinies. “Virginia Negro Soldiers and Seamen in the American Revolution” 16 is one sucheffort. Jackson was among the first historians to recognize that blacks served the cause ofindependence in many various forms—not all of them for the benefit of the American colonies.It took many years before another scholar addressed (in periodical literature) the basic themeof independence, as seen by blacks, in the American Revolution. Sylvia Frey suggested thatslaves in varying degrees and methods, resisted slavery (e.g., running away, joining the British);but that the actions of the British and the white American discouraged any large-scaleinsurrections. 17 Similar situations existed for blacks in the War of 1812. Frank Cassell notedthat defections by slaves to the British were frequent enough to require countermeasures onthe part of white Virginians in preventing slaves from reaching the British. 18 However, Cassellfailed to explain exactly why Virginia’s slave society was not nearly as disrupted in 1812 as ithad been in 1775, and why the whites continued the rhetoric of the docile and loyal slaves inview of their recent activities during the past two wars.186

Events after the Revolution proved temporarily beneficial to the Afro-American’s statusdue to the nature of the ideals and principles espoused in the war, and the effect of the GreatAwakening on the people of Virginia. Luther P. Jackson, George Pilcher, W. Harrison Danieland James Essig 19 believed that in the period between 1740 and 1790, the Great Awakeninghad a tremendous but temporary impact on the way the people of Virginia, in particular, viewedslavery and the slave. Despite past notions that Virginians were opposed to and tried to eliminatethe slave trade through the use of black import duties 20 , white Virginians were overwhelminglyin favor of slavery. It was the religious movement called the Great Awakeningwhich appealed to the masses and stood for the “amelioration of the common man” withrespect to his social and civil capacity 21 , and freedom for all people. The Virginia Baptistswere the main group during the Great Awakening, who emphasized the spiritual aspect of theChristian faith and de-emphasized the race factor—resulting in a broad black appeal. However,as the Baptists modified their concern with abolishing slavery to a more comfortable andconservative perspective, the Baptist Church began to split. The results were white Baptistchurches, black Baptist churches, and a loss of spirituality, sincerity and purity in the executionof their faith. Interestingly, of the four articles only one, by Luther P. Jackson, focused on theactivities of black individuals and communities during and after Great Awakening.Despite the fact that Christian brotherhood sentiments among whites towards blacksturned out to be only temporary, the institution of slavery did experience some changes; notablya decline, at one point, in the percentage of slaves versus the percentage of free blacks.Many blacks were emancipated in those years following the Revolution; but as whites revertedback to their old ways, the ease with which blacks could be emancipated and theconditions governing those recently freed tightened. Williams McGroaty discusses two massemancipations in Virginia which led to an exodus into Ohio and the establishment of two freeblack communities. 22Keith Bailor takes the transition from open emancipation to toleration of slavery to acceptanceand then finally to its defense as a constitutional right from a secular standpoint. 23Rather than looking at the decline of spirituality among the whiter Christians, Bailor establisheshis argument regarding this transition utilizing the arguments of John Taylor of Caroline County,as representative of this change. Although Bailor provides plenty of examples and good strongarguments to support his thesis, he disregards other factors (e.g., impact of evangelical decline,rise in presence of free blacks, economic interests of slaveholders) that were just asimportant as those articulated by John Taylor.According to some historians, no essay on Afro-American history is complete withoutthe requisite review of articles concerning the development of slavery and the plantation system.The traditional approach has been to examine only the personal papers of slaveowners. 24Recently, however, the new statistical and demographic approach have added new dimensionsto historical research as well as expanded the amount of information that can be culledfrom plantation records, census reports, official documents and miscellaneous papers. Whenused properly, the newer approach can lend fascinating insights into the lives of slaves withrespect to occupational structure, family life, occurrence of miscegenation and persistence. 25Whereas, if the new approach is used without commentary or extrapolation, it lacks historicalsignificance and becomes nothing but a boring report. 26The use of comparative history lends some very fascinating results, especially when usedin conjunction with demographic and statistical data and planation records. Despite the factthat Darold Wax cites various pitfalls (e.g., broad generalizations and comments) to using a187

comparative history technique, he does not believe that its usage would not broaden the scopeof how American slavery can be interpreted. 27New emphases in historical writing are usually due to pioneering works, such as TimeOn The Cross (Boston, 1974), by Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman. In the case of TimeOn The Cross, the authors attempted to relate the new statistical methodologies to plantationrecords, in an effort to discover the economic efficiency of slavery. Lewis Gray attempted asimilar feat in 1930, but on a much smaller scale. Although Gray dealt with the nation as awhole, rather than looking specifically at Virginia, his general findings were widely applicable.The focus of Gray’s article was to compare the economic advantages of slavery over indenturedservitude in North America, and the reasons why slavery displaced servitude as the mainform of labor. 28 Forty-five years after Gray’s article and one year after the publication of TimeOn The Cross, Allan Kulikoff examined, “Black Society and the Economics of Slavery.”Kulikoff stated that the intent of his article was to review and analyze Time On The Cross’sdescription of slave society and suggest how a different approach to this data could havemodified and corrected some of their conclusions. 29 Kulikoff believes that the only problemwith Time On The Cross was its conceptual framework (e.g., examined blacks from thevantage point of white masters, insensitive to temporal and geographic variations in slave life)rather than with the manipulation of its collected data. 30 Thus, Kulikoff does not believe thatslavery was not economically profitable; but rather, the lack of a diversified economy or thefailure of slaveowners to reduce production costs. 31Between 1790 and 1863 many changes occurred not only with the slave trade andslavery, but with the rising sentiment—both violent and pacifist—against slavery. James Johnston,in a 1931 article, revealed how many white men assisted and promoted insurrections in Virginiaamong the blacks. 32 According to Johnston, some men “were not content to protestagainst slavery or to set individual slaves free. Like Brown they were radical insurrectors.” 33Johnston gives the topic of black insurrections a most interesting twist. Instead of retelling theold Nat Turner/John Brown accounts, Johnston reveals that by the 1830s and 1840s, evensome southern whites reacted to the slave system as did the most radical New England abolitionists.34 In that same vein, Patricia Hickin shed new light on John C. Underwood, who hasbeen unfairly ignored or discussed in past southern histories. Hickin reveals how Underwoodhoped to make Virginia a stronghold for abolitionists by colonizing western Virginia and otherborder states with large numbers of free labor from North. 35The agitation for the various abolitionist movements was only one aspect of events whichcaused “chaos” in the years leading up to the Civil War. Virginia began the practice of employingslave labor in its iron industries as far back as 1716. Kathleen Bruce argued that the ironindustries in Richmond throve under the slave system; but at the same time the system indirectlyprevented a more general introduction of industries in the area because the slaveowners’capital was locked up in the agricultural sector. 36 Sidney Bradford, examining ironworks inantebellum Virginia, noted that the practice of slave hiring began shortly after the RevolutionaryWar (because of its economic feasibility for both ironmasters and slaveowners), but that ironworksslaves were not treated any better than those on plantations. 37In the tradition of Time On The Cross, John Stealey attempted to understand the immediateeffect of the employment of slave labor upon efficiency of production and profitability.Stealey discovered that at least for the Kanawha company—a western Virginia salt industry—the owners found it to be cheaper to hire rather than purchase slaves. 38 Ronald Lewis, however,examined the effect of ironworking on the slave family. Lewis wrote that at least at the188

ironworks in the early years on the Chesapeake, slave families did not emerge fragmented andthe male emasculated. Lewis attempted to apply his findings on a broad scale, but lacked theevidence to corroborate his generalizations. 39Clement Eaton and Sarah Hughes argue that through the practice of slave-hiring, southernwhites unwittingly undermined the institution of slavery by allowing slaves to bargain withtheir prospective hirer, earn money, and choose their own master. Although slave-hiring contributedto the upgrading of slave labor, it also encouraged independence among those slavesinvolved. 40Several articles addressed the Afro-American’s active role in events after the Civil War.John O’Brien examined how the black community in Richmond was able to demonstratestrength and unity after the Civil War. 41 The participation of blacks in the Readjuster Movementin post-war Virginia is retold by James Johnston. 42 And the unfortunate and heart-wrenchingfate of Freedmen’s Village in Arlington, Virginia, was discussed by Felix James. 43Luther P. Jackson, James Brewer and Edward Bonekemper assisted in presenting blacksin a more positive light, as called for by Blassingame. 44 These historians approach the blackownership of personal property from the standpoint of blacks and the black community. Thevery fact that free blacks owned property in Virginia as far back as the 1740s and 1750s, andwere able to develop small communities, attests to the determination of many blacks to fightagainst many odds to establish themselves and their families.Other essays selected for this review were devoted to the role of blacks throughoutvarious phases in American history. For example, during the post-Civil War depression, “TheNegro in the Agrarian Revolt”, and “Black Militancy in Readjuster Virginia, 1878-1883”,make it clear that black farmers played a meaningful role in the agrarian upheaval in the 1880sand 1890s. 45 And finally, the age of accommodation and its “necessary” compromises, as seenthrough the eyes of some of America’s black leaders, is examined by Joan Sheeman, HenrySuggs and Raymond Gavins. 46 The one common factor shared by the black leaders during thisage was the overwhelming influence of Booker T. Washington and the effect of his policies andpolitics.It is unfortunate that of the forty odd articles discussed or mentioned in this review, onlyone discussed the written accounts of a slave in the nineteenth-century. 47 Blassingame contendedthat many autobiographies of slaves were neglected because of the view that they wereedited by abolitionists. However some, like the one examined by Mary Bratton, were writtenby slaves and provided the historian with their vantage point of life in antebellum Virginia.4 8Historians have devoted a great deal of research and literature to the rise and fall of theVirginia slavery system in the colonial and antebellum periods, respectively. However, periodicalliterature on Afro-American history in Virginia after the age of accommodation is meager,to say the least. In addition, although the role of blacks in American history is gradually beingperceived by historians as a viable perspective to take when writing on black history, the onlydrawback are the biases in the historian’s orientation. The cultural orientation of many whitehistorians, no matter how sympathetic, is such that biases enter in without notice, and preventan understanding of the mind-set of slaves and the long-lasting effect on the mentality of theformer slave. It is indeed difficult to overcome cultural biases. For the historian, it is essentialnot only to the spirit of his or her craft, but to the profession’s reputation.189

ENDNOTES1John Blassingame, “The Afro-American: From Mythology to Reality,” in Cartwrightand Watson, eds., The Reinterpretation of American History and Culture.2Blassingame, Ibid.3Kenneth Stampp, “The Historian and Southern Negro Slavery,” American HistoricalReview 57 (1952).4Stampp, Ibid.5Stampp, Ibid.6Alden T. Vaughn, “Blacks in Virginia: A Note on the First Decade,” William and MaryQuarterly, Third Series, 29 (July 1972): 469.7Vaughn, pp. 469-478.8Warren Billings, “The Cases of Fernando and Elizabeth Key: A Note on the Status ofBlacks in Seventeenth-Century Virginia,” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series,30 (July 1973): 467.9Billings, pp. 472-474. The 1662 law made a mulatto’s freedom or servitude conditionalupon the mother’s status, while the 1667 baptism law reflected a change inattitudes towards converted blacks.10Emory Evans, ed., “A Question of Complexion: Documents Concerning the Negroand the Franchise in Eighteenth-Century Virginia,” Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 71 (October 1963): 411-415. Evans examines a 1723 Act and the BritishBoard of Trade’s reaction to its section dealing with the change in punishment of slavesand enforced control of free blacks, Indians and mulattoes. Evans stresses the need formonographic work on blacks in the English colonies, and the importance of discoveringBritish policy regarding people of color.11Blassingame, Ibid.12Edmund Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom (New York:W. W. Norton and Company, 1975); John Hope Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom,Third Edition (New York: Vintage Books, (1947-1969); Robert McColley,Slavery and Jeffersonian Virginia (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964);Gerald Mullin, Flight and Rebellion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972); andBenjamin Quarles, The Negro in the Making of America (New York: Collier Books,1964).13Allan Kulikoff, “The Origins of Afro-American Society in Tidewater Maryland andVirginia, 1700-1790, William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 35 (April 1978):226-259.14Kulikoff, pp. 226-259.15Kulikoff, pp. 258-259.16Luther P. Jackson, “Virginia Negro Soldiers and Seamen in the American Revolution,”Journal of Negro History 27 (July 1942): 247-287.17Sylvia Frey, “Between Slavery and Freedom: Virginia Blacks in the American Revolution,“Journal of Southern History 57 (April 1972): 144-155.190

18Frank A. Cassell, “Slaves of the Chesapeake Bay Area and the War of 1812,”Journal of Negro History 57 (April 1972): 144-155.19Luther P. Jackson, “Religious Development of the Negro in Virginia from 1760 to1860,” Journal of Negro History 16 (April 1931): 168-239; George W. Pilcher,“Samuel Davies and the Instruction of Negros in Virginia,” Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 74 (July 1966): 293-300; W. Harrison Daniel, “VirginiaBaptists and the Negro in the Early Republic,” Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 80 (January 1972): 60-69; and James Essig, “A Very Wintry Season:Virginia Baptists and Slavery, 1785-1797,” Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 88 (April 1980): 170-185.20Darold D. Wax, “Negro Import Duties in Colonial Virginia: A Study in British CommercialPolicy and Local Public Policy,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography79 (January 1971): 29-44. For an example of how anti-slavery sentiment wastreated before the war, see Richard K. MacMaster, “Arthur Lee’s Address on Slavery:An Aspect of Virginia’s Struggle to End the Slave Trade, 1765-1774,” VirginiaMagazine of History and Biography 80 (April 1972): 141-157.21Jackson, “Religious Development of the Negro,” p. 177.22William B. McGroaty, “Exploration in Mass Emancipation,” William and MaryQuarterly, Second Series, 21 (July 1941): 208-226. See also Benjamin Klebaner,“American Manumission Laws and the Responsibility for Supporting Slaves,” VirginiaMagazine of History and Biography 63 (October 1955): 443-453.23Keith M. Bailor, “John Taylor of Caroline: Continuity, Change and Discontinuity inVirginia’s Sentiments toward Slavery, 1790-1820,” Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography 75 (July 1967): 290-304.24Bennett H. Wall, “Medical Care of Ebenezer Pettigrew’s Slaves,” Mississippi ValleyHistorical Review 37 (December 1950): 45l-470; and Reuben Sheeler, “The Negroon the Virginia Frontier,” Journal of Negro History 43 (October 1958): 278-297.25Russell R. Menard, “The Maryland Slave Population, 1658 to 1730: A DemographicProfile of Blacks in Four Counties,” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 32(January 1975): 29-54.2C. G. Holland, “The Slave Population on the Plantation of John C. Calhoun, Jr.,Nansemond County Virginia, 1811-1863: Selected Demographic Virginia Magazineof History and Biography 80 (July 1972): 333-340.27Darold Wax, “Whiter the Comparative History of Slavery?” Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 80 (January 1972): 85-93. For an example of how comparativehistory can be properly and prosperously used, see Richard S. Dunn, “A Tale ofTwo Plantations: Slave Life at Mesopotamia in Jamaica and Mount Airy in Virginia,1799 to 1828,” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 34 (January 1977): 32-65.28Lewis C. Gray, “Economic Efficiency and Competitive Advantages of Slavery Underthe Plantation System,” Agricultural History 4 (April 1930): 31-47.29Allan Kulikoff, “Black Society and the Economics of Slavery,” Maryland HistoricalMagazine 70 (Summer 1975): 203.191

30Kulikoff, “Black Society”, pp. 208-210.31Allan Kulikoff, “The Economic Growth of the Eighteenth-century Chesapeake Colonies,”Journal of Economic History 39 (March 1979): 275-288.32James H. Johnston, “The Participation of White Men in Virginia Negro Insurrections,”Journal of Negro History 16 (April 1931): 158-167.33Johnston, p. 158.34Johnston, p. 167.35Patricia Hickin, “John C. Underwood and the Anti-Slavery Movement in Virginia,1847-1860,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 72 (April 1965): 156-168.36Kathleen Bruce, “Slave Labor in the Virginia Iron Industry,” Part I, William and MaryQuarterly, Second Series, 6 (October 1920): 289-302 and “Slave Labor in theVirginia Iron Industry,” Part II, William and Mary Quarterly, Second Series, 7(January 1927): 21-31.37Sydney Bradford, “The Negro Ironworker in Antebellum Virginia,” Journal of SouthernHistory 25 (May 1959): 194-206. For a case study, see Charles B. Dew, “DavidRoss and the Oxford Iron Works: A Study of Industrial Slavery in the Early Nineteenth-Century South,” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 31 (April 1974):189-224. Roland Lewis, “Slavery and Chesapeake Iron Plantation Before the AmericanRevolution,” Journal of Negro History 59 (July 1974): 242-254, examines therole of slavery in the growth and development of the South’s iron industries.38John E. Stealey, III, “Slavery and the Western Virginia Salt Industry,” Journal ofNegro History 59 (April 1974): 105-131.39Ronald Lewis, “Slave Families at Early Chesapeake Iron Works,” Virginia Magazineof History and Biography 86 (April 1978): 169-179. For a comparative approach ofthe presence of blacks in coal field, see Lewis in “The Darkest Abode of Man: BlackMiners in the first Southern Coal Field, 1780-1865,” Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography 87 (April 1979): 190-202.40Clement Eaton, “Slave-Hiring in the Upper South: A Step Toward Freedom,” MississippiValley Historical Review 46 (March 1960): 663-678. Sarah Hughes, “Slavesfor Hire: The Allocation of Black Labor in Elizabeth City County, Virginia, 1782-1810,” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 35 (April 1978): 260-286.41John T. O’Brien, “Factory, Church and Community: Blacks in Antebellum Richmond,”Journal of Southern History 44 (November 1978): 509-536.42James H. Johnston, “The Participation of Negroes in the Government of Virginia from1877 to 1888,” Journal of Negro History 14 (July 1929): 251-271.43Felix James, “The Decline and Fall of Freedmen’s Village in Arlington, Virginia,”Negro History Bulletin 37 (April/May 1974): 247-250.44Luther P. Jackson, “The Virginia Free Negro Farmer and Property Owner, 1880-1860,” Journal of Negro History 24 (October 1939): 390-439; James H. Brewer,“Negro Property Owners in Seventeenth-Century Virginia,” William and MaryQuarterly, Second series, 12 (October 1955): 575-580; and EdwardH. Bonekemper,III, “Negro Ownership of Real Property in Hampton and Elizabeth192

City County Virginia, 1860-1870,” Journal of Negro History 55 (July 1970): 165-181.45Jack Abramowitz, “The Negro in the Agrarian Revolt,” Agricultural History 24(April 1950: 89-95; James T. Moore, “Black Militancy in Readjuster Virginia, 1879-1883,” Journal of Southern History 41 (May 1975): 167-186.46Joan R. Sherman, “Daniel Webster Davis: A Black Virginia Poet in the Age of Accommodation,”Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 81 (October 1973): Guide:A Booker T. Washington Militant, 1904-1928,” Journal of Negro History 64 (Fall1979): 365-376; and Raymond Gavins, “Hancock, Jackson, and Young: Virginia’sBlack Triumvirate, 1930-1954,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 85(October 1977): 470-486.47Mary J. Bratton, “Field’s Observations: The Slave Narrative of a Nineteenth-CenturyVirginian,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 88 (January 1980): 75-93.48Blassingame, Ibid.193

194

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY:BELIEF SYSTEMSAlan D. StrangeDepartment of History, College of William and MaryThe Church of England was established upon settlement in Virginia, in accordance withthe provisions of the charter issued to the Virginia Company. E. Clowes Chorley providesa concise yet detailed account of the early Church in “The Planting of the Churchin Virginia,” William and Mary Quarterly [WMQ], 2nd series, 10 (July, 1930: 191-213).Chorley gives a good account of the Jamestown Church and its first few ministers. Amongother early writers, George C. Mason’s articles, “The Colonial Churches of York County,Virginia,” WMQ (April, 1939), pp. 159-180; “The Colonial Churches in James City County,Virginia,” WMQ (October, 1939), pp. 510-530; and “The First Colonial Church of DenbighParish, Warwick County, Virginia,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography [VMHB](July, 1949), pp. 286-291, furnish geographic details noting the various locations of earlychurches and contain brief summaries of the history of the churches within those counties. Alsouseful is C.G. Chamberlyne’s “A List of Parishes and Ministers in Virginia in l680,” WMQ(October, 1937), pp. 466-68. The best of the earlier writers is denominational historian GeorgeM. Brydon, whose book Virginia’s Mother Church (Philadelphia: Church Historical Society,1952) is imperative reading for anyone wishing to understand the established Church in Virginia(which will be referred to with an upper case “C”) and its relations with England, colonialofficials, and dissenters. Brydon’s series of four articles on “The Clergy of the EstablishedChurch and the Revolution,” published in successive issues of the VMHB in 1939, is alsoimportant for it demonstrates that while the Anglican Church fell into disfavor as a result of theRevolution and was subsequently disestablished, a number of her clergymen supported thepatriots’ cause.Most research, early and recent, points out that the established Church was not only areligious body, but also an arm of the government and as such wielded governmental powerand performed governmental functions. General taxation supported the colonial parishes, churchclerks kept the official birth records, social and moral offenses (such as adultery and swearing)were handled in church courts and punished by church wardens, and vestries, the ruling boardsof the churches, even constructed and improved highways and bridges. The vestry in eachparish was composed of twelve men, generally the wealthiest and most influential men in theparishes. As Charles Sydnor notes in Gentleman Freeholders, church vestries were the firstin a series of stepping stones to political power. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and otherprominent Virginians often served on vestries which prepared them to serve as statesmen.In “The Anglican Parish Vestry in Colonial Virginia,” Journal of Southern History [JSH](August, 1956), pp. 310-337, and in “The Church of England as the Established Church inSeventeenth-Century Virginia,” JSH, (November, 1949), pp. 478-508, William Seiler contendsthat the early established church in Virginia was puritan in its ecclesiastical forms. In the1630’s and 40’s, even those who were Puritan in theology surfaced, although they were nevertolerated by Governor Berkeley. Theologically and ecclesiastically, most ministers in colonialVirginia were low-to-middle Church. The Laudian purge had little effect in Virginia. Many of195

the charges of immorality made against the clergy by earlier writers, both dissenters and Episcopalclergymen like William Meade (Philadelphia, 1857), have been partly disproved by laterwriters who have discovered that the established Church in Virginia had good and bad clergymen,pious as well as impious. Such are the findings of A. P. Middleton “The Colonial VirginiaParson,” WMQ, (July, 1969), pp. 425-440, and James P. Walsh, “Black Cotted Raskolls’:Anti-Anglican Criticism in Colonial Virginia,” VMHB (January, 1980), pp. 21-36. One of theprimary goals of the Virginia colonists other than maintaining the faith of the established Churchwas the conversion of the Indians, and after the entrance of the Africans, the conversion ofblacks. Jerome Jones, in “The Established Virginia Church and the Conversion of Negroesand Indians, 1620-1760,” Journal of Negro History (January, 1961), argues that the settlers’mission of converting blacks and Indians was largely unsuccessful. The Church, as anarm of the state, upheld the social and political order, and the majority of the clergy dared notdo anything to endanger that order. When the colony’s rulers decided that the conversion ofthe Indians was no longer likely, as many had believed before Opecancanough’s 1622 raid,most clergymen seemingly lost interest. Although Governor Spotswood revived efforts to convertIndians and vigorously supported the Indian School at William and Mary, he was unableto win the support of most of the colonists and the S.P.G. in his attempts to raise money topromote the conversion of the Indians.As Luther P. Jackson points out in “Religious Development of the Negro in Virginia from1760-1860,” Journal of Negro History (April, 1931), pp. 168-239, the established Churchwas not very responsive to the needs of the blacks. By 1736, 31.7% of the population wereblacks, the vast majority of whom were slaves. Large slaveowners were often vestrymen andsought to reinforce rather than endanger the social order of which slavery had become anintegral part. While ministers of the Church were allowed to teach and convert the slaves, veryfew ministers spoke out against the institution of slavery. Any scruples which clergymen hadagainst slavery tended to disappear after 1800 with the onslaught of the pro-slavery sentiment.In a 1724 census taken by the Bishop of London of the churches in his diocese (all the colonieswere under his episcopal care, he being represented in each colony by a commissary appointedby him), very few ministers responded positively to the question of what they weredoing for the conversion of the Native Americans and blacks. All official clerical correspondencebetween the Virginia clergy and the Bishop of London is located in the Fulham PalacePapers in the Lambeth Palace Library. Oxford Press has published (1965) a calendar of thepapers, prepared by W.W. Manross.Dissent from the Established Church did not present any challenge until the 1730’s and40’s. As Kenneth L. Carroll noted in “Quakerism on the Eastern Shore of Virginia,” VMHB(April, 1966), pp. 170-189, and in “Robert Pleasants on Quakerism: Some Accounts of theFirst Settlement of Friends in Virginia,” VMHB (January, 1978), pp. 3-16, the Virginia Quakerswere relatively few in number and those who stood by their pacifist convictions werepersecuted. As Robert F. Scott noted in “Colonial Presbyterians in the Valley of Virginia,”JPHS, (June, 1957), Scotch and Irish Presbyterians did move into the Shenandoah Valley inthe late 1730’s but were viewed by the colonial government more as a useful buffer to hostileIndian tribes than as a threat to the established Church. The coming of the New Light Presbyteriansin Hanover County, Virginia in the 1740’s was the first real threat to the hegemony ofthe Anglican church. As George Pilcher notes in “Samuel Davies and the Instruction of Negroesin Virginia,” VMHB (July, 1966), pp. 293-300, Presbyterian Davies was the first minis-196

ter in Virginia to have any widespread success with the conversion and catechizing of blacks.E.T. Thompson in Presbyterians in the South has a good account of the Presbyterian revival.Davies and the Presbyterians clearly established that the English Toleration Act of 1689extended to Virginia and gave dissenters the right to gather for worship. The influence of thePresbyterian dissenters grew in the 1750’s as colonial officials deeply appreciated the strongsupport which Davies and his followers gave to the Seven Years War. These moderate Presbyteriansset the stage for the entrance of the popularly appealing Baptists and Methodists inthe 1760’s. The best account of the Great Awakening and the coming of Presbyterians, Baptists,and Methodists, is Wesley Gewehr’s The Great Awakening in Virginia (Duke UniversityPress, 1930). Richard B. Davis’ Intellectual Life in the Colonial South, Vol. II (Universityof Tennessee Press, 1978) contains a good account of the interaction of the Anglicans andthe leading dissenting groups. He also has an important section on “Anglican and Other AttitudesToward Christianizing the Negro.” While most Anglicans opposed the Awakening, asshown in Gerald Goodwin’s, “The Anglican Reaction to the Great Awakening,” Hist. Mag. ofthe Protestant Episcopal Church (1966), pp. 343-371, some supported it and remainedwithin the Church, as did Devereaux Jarratt, whose Life (New York: Arno Press and NewYork Times, 1969 reprint) includes the famous description of the timorous youth tremblingbefore a proud member of the gentry.Many among the lower classes had, by the 1750’s and 60’s, become disdainful of thisproud gentry class which horrified Jarratt as a youth, and had grown dissatisfied with theformal, dry services of the Anglican Church. Although the authority of the church was technicallyall-pervasive, the church had less impact than established congregationalism did in NewEngland. Parishes in the outlying areas were so spread out that they may only have heard theirminister once a month and many rituals of the church, including marriage and baptism, wereperformed in the home rather than in the church. Most of the clergy played cards, drank,danced, and bet on the house races as much as their congregation did. The “church” thusmerely reinforced the lives that men lived in the “world.” The gentry were supreme outside andinside the church, with seating in the church assigned according to social and political rank.This “Awakening” that started in the Presbyterian church and spread to the Baptist churchwas a vital spiritual movement in which men and women were made aware of their need ofpersonal reconciliation with God. A sense of sinfulness was normally followed by an awarenessthat God forgave sin through Christ and that salvation was possible through a person’sacceptance of Christ. The dissenters stressed strongly the distinction between the “world” andthe “church.” The Baptists taught that the gaming and other amusements of the Anglicans wassinful. As Rhys Isaac writes in “Evangelical Revolt: The Nature of the Baptists’ Challenge tothe Traditional Order in Virginia, 1765-1775,” WMQ, (July, 1974), pp. 343-368, and in TheTransformation of Virginia (U.N.C. Press, 1982), the clergy and gentry, as upholders of thechurch and of the established order, felt threatened by a social class below them which seemedto preach the establishment of a new order. Social order and decorum was at its highest in theworship services of the established Church. The emotional “release” of the Anglicans was intheir pastimes, the very things which the Baptists denounced. The Baptists, on the other hand,refrained from worldly amusements, while finding their complete emotional “release” in theirworship. In these services there was no seating distinction between rich and poor, great andsmall, white and black. These difference was not lost on the gentry who feared theconsequences of the radical insistence of the Baptists that God was no respecter of persons.Indeed, some Baptists openly opposed slavery, and Daniel Harrison notes in “Virginia Bap-197

tists and the Negro in the Early Republic,” VMHB (January, 1972), pp. 60-69, blacks werewelcomed in none other. Two good articles on the Baptists and their important role in Virginiahistory are J. Stephen Kroll-Smith, “Transmitting a Revival Culture: The Organizational Dynamicof the Baptist Movement in Colonial Virginia, 1760-1777,” JSH (November, 1984),pp. 551-568, and Sandra Rennie, “The Role of the Preacher: Index to the Consolidation ofthe Baptist Movement in Virginia from 1760-1790,” VMHB (July, 1966), pp.430-441. Mostdeal with the social structure, symbolism, and group interaction of the dissenters, the Baptistsin particular. The Baptists’ way of life was the first real rebuke the upper class had every hadfrom their “inferiors.” The standard denominational history for the Baptists is Robert Semple’sA History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia (Richmond: Pitt and Dickinson,1894). The standard Methodist history is W.W. Sweet’s Virginia Methodism (Richmond,1955).The dissenters finally won their battle with the Church during and after the Revolution.The Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 and the 1786 Statute of Religious Freedom deniedthe Church the right of general taxation, disestablished the Church, and proclaimed not meretoleration but religious freedom. The Presbyterians and Baptists had united in petitioning thelegislature for religious freedom and were now political forces to be reckoned with. The AnglicanChurch re-formed itself in 1784 as the Episcopal Church in America and no longer hadformal ties to the Church of England. The Episcopal Church in Virginia, under its first bishop,James Madison (cousin of the president), virtually atrophied. If it were to compete successfullyin the now-free marketplace of religious ideas, it must shake off its formality and deism,both of which made it suspect in the eyes of most people. When Madison died in 1812, hewas followed by evangelical Richard Channing Moore. Something of an evangelical revivaloccurred in the church and was carried on by Moore’s successor in l842, William Meade.Thus, as Jan Lewis writes in The Pursuit of Happiness: Family and Values in Jefferson’sVirginia (New York: Cambridge Press, 1983), the grandson of Thomas Jefferson became anevangelical in a time when it was respectable to do so.Daniel Harrison writes in “Virginia Baptists and the Negro in the Antebellum Era,” Journalof Negro History (January, 1971), pp. 1-16, that the Baptists departed from their earlierconviction that slavery was sinful. As being a Baptist became more socially acceptable, Baptistsstarted to acculturate to the “world” and adopted worldly conventions. It was no longerfashionable or safe from the 1820’s forward to condemn slavery in the South. Indeed, asDrew Gilpin Faust argues in “Evangelicalism and Meaning of the Proslavery Argument,” VMHB(January, 1977), pp.3-17, it was a Baptist who became not just one of the leading defender ofslavery but an actual extoller of its “virtues.” This transition from viewing slavery as an unfortunateoccurrence to a positive good is described in Neal C. Gillespie’s, “Spiritual Odyssey ofGeorge Frederick Holmes,” VMHB (August, 1966), pp. 94-114, and “Virginia Baptists andthe Negro, l865-1902,” VMHB (July, 1968), pp. 340-363. The “Effects of the Civil War,”which Harrison wrote about in Maryland Historical Magazine (Spring, 1974), pp. 44-63,were devastating, destroying many Southern churches, which were either ransacked or usedfor military hospitals. Blacks were generally forced to withdraw from white churches after theCivil War if they had not already done so.As John Boles write in “Religion on the South: A Tradition Recovered,” Maryland HistoricalSociety (December, 1982), pp. 388-401, Southern evangelicals never constructed areal social gospel and were “relatively unaffected by the liberalizing theological currents flowingfrom Europe to the North.” The individualistic ethic of the Southerner so gripped him that198

he failed to achieve social reform for fear that “human agency [might] preempt divine providence.”But the Southern idea of providence was not the Calvinistic reliance on providence, areliance which spurred the Puritans to action, but rather more of a resignation to Fate— aninteresting response for a “nation” that had suffered the kind of military and political defeat thatthe South had. This is not to say that Southerners did not engage in reform, however. RobertA. Hohner’s, “Bishop Cannon’s Apprenticeship in Temperance Politics, 1901-1918,” JSH(February, 1968), pp. 33-49, and Michael S. Patterson’s “The Fall of a Bishop: James Cannon,Jr. versus Carter Glass, 1909-1934,” JSH (November, 1973), pp. 493-518, both showone man’s entrance into politics and reform. The mainstream Protestant churches nevertheless,remained quite conservative in the South, with those churches that stressed evangelicalismremaining most popular. These conditions prevailed throughout the later nineteenth centuryand into the twentieth century.The study of religion in Virginia has matured to the point where the impetus for researchhas passed from denominational historians like Brydon and Thompson to social historians likeIsaac, Kroll-Smith, Lewis, and others. These social historians have attempted to see how thatreligion has served as an organizing principle in the lives of its adherents and how religion hasprovided something of a solace to the stark social differentiation of colonial America and theearly Republic. Further research is needed on how the Episcopalians were able to redefinethemselves in the evangelical mode in the nineteenth century. Work also needed on the responseof late nineteenth and early twentieth century evangelical sects to the challenges ofliberal theology.199

200

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY:THE ESTABLISHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OFPUBLIC WELFARE INSTITUTIONSDavid T. RobertsDepartment of History, College of William and MaryIntroductionIn spite of the excitement and heated debate that social welfare issues have generatedthroughout American history, as well as during our own era, historians have shown a remarkablelack of interest in the role that social welfare institutions played in the developmentof American society. The story of the development of American hospitals, mental institutions,poorhouses, prisons, orphanages and, to a lesser extent, poor relief has been left largelyuntold. As far as Virginia, or even the South in general, is concerned, historical studies on someof these topics are simply non-existent. The only public welfare institution that has receivedconsiderable attention on the national, regional, state and local levels is the school. Yet much ofwhat has been written about the history of education in America is either hopelessly dated or oflimited quality, and many crucial aspects of the development of American schools and schoolsystems have yet to be adequately investigated.One encouraging aspect of the historiography of public welfare institutions in America isthe recent awareness on the part of some historians that a great amount of work remains to bedone in this field. Post-World War II controversies involving the nation’s public school systems,especially the desegregation crisis, have redirected the educational historian’s attention.As a result, some gaps in the historical literature of this field, though not nearly all, have beenaddressed. The history of Southern education in particular has benefited from these developments.A more recent and far more tentative awakening of interest in the study of other publicwelfare institutions has been apparent since the 1960s. For the most part, these topics havebeen the belated beneficiaries of the move among historians to write history “from the bottomup.”SchoolsDuring the period between 1910 and the end of the Second World War, the history of Southerneducation received a great deal of attention. Several major works appeared during thisperiod, including some that are still frequently cited in books and articles dealing with thistopic.Among the most influential works in this group are Edgar W. Knight’s The Influence ofReconstruction on Education in the South (1913) and a more comprehensive survey by thesame author entitled Public Education in the South (1922). Knight’s works, like those ofmany Progressive historians, display a marked bias against blacks. Reconstruction, in Knight’sview, was a tragedy, and in the latter of these two works, “blacks are seldom mentionedexcept as an impediment to white educational progress” (Neufeldt and Allison 1981: 253).201

Public Education in the South, originally designed to serve as a textbook for use in normalschools, is short on in-depth scholarly analysis.Knight, however, was one of the few early twentieth-century scholars of Southern educationalhistory who had actually been trained as a historian. Most of the works from thisperiod were written by educators, many of whom were involved in the Southern EducationMovement that arose during the Progressive Era. As a result, much of the work of this periodreflects the goals of that movement. This is most clearly apparent in a work by one of thatmovement’s most important leaders, Charles W. Dabney’s two-volume Universal Educationin the South (1936). In the first volume, Dabney, a member of a prominent Virginiafamily, emphasizes the influence that the ideas of Thomas Jefferson had on nineteenth- centurySouthern education and devotes much attention to the struggle to establish public school systemsin the South. The second volume charts the course of the Southern Education Movementitself, devoting great amounts of space to the conferences, boards and commissions that wereat the center of the movement’s activities, as well as to laudatory biographical sketches of theindividuals who led the fight to expand and modernize the region’s public school systems. Thisvolume contains chapters that provide detailed accounts of the school campaigns in individualstates, including one on Virginia. Dabney was more sympathetic to the plight of blacks thanmany of his contemporaries, and he frequently condemned the inequalities between black andwhite schools. However, one thing that Dabney did share with Knight and other educationalhistorians of the period was a confidence in the ability of education, in particular state-supporteduniversal education, to lead the South out of backwardness and poverty. The Progressivehistorians’ tendency to focus their works on the promotion and establishment of statewidepublic school systems in the South is a reflection of this confidence.The same attitudes are noticeable in many of the works on the history of education inVirginia that appeared during this period. By far the most important of these works is CorneliusJ. Heatwole’s A History of Education in Virginia (1916). This work, written by a firm supporterof the Southern Education Movement, is one of the few comprehensive studies availableto students of the state’s educational history. Although it discusses a wide variety ofschools in operation in Virginia from the colonial period onward, the work pays particularattention to the role played by the state government in providing primary, secondary and highereducation. It is also one of the few books on Southern education written during this period thatgives significant attention to black education. William A. Maddox’s work, The Free SchoolIdea in Virginia Before the Civil War (1918), is the period’s other major contribution in thisarea. This book traces the development of the idea of free, public-supported education fromthe colonial period to the 1860s. Much of the book is devoted to accounts of nineteenthcenturyefforts to establish state-financed school systems and state-supported education forthe poor. Another work that focuses attention on the state’s involvement in education is PhilipA. Bruce’s History of the University of Virginia, 1819-1919: The Lengthened Shadow ofOne Man (1920-1922).By 1930, however, works that focused on the rise of public primary and secondaryschools ceased to dominate the field of Virginia educational history. Several factors contributedto this shift in emphasis. The first, the introduction of the second series of the William andMary Quarterly in 1921, resulted in a spate of articles about the College of William and Marythat lasted until the Second World War. These articles focus almost exclusively on the historyof the college prior to its becoming a state-supported institution in 1906. In fact, most of thesearticles deal with the college’s development during the colonial and early National periods. For202

the most part, these articles are more descriptive than analytical, and they frequently display analmost worshipful reverence for the college and the men who had a hand in its founding andgrowth.The shift in interest to the 1600s and 1700s received a further boost from the movementto restore Colonial Williamsburg. The restoration project drew attention not only to the historyof Williamsburg, but also to the colonial history of Tidewater Virginia in general. As a result,historians began to produce articles pertaining not only to the College of William and Mary, butalso to the earlier attempt at establishing a college at Henrico and to the founding of someprivately-endowed primary and secondary schools in Tidewater during the colonial period.Two set of issues dominated the discussion of colonial education during the period betweenthe two world wars. Many articles concentrated on the events surrounding the foundingand early financing of these educational institutions and on the men who promoted them, bothin Virginia and in England. The main emphasis was on the roles played by the crown, theestablished Church of England, the Virginia Company in London, private philanthropists andlocal governments. Some of the more useful pieces in this group include Robert H. Land’svery detailed narrative, “Henrico and its College” (William and Mary Quarterly 1938), andHelen J. Campbell’s “The Syms and Eaton Schools and their Successors” (WMQ 1940),concerning two free schools established by bequeath in Elizabeth City County.The other set of issues that received a great deal of attention from these historians concernedthe balance between those educational ideas that were carried to and transplanted inVirginia, and the ways in which educational institutions were modified in response to conditionsin Virginia. One of the best articles of this nature, and one of the most thoughtful piecesconcerning the early history of the College of William and Mary to appear during this period,is John E. Kirkpatrick’s “The Constitutional Development of the College of William and Mary”(WMQ 1926), which traces the changes that transformed the college from a British institutionto a uniquely American one by the time of the American Revolution. Other articles concernthemselves primarily with the influence that particular British institutions had on higher educationin colonial Virginia (A. Bailey Cutts, “The Educational Influence of Aberdeen in SeventeenthCentury Virginia,” WMQ 1935; Courtlandt Canby, “A Note on the Influence of OxfordUniversity Upon William and Mary College in the Eighteenth Century,” WMQ 1941).A 1930s backlash against the South’s Progressive historians completed the shift awayfrom the preoccupation with public, post-Reconstruction education. Historians of this periodchallenged the Progressives’ assertion that the antebellum South was a land of ignorance andnearly devoid of educational institutions that were worth mentioning. They likewise challengedthe Progressives’ notion that only secular, state-supported school systems could provide adequateeducation. These historians produced works that described educational developmentsthat took place under what the Progressives had criticized as the backward agrarian regime ofthe antebellum South.One historian who devoted considerable attention to education in antebellum Virginiawas L. Minerva Turnbull. In 1931, Turnbull published an interesting article entitled “PrivateSchools in Norfolk, 1800-1860” (WMQ 1931), which used information from contemporarynewspapers to describe various characteristics of the numerous private primary and secondaryschools that existed in Norfolk during this period. Turnbull followed this the next year with“Early Public Schools in Norfolk and its Vicinity” (WMQ 1932), a study of the establishmentin 1858 of a school system that was funded not by the state, but by a combination of tuitionand local government support. Turnbull also published a more comprehensive study entitled203

“The Southern Educational Revolt” (WMQ 1934), which deals with the antebellum South’srejection of Northern textbooks, Northern teachers and the education of Southern youth inNorthern schools. In this article, Turnbull shows how sectionalism during the forty years beforethe Civil War resulted in programs that were designed to create a distinctively “Southern”form of education.The most important work on Virginia’s educational history to appear during the 1930s isSadie Bell’s The Church, the State, and Education in Virginia (1930). In this substantialstudy, Bell analyzes the traditional partnership between secular and religious authorities thathad long characterized education in Virginia. Unlike most of the Progressive educators, Bellapproved of the Church’s limited involvement in the state’s public school system.The post-Progressive historians who studied developments in Virginia education examinedtopics that had long been ignored by their predecessors, such as education during thecolonial and pre-Civil War periods, agricultural education and alternatives to strictly secular,statewide systems of public education. The work of these historians, however, contains severalmarked biases. Like many of their Progressive forebears, these historians concentratedalmost exclusively on the education of white Virginians. A few authors discussed the interest inIndian education that was largely responsible for the plans to establish Henrico College and,later, for the founding of a school for Indians at William and Mary College. However, thesehistorians showed virtually no interest at all in black education. The works of the 1920s andearly 1930s also tended to concentrate on developments in Tidewater Virginia. Furthermore,the majority of this work deals with education from the perspective of the institutional historian,as opposed to that of the social historian. Most of these studies examine the circumstancessurrounding the establishment and early financing of particular schools or the evolution of theirorganization.Surprisingly, post-World War II educational historians have not set out in as many newdirections as their colleagues in other branches of history have. In fact, postwar historians haveactually shown less attention to the history of Southern education than their predecessors in thefirst half of this century. Furthermore, those historians who have addressed this topic during thelast few decades have examined very few new issues. The one important exception to this ruleis a sudden awakening of interest in black education in the South.During the period between the end of the Second World War and the middle of the1960s, historians produced remarkably few works on Southern educational history, and almostnone at all on the history of education in Virginia. Ironically, however, it was during thisperiod that the only major postwar study of Virginia educational history appeared. J. L. BlairBuck’s The Development of Public Schools in Virginia, 1607-1952 (1952) harks back tothe works of the Progressive historians in many ways. While it makes a bid at being a comprehensivestudy of public education in the state, the book actually concentrates on the periodafter 1869 and in particular on the establishment and growth of the statewide system of publicschools. Hence, it largely ignores those antebellum schools that were established by localgovernments or with support from the state government’s Literary Fund, as well as those thatbenefited from the public/private partnership that had existed in education since the colonialperiod. Buck also pays very little attention to the problem of black education and the operationof Freedmen’s Bureau schools in Virginia.The few articles that appeared during this period likewise tended to be less than groundbreaking.One that is worth mentioning, however, is Donald R. Come’s “The Influence ofPrinceton on Higher Education in the South Before 1825” (WMQ 1945). In tracing the work204

of Princeton-trained Presbyterians who arrived in the South with the Scotch-Irish migration ofthe mid-eighteenth century, Come applies an old theme to a new situation. However, thenovelty of this article is not limited to Come’s decision to study the influence that an Americaninstitution (as opposed to a British one) had on Southern education during the colonial andearly National periods. Come’s article is unique in that it concentrates on education among agroup of non-English, non-Anglican settlers. Come’s discussion of the schools that these menset up in the Valley of Virginia and in the western reaches of the Piedmont also focuses attentionof parts of the state that had been previously neglected by educational historians. Whatmakes this piece even more noteworthy is the fact that it considers events in Virginia within thecontext of an educational movement that affected vast areas of the Southern interior.The 1950s also witnessed the beginnings of the interest in black education in the South.In Virginia, this interest centered at first around the establishment of schools for blacks freedby the Civil War. Articles such as Richard L. Morton’s “`Contrabands’ and Quakers in theVirginia Peninsula, 1862-1869" (Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 1953) andJoseph C. Vance’s “Freedmen’s Schools in Albemarle County during Reconstruction” (VMHB1953) discussed not only the educational activities of the Freedmen’s Bureau, but also schoolsthat operated with funds and teachers provided by Northern charitable organizations.A revival of interest in Southern educational history took place in the late 1950s andcontinued into the 1970s. To a considerable extent, interest in black education, an interestspurred by the civil rights activities of the period, accounted for much of this resurgence.However, even within the area of black educational history, the number of topics explored byhistorians remained limited. Comprehensive surveys of black education are few. Among themost thorough is Henry A. Bullock’s A History of Negro Education in the South from 1619to the Present (1970). This work deals with a wide range of topics, including the establishmentof freedmen’s schools, the role of benevolent societies in funding black schools, theestablishment of state school systems in the South, and the segregation and subsequent desegregationof public schools.An earlier work that provides a new perspective on the Southern Education Movementis Louis R. Harlan’s Separate and Unequal: Public School Campaigns and Racism in theSouthern Seaboard States, 1901-1915 (1958). This book, in examining the activities of theSouthern Education Board in Virginia, Georgia and the Carolinas, attempts to analyze theinterplay between philanthropy and racism during the educational renaissance that was experiencedby the South at the beginning of this century. The approach taken by this book standsin striking contrast to those taken by the Progressive writers, several of whom served on theSouthern Education Board.During the first sixty years of the twentieth century, interest in the educational history ofthe post-Civil War South was largely limited to two areas of study: the rapid changes that tookplace during Reconstruction and the phenomenal Southern Education Movement of the ProgressiveEra. During the 1960s and 1970s, however, an entirely new period came underscrutiny. This new topic of study was the upheaval cause by the 1954 U.S. Supreme Courtdecision in the case of Brown v. The Board of Education. Events in Virginia, which had beenat the center of national attention in the aftermath of the Brown decision, likewise received agreat deal of attention from these scholars. However, the treatment that these events receivedsuffers from some serious limitations. In the first place, many of the authors who explored thistopic, like many of the Progressives who wrote about the Southern Education Movement,were participants in the events that they studied. Thus, their objectivity is frequently question-205

able. Second, the vast majority of studies that deal with the effect that the Court’s decision hadon Virginia’s schools limit their attention to organized white resistance to desegregation, leavingmany questions about the decision’s actual impact unanswered. Comprehensive studies ofthe plans for “massive resistance” that were promoted by Senator Henry Byrd’s Democraticmachine include Benjamin Muse’s Virginia’s Massive Resistance (1961) and Robbin L. Gates’sThe Making of Massive Resistance: Virginia’s Politics of School Desegregation, 1954-1956 (1962). A more in-depth study of Prince Edward County’s decision to close its publicschools rather than desegregate them can be found in Bob Smith’s They Closed Their Schools:Prince Edward County, Virginia, 1951-1964 (1965). Also, David Pace has written a veryinteresting article about one man’s fight against the obstructionist schemes of the state’s politiciansentitled “Lenoir Chambers Opposes Massive Resistance: An Editor Against Virginia’sDemocratic Organization, 1955-1959" (VMHB 1974). In addition to discussing Chambers’sstruggle to thwart the Democratic machine, Pace provides a brief but helpful outline of theprogram of massive resistance and the changes that this policy underwent during the desegregationcrisis.The educational debates of the 1950s and 1960s led to a smaller but still significantawakening of interest in other areas of the history of Virginia’s public schools, as well. Again,much of this work simply re-examined themes that had long been the subject of historicalresearch. In many cases, however, revision and re-examination were sorely needed. Such isthe case with the topic of Walter J. Fraser’s article, “William Henry Ruffner and the Establishmentof Virginia’s Public School System, 1870-1874" (VMHB 1971). Not only is Frasermore sympathetic to Reconstruction than many of the Progressive scholars were, but he alsoprovides interesting discussions of issues that had long been neglected, such as the questionsconcerning public education for blacks and federal support for education that were raisedduring this period. James T. Moore made another important contribution to the study of statesupportededucation with an article that deals with reforms instituted at the University of Virginiaduring the early 1880s entitled “The University and the Readjusters” (VMHB 1970). Thisarticle is worth noting for several reasons. First, the history of Virginia’s public colleges anduniversities has received very little attention from historians. Second, this article begins to fillthe great void in the literature of Southern educational history that encompasses the periodbetween Reconstruction and the Progressive Era. Third, this article provides a rare example ofa study that examines Southern educational history within the context of the social and politicaldevelopments that were taking place in the South at the same time.Although, for the most part, surveys of the history of individual local school systems tendto be of use only to local antiquarians, Rawls Byrd has produced one that is fairly good, thoughrather short, entitled History of Public Schools in Williamsburg (1968). This work, whichdeals exclusively with the period from 1900 to 1965, discusses not only the opening of individualschools, but also the local school system’s relations with both the state government andthe College of William and Mary.While the post-World War II historians have shown a far greater interest in the history ofpublic schools than in private education, one study in the latter field that is worth mentioning isW. Harrison Daniel’s “Southern Baptists and Education, 1865-1900: A Case Study” (MarylandHistorical Magazine 1969). This article examines the educational activities of the BaptistChurch in Virginia. Daniel studies a wide variety of these activities, including the establishmentof a fund for educating the orphaned children of Confederate soldiers, the reopening andexpansion of Richmond College, the founding of Baptist primary and secondary academies,206

and the Church’s relationship to and attitude toward the state’s expanding system of publicschools.Despite the rather large number of works available in the field of Southern educationhistory, and, more particularly, on the history of education in Virginia, the general state of thebody of historical literature as a whole is quite poor. Much of the work is old and in desperateneed of revision, the range of topics that have been addressed is narrow, and, since moststudies treat the history of education in isolation from other factors, this field has not benefitedfrom advances made in other field of history. Furthermore, scholars of Southern educationalhistory have shown a fondness for descriptive, narrative history, focusing on great men andindividual institutions, and have thus missed out on many of the opportunities offered by thenew historical techniques that have emerged since World War II. To make matters worse, theoutput in this field has declined since the 1960s. Recent works such as Ronald E. Butchart’sNorthern Schools, Southern Blacks and Reconstruction: Freedmen’s Education, 1962-1875 (1980) and Education and the Rise of the New South (edited by Ronald K. Goodenowand Arthur O. White, 1981) are conscious efforts at filling the gaps in the existing body ofliterature. The latter work consists of a collection of essays dealing with such neglected topicsas rural education, the education of women in the South, educational reform movements,teacher unionism, and the effect that the New Deal programs had on Southern education.However, huge gaps in our understanding of the South’s educational past remain.There is an endless list of topics within the field of Virginia educational history requiringfurther research. No single area within this field has been saturated, and even those areas thathave received a fair amount of attention could stand a great deal of revision. Examining thework done on the colonial period, one finds that much attention has been given to the Collegeof William and Mary and, to a lesser extent, to the plans for a college at Henrico. There is agreat need, however, for studies on primary and secondary education in the colony. Far morework must also be done on education in the non-English and dissenter communities that existedin colonial Virginia, as well as in those communities that constituted the state’s frontier.While some authors have briefly analyzed the impact that the American Revolution and theCivil War had on the College of William and Mary, few studies have examined the effects onother institutions of higher learning or on primary and secondary schools. Although some historianshave created the impression that public education was an unheard of novelty brought toVirginia after the Civil War by Northern philanthropists and Reconstruction governments. Thefact is that schools had been established in many parts of antebellum Virginia with funds providedby local and even state agencies, or as cooperative efforts between public and privatebodies. Far more work must be done to determine the nature and extent of these public schoolsystems.With the exception of the educational renaissance of the Progressive period and thedesegregation crisis of the 1950’s, most topics in the post-Reconstruction history of educationin Virginia have been virtually untouched by scholars. Any list of areas worthy of the historian’sattention would include the effects that industrialization, economic slumps and the rise of citieshad on education in Virginia; the emergence and maintenance of the dual system of segregatedpublic schools; the impact that the Great Depression, the policies of the New Deal and the twoworld wars had on education; the decline of the one-room schoolhouse and the rise of large,consolidated schools; the evolution of secondary schools; the establishment of vocational schoolsand other alternatives to the comprehensive high school; the growth in number and variety ofinstitutions of higher education, both public and private, including the rise of the community207

college; government responsibility for education and the shifting balance between the rolesplayed by federal, state and local officials; the impact of court decisions that dealt with issuesother than desegregation (for example, interpretations regarding the separation of Church andstate and other First Amendment principles as they pertain to public education); and the effectsthat suburbanization and the changing expectations of the Cold War period have had on Virginia’sschools. Now that court-imposed desegregation has been in effect for a considerable amountof time, it would be a good idea to re-evaluate the impact that the Brown decision had onVirginia’s schools with an eye toward the reactions of various types of communities in differentparts of the state, the types of desegregation that were adopted by individuals school districts,and the long-term consequences of desegregation. More attention must likewise be given tothe racial integration of Virginia’s colleges, universities and private school systems.Some gaps in the literature on this topic transcend the boundaries between particulareras in the state’s history. Perhaps the most obvious of these is the minimal amount, and insome cases the complete absence, of work on certain sections of the state. The VirginiaPeninsula and the Hampton Roads area are the only parts of the state that have received aconsiderable amount of coverage. Much smaller amounts of work have been done on theeducational history of parts of northern Virginia, the area around Richmond, and the Valley ofVirginia. Virtually no attention at all has been paid to the history of education on the WesternShore, in most parts of Southside Virginia, in the northern Chesapeake counties, in southwesternVirginia or in the areas beyond the Valley. Considering the distinct regional differences thathave characterized Virginia’s social and economic history, comparisons of the school systemsin various parts of the state could prove very enlightening. There has also been a notabletendency to neglect the study of education in rural areas and to focus on developments thattook place in the state’s larger towns. This is most unfortunate given the fact that, until recently,most of the state’s population resided in rural areas. The history of church-related schools(with the exception of the role of the established Church of England during the colonial period)is yet another area that historians have only begun to examine. The history of higher educationin Virginia, in particular during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, deserves far more attentionthan it has received. Most in need are studies about public universities. Though much isavailable on the early history of the College of William and Mary, little has been done on thecollege’s post-Reconstruction development, including its transition from a private college to asmall public university. While the post-World War II fascination with black education hasresulted in the exploration of many new topics in that field, some areas have yet to be dealtwith adequately. Among these are the education of slaves and free blacks before the Civil War,the establishment of Hampton Institute and black normal schools, and other opportunities forhigher education that have been open to blacks. Finally, one area of Virginia history that hasbeen almost totally ignored is the history of women’s education.If educational historians are to continue to make useful contributions to an understandingof Virginia’s past, however, changes in their entire approach toward the history of the state’sschools are necessary. The usefulness of studying these schools as isolated institutions came toan end long ago. Educational historians must now begin to integrate into their work analyses ofthe social, political and economic conditions that played such important roles in the developmentof Virginia’s schools. Historical works in this field must become more analytical, andeducational historians must begin to address questions concerning, for example, how the operation,curriculum, goals and student bodies of various schools differed, how these characteristicsreflected local social conditions and how they changed with time, how pervasive formal208

education was in various parts of the state at various times, etc. They must compare public andprivate schools, urban and rural schools, black and white schools and schools in various partsof the state to determine if significant differences existed, and if so, why. Educational historiansmust also begin to make use of the techniques that other historians have borrowed from thesocial sciences, including computer-assisted quantitative methods, if they are to provide amore complete picture of those institutions which played such large roles in the lives of hugenumbers of people. Unfortunately, those scholars who have studied the history of education inVirginia, and for that matter, Southern educational historians in general, have made few attemptsat transcending the barriers imposed strictly narrative institutional history, although some,particularly in the last two decades, have tried at least to expand the range of topics that arebeing addressed.Institutions for the Care of the Deviant and DependentWhile there are many weaknesses in the body of historical literature that concerns itself withschools in Virginia, twentieth-century historians have at least shown a considerable amount ofinterest in that topic. The same cannot be said for most of the state’s other public welfareinstitutions. In fact, the number of works that deal with the history of prisons, hospitals, mentalinstitutions, orphanages and poorhouses in Virginia is miniscule. For that matter, very little hasbeen written about the place that such institutions held in Southern society in general. This issurprising given the fact that, since the Second World War, historians have shown a significantand growing interest in the roles that these institutions played in other parts of the country andin the nation as a whole. Furthermore, much of the work done by some of these historians ishighly analytical and of exceptional quality. In spite of the fact that much of the informationcontained in the more general works does not pertain directly to Virginia, such works constitute,in most cases, the bulk of the secondary material that is available to the Virginia historian.Thus, a review of the more important general works is in order.Several classic works from earlier in this century are still considered among the mostimportant sources on these topics. The most important early works on the nation’s prisons areOrlando F. Lewis’ very detailed survey entitled The Development of American Prisons andPrison Customs, 1776-1845 (1922) and Blake McKelvey’s American Prisons: A Study inAmerican Social History Prior to 1915 (1936). The latter follows the development of thenation’s prisons from before the American Revolution and discusses the establishment of penalsystems, the prison reform movements of the 1800s, the rise of convict labor and the increasingcentralization of authority. Part of McKelvey’s book compares the prison systems thatexisted in the North, the South and the West.Among the early works on the nation’s mental institutions, Henry M. Hurd’s four-volumework, The Institutional Care of the Insane in the United States and Canada (1916),serves as a very useful reference work because it includes brief historical sketches of eachnineteenth-century asylum. A slightly later and more general survey can be found in AlbertDeutsch’s The Mentally Ill in America: A History of Their Care and Treatment fromColonial Times (1937).Since the Second World War, there has been a great upsurge in the amount of workdone on the history of these social welfare institutions. The most important general work on thehistory of the nation’s prisons to appear after the war is Blake McKelvey’s American Prisons:A History of Good Intentions (1977). While the first part of this book is simply a reprint209

of McKelvey’s earlier work (see above), the second part carries the story from 1915 to 1968,paying particular attention to the increasing role played by state and federal officials. An extremelyrecent study on a topic that has received very little attention is Nicole H. Rafter’sPartial Justice: Women in State Prisons, 1800-1935. This work included a brief mention ofthe Virginia State Industrial Farm for Women established in Goochland County in 1932.Far more numerous are recent works on the history of the nation’s mental institutions.One of the most comprehensive is Leland Bell’s Treating the Mentally Ill: From ColonialTimes to the Present (1980). This work provides rather brief discussions of a wide range ofissues, including the development of asylums, the growth in their numbers, and the institutionalcare provided for blacks and immigrants. The premier scholar in this field, however, is GeraldN. Grob. One of his studies, an extremely thorough work entitled Mental Institutions inAmerica: Social Policy to 1875 (1973), deals with the development of these institutions fromthe colonial period on. In this work, Grob examines both public and private institutions andexplores such issues as the relationship between a patient’s class, ethnicity and race and thequality of care that he received, the proliferation of institutions in the nineteenth century, and theincreasing responsibility for the administration of these institutions that was assumed by stategovernments. Grob includes brief discussions of the founding of the Virginia Eastern Asylum inWilliamsburg in the 1770’s and of the condition that the Eastern Asylum and the WesternAsylum (opened in Staunton in 1828) had reached by the middle of the 1800’s. In the appendixof this book, Grob provides very useful statistics concerning the inmate populations ofnumerous asylums, including Virginia’s three public mental institutions. Grob recently publishedan equally thorough sequel to this work entitled Mental Illness and American Society1975-1940 (1983). This work focuses primarily on public mental health policy and the impactthat various intellectual movements had on mental health care. According to Grob, Virginiawas at the forefront of one of these, the eugenics movement, and its institutions had the dubiousdistinction of producing the second largest number of cases of state-mandated sterilizationin the nation.Historians became fascinated by the issue of poverty and poor relief in the wake of theGreat Depression and the New Deal. Thus, though there are few early comprehensive worksin this field, it became one of the most heavily studied aspects of social welfare history duringthe postwar period. However, the primary interest of these historians has been public assistancelegislation and the rise of public outdoor relief. One very comprehensive work that doesdevote some attention to indoor relief is Walter I. Trattner’s From Poor Relief to WelfareState: A History of Social Welfare in America (1974). A recent and very radical contributionis Michael B. Katz’s Poverty and Policy in American History (1983), which devotes agreat deal of attention to the study of poorhouses.Private philanthropy has become a topic of considerable interest to historians during thelast few decades. Robert H. Bremmer has produced several works on private charity, includingAmerican Philanthropy (1960) and a more specific article entitled “The Impact of theCivil War on Philanthropy and Social Welfare” (Civil War History 1966). A more recentwork is Paul Boyer’s Urban Masses and Moral Order in America, 1820-1920 (1978).Boyer examines the history of American philanthropy and finds that the primary motive behindthe generosity of the nation’s philanthropists was a fear of cities and the process of urbanizationcoupled with “a common interest in controlling the behavior of an increasingly urbanizedpopulace” (Boyer 1978: viii).210

Another leading figure in this branch of the historical profession is David J. Rothman.Rothman has produced two books that analyze the parallels in the historical development ofvarious social welfare institutions. The first, entitled The Discovery of the Asylum: SocialOrder and Disorder in the New Republic (1971), deals with the period from the early 1700’sto the 1880’s, while its sequel, Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and its Alternativesin Progressive America (1980), takes the story up to 1940. These two works examinethe development of penitentiaries, orphanages, almshouses, and mental institutions, particularlyin the sections that deal with social welfare measures that were taken during the colonialperiod.The works by Grob, Katz and Rothman, when studied together, provide perfect examplesof the approaches that have dominated postwar research into the history of thesesocial welfare institutions. Rothman and Katz are leading historians of the school whose workin the 1960’s and 1970’s was heavily influenced by social science methodology. Many ofthese historians emphasize the similarity in the patterns of development experienced by varioussocial welfare institutions in America. These historians challenge the “liberal-progressive” interpretationadvanced by pre-war historians such as Albert Deutsch which claimed that, thoughin practice many of these institutions failed to reform or cure their inmates, the intention andbasic theory behind institutional care were sound and the establishment of such institutions wasa step forward for American society. Heavily influenced by the writings of Michel Foucault, thepostwar revisionists claim that the primary reason for the establishment of penitentiaries, mentalasylums and almshouses was to control, and then, if it was deemed at all possible, to reformthose deviants who were perceived as threats to the stability and unity of a rapidly changingAmerican society. More radical quasi-Marxist revisionists like Katz have taken this interpretationa step farther. These historians interpret the establishment of public welfare institutions asan attempt to control and isolate a social class which was made dependent by the capitalistsystem and which was viewed as dangerous and unproductive by members of those classesthat benefited from an expanding capitalist economy. The radical historians frequently criticizetheir more moderate revisionist colleagues for their reluctance to deal with the question of classand for what the radicals consider to be a naive acceptance of the descriptions and explanationsleft by philanthropists, officials and institution administrators. What both groups of revisionistsshare, however, is the conclusion that these social welfare institutions were not onlyunjust, but also that they were abysmal failures and that this failure was an unavoidable result ofweaknesses that were inherent in institutional care.Grob, representing a school of thought that his emerged almost simultaneously with thatof the revisionists, takes issue with these approaches and conclusions. He rejects the notionthat all social welfare institutions, or even all of the institutions within a given field, can beapproached as though they constituted a single, monolithic phenomenon. Instead, Grob emphasizesvariations between particular institutions and particular geographic regions, as well aschanges over time. He likewise challenges the revisionists’ conclusion that these institutionssimply victimized their inmates and that failure is the “inevitable consequence of institutionalsolutions” (Grob 1983: x). Instead, Grob insists that inmates, or at least those in the nation’smental institutions, actually derived some benefits from incarceration.Despite these differences, some important similarities are evident in the work of therevisionists and their critics. Both schools, for example, consciously attempt to examine theseinstitutions within the context of American society in general. In fact, much of the postwarwork on these institutions has focused on their place in the community and on the influence that211

social and political developments had on their evolution. Yet another similarity is the fact thathistorians in both schools have announced their belief that the historical development of theseinstitutions has important implications for present social policy. The result of this attitude hasbeen to limit the discussion to topics that seem particularly relevant to current issues, such asthe changing role of state and federal governments, the question of therapeutic versus custodialcare, the past use of alternatives in incarceration such as outpatient care and parole, the growingprofessionalization and centralization of these institutions, the discriminatory treatment receivedby particular groups within American society, conflicts between the rights of the individualand the needs of the community, and questions of accountability and financial responsibility.In spite of the comprehensiveness and the rather high degree of analysis that characterizemany of these works, there are still many weaknesses within this body of literature. While mostperiods of American history have received some attention from these historians, some havereceived more than others. Social welfare institutions of the colonial and early National periodsdemand greater attention than they have generally received, as do the emergency measuresadopted during specific crises, such as the Civil War. Another area that historians shouldbegin to deal with is the development of these institutions since the New Deal. This topic haslong inspired social scientists, but could benefit from the historian’s perspective and methodology.Geographically, this body of literature contains a marked bias toward Northern urbanareas. The vast majority of the studies at the state and local levels, as well as nearly all of thestudies of individual institutions, examine conditions and policies in the North and the Midwest.The West has received a fair amount of attention, but the South virtually none. Likewise, evenwithin the North, rural areas have been neglected. Most general works in this field displaysimilar biases. Every area of Southern welfare history requires greater attention. The mostobvious places to begin would be with the measures taken by the Confederacy, the effects ofpublic and private relief during Reconstruction and the New Deal, the reforms of the ProgressiveEra, the establishment of state prison and mental health care systems, the history of countyinstitutions, etc. More work needs to be done on the institutional care of women, children, theelderly and the physically handicapped, and more thorough efforts must be made to studyblacks in this context. For example, the whole issue of racial segregation and desegregationhas yet to be examined as it applies to these institutions. In general, far less attention has beenpaid to the roles played by local and private agencies than by state and federal governments.Church-related philanthropy, except during the colonial period, has also been largely ignored.There has yet to appear a systematic study of the pervasiveness and geographic distribution ofsocial welfare institutions, and more work on individual institutions would provide the empiricaldata that is desperately needed in some areas of this field.It is ironic that, although this field of study was inspired and shaped by the postwar desireto “write history from the bottom up,” most of the work in this field has been written from thetop down. The quest for answers about the goals of these institutions has largely limited inquiryto public policy, social welfare legislation, and the motivations and attitudes of promoters,administrators and financial supporters of these institutions. More research needs to be doneon the social background of the inmates at various institutions, the effects that these institutionshad on their lives, the attitudes that members of other segments of American society heldconcerning institutions for the deviant and both indoor and outdoor relief programs, and thetypes of behavior and characteristics that made one the target of these institutions.212

Finally, there are many social welfare institutions that have received virtually no attentionat all from historians. Among these are community medical hospitals, orphanages, workhouses,old age homes, institutions for the physically handicapped, and detention centers for juveniledelinquents. Others, such as prisons and poorhouses, have been the subject of some, but notnearly enough, research.It is difficult to identify trends in the historical literature on Virginia’s institutions for thedeviant and the dependent because virtually nothing has been written about these institutions.There are no comprehensive books dealing with any of these institutions on a statewide basis.There are, however, a very small number of books and articles of a more limited scope that areworth mentioning. Elizabeth D. Colemen wrote a brief but interesting article entitled “Solvingthe Problem of Insolvency” (Virginia Cavalcade 1955), which identifies individual debtors’prisons in various parts of the state, describes the living conditions, terms of imprisonment andthe architecture of these prisons, and discusses the legislation that pertained to them. A farmore systematic approach to imprisonment can be found in an article by Robert M. Saundersentitled “Crime and Punishment in Early National America: Richmond, Virginia, 1784-1820”(VMHB 1978). This quantitative study is primarily concerned with identifying crime and convictionpatterns using information from court records. However, Saunders includes a briefanalysis of differences in the patterns of imprisonment based on the convicted offender’s race,sex and legal status (i.e., slave or free). Within the area of mental health care, there is a veryearly work by William F. Drewry entitled Historical Sketch of the Central State Hospitaland the Care of the Colored Insane of Virginia, 1870-1905 (1905). Care of the mentally illin Williamsburg is the subject of two more recent studies, Norman Dain’s Disordered Minds:The First Century of Eastern State Hospital in Williamsburg, Virginia, 1766-1866 (1971)and Shomer Zwelling’s Quest for a Cure: The Public Hospital in Williamsburg, Virginia(1985). The subject of these two works, the nation’s first public institution for the mentally ill,has also received considerable attention in the more general works on the history of mentalhealth care. The history of Virginia’s other mental institutions has not been studied nearly asextensively. There is also no major work devoted exclusively to the history of Virginia’s medicalhospitals. However, William B. Blanton’s book, Medicine in Virginia in the NineteenthCentury (1933), includes a chapter that discusses these institutions in detail, providing descriptionsof Virginia’s federal, state, private and charitable hospitals.The only topic within this field that has produced much excitement among scholars ofVirginia’s history is the issue of poor relief. The research on this topic, however, suffers fromsome of the same limitations as the work done on poor relief in the nations as a whole. First ofall, much of the available material focuses on the legal basis of aid to the poor. Howard Mackeyhas written two articles, “The Operation of the English Old Poor Law in Colonial Virginia”(VMHB 1965) and “Social Welfare in Colonial Virginia: The Importance of the English OldPoor Law” (Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church (1967)), which discussthe details of the operation of a system of poor relief which was transplanted from Englandand which placed responsibility for this relief on individual parishes. Though these articlesconcentrate primarily on outdoor relief, they do mention the operation of workhousesand poorhouses in certain parishes. The latter article also includes a list of the colony’s parishesand the amounts that each allotted for the poor between 1665-1786.With the disestablishment of the Episcopal Church following the American Revolution,much of the burden of poor relief fell to county officials. An early work by Frank W. Hofferentitled Counties in Transition: A Study of County Public and Private Welfare Adminis-213

tration in Virginia (1929) examines the role of the county. Although the author’s primaryobjective is to describe twentieth-century social welfare activities, he also discusses past provisionsfor outdoor poor relief, care of dependent and delinquent children, and the operationof the county almshouse and the county jail. Hoffer, like Mackey, places particular emphasison the English background of these institutions, on the role of the parish vestry and on socialwelfare legislation. He also discusses the charitable activities of Virginia’s religious, civic andfraternal organizations.Themes similar to those addressed by Hoffer and Machey can be found in CharlesMcCamic’s article, “Administration of Poor Relief in the Virginias” (West Virginia History1940). However, in addition to describing the English tradition of poor relief, the variouspieces of poor relief legislation and the roles of the parish and the county, McCamic devotes agood deal of attention to forms of relief that are rarely studied, such as the colonial practice ofbinding out orphans and the children of the poor, or of sending such children to work in theflaxhouse in James City County. McCamic’s article suffers from the presentism that is characteristicof much social welfare history. In fact, the main purpose of the article is to use examplesfrom the past to show the wastefulness and ineffectiveness that McCamic felt were inherent inpublic relief programs such as the NRA and the WPA.Yet another work that focuses on the legal basis and administration of poor relief isWilliam F. Zornow’s very interesting article, “Aid for the Indigent Families of Soldiers in Virginia,1861-1865” (VMHB 1958). This short piece, one of a very few to address the topic ofsocial welfare in the Confederacy, concentrates on legislative reactions to the growing pressurein favor of some sort of public relief and on changes in the roles played by various levelsof government.One other potentially fruitful topic that has yet to receive much attention is the impact thatfederal relief programs of the New Deal, as well as those enacted since the 1930’s, had onVirginia. Robert F. Hunter analyzes one of these programs in his article, “The AAA BetweenNeighbors: Virginia, North Carolina and the New Deal Farm Program” (Journal of SouthernHistory 1978). While Hunter, like so many other social welfare historians, devotes much of hisdiscussion to the attitudes of politicians from these states, he also makes an effort to analyzingthe effect that various facets of this program had on the farmers of these two states.For the most part, little or nothing has been written about the history of Virginia’s prisons,medical hospitals, orphanages and almshouses. With the exception of Eastern State Hospitaland some aspects of the history of poor relief (in particular, those parish relief measures practicedduring the colonial period and later relief legislation), no topic in this field of Virginiahistory has received a significant amount of coverage. Although some historians, such as RobertSaunders, have made attempts at applying modern research methods to topics in this field,these attempts are merely the beginning of what could be a totally new and profitable approachto the study of the state’s institutions. Thus, the last thing that a Virginia historian interestedin social welfare institutions needs to fear is that everything worth saying has alreadybeen said.BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PERIODICAL LITERATUREBreeden, James O., “Body Snatchers and Anatomy Professors: Medical Education inNineteenth Century Virginia,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 83 (July1975), pp. 321-345.214

Breen, T. H., “George Sonne’s `Virginia Revisited’: A 1638 Plan to reform Colonial Society,”William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 30 (July 1973), pp. 449-466.Brown, Ralph M., “Agricultural Science and Education in Williamsburg Before 1860”William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd series, 19 (April 1939), pp. 197-213.Campbell, Helen J., “The Syms and Eaton Schools and Their Successors,” William andMary Quarterly, 2nd Series, 20 (January 1940), pp. 1-61.Canby, Coutlandt, “A Note on the Influence of Oxford University upon William and MaryCollege in the Eighteenth Century,” William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd series, 21 (July1941), pp. 243-247.Come, Donald Robert, “The Influence of Princeton on Higher Education in the South before1825,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 2 (October 1945), pp. 359-396.Cutts, A. B., “Educational Influence of Aberdeen in Seventeenth-Century Virginia,” Williamand Mary Quarterly, 2nd series, 15 (July 135), pp. 229-249.Daniel, W. Harrison, “Southern Baptists and Education, 1865-1900: A Case Study,”Maryland Historical Magazine, 64 (September 1969), pp. 218-247.Ewell, B. S., “William and Mary College in the Years 1861-1865,” William and MaryQuarterly, 2nd series, l3 (October 1923), pp. 221-230.Fletcher, Charlotte, “King William’s School and the College of William and Mary,” MarylandHistorical Magazine,” 78 (June 1983), pp. 118-128.Fraser, Walter J. Jr., “William Henry Ruffner and the Establishment of Virginia’s PublicSchool System,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 79 (July 1971),pp. 259-279.Gill, Harold B. Jr., “Dr. de Sequeyera’s `Diseases of Virginia’,” Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography, 86 (July 1978), pp. 281-294.Good, H. G., “Early Attempts to Teach Agriculture in Old Virginia,” Maryland HistoricalMagazine, 48 (October 1940), pp. 341-351.Hall, Virginius Cornick Jr., “Virginia Post Offices, 1789-1859,” Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography, 81 (January 1973), pp. 49-97.Harrison, Fairfax, “The Colonial Post Office in Virginia,” William and Mary Quarterly, 2ndseries, 4 (April 1924), pp. 73-91.Henderson, Patrick, “Smallpox and Patriotism: The Norfolk Riots, 1768-1769,” VirginiaMagazine of History and Biography, 73 (October 1965), pp. 413-454.Hiden, Mrs. Philip Wallace, “Education and the Classics in the Life of Colonial Virginia,”Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 49 (January 1941), pp. 20-28.Hilldrup, Robert Leroy, “A Campaign to Promote the Prosperity of Colonial Virginia,”Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 67 (October 1959), pp. 410-428.Hohner, Robert A., “Bishop Cannon’s Apprenticeship in temperance politics, 1901-1918,”Journal of Southern History, 34 (February 1968), pp. 33-49.Holland, C. G., “Prohibition and Virginia Politics: William Hodges versus Henry St. GeorgeTucker, 1909,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 74 (January 1966),pp. 88-107.215

Holmes, G. F., “Prohibition Comes to Virginia: The Referendum of 19l4,” Virginia Magazineof History and Biography, 75 (October 1967), pp. 473-488.Holt, Wyth W. Jr., “Professor John Millington,” William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd series, 3(January 1923), pp. 21-35.Howison, Robert Reid, “Duelling in Virginia,” William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd series, 4(October 1924), pp. 217-241.Hoyt, William D., Jr., “A Crisis in Education, 1834, Part I,” Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography, 48 (January 1940), pp. 1-11.Hoyt, William D. Jr., “A Crisis in Education, 1834, Part II,” Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography, 48 (April 1940), pp. 130-140.Hoyt, William D. Jr., “Crisis in Education, 1834, Part III,” Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography, 48 (July 1940), pp. 243-252.Hoyt, William D. Jr., “Crisis in Education, 1834, Part V,” Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography, 49 (July 1941), pp. 62-73.Hughes, Robert M., “William and Mary: The First American Law School,” William andMary Quarterly, 2nd series, 2 (January 1922), pp. 40-48.Hunter, Robert F., “The AAA Between Neighbors: Virginia, North Carolina, and the NewDeal Farm Program,” Journal of Southern History, 44 (November 1978), pp. 537-570.Hunter, Robert F., “The Turnpike Movement in Virginia, 1816-1860,” Virginia Magazineof History and Biography, 69 (July 1961), pp. 278-289.Hutcheson, James Morrison, “Virginia’s `Dartmouth College Case’,” Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography, 50 (April 1943), pp. 134-140.Jones, Gordon W., “Doctor Mitchell’s Yellow Fever Epidemics,” Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography, 70 (January 1962), pp. 43-48.Jones, Gordon W., “The First Epidemic in English America,” Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography, 71 (January 1963), pp. 3-10.Keim, C. Ray., “Primogeniture and Entail and Colonial Virginia,” William and MaryQuarterly, 3rd series, 25 (October 1968), pp. 595-586.Kirby, Jack Temple, “Alcohol and Irony: The Campaign of Westmoreland Davis for Governor,1909-1917,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 73 (July 1965),pp. 259-279.Kirkpatrick, J. E., “Constitutional Development of the College of William and Mary,”William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd series, 6 (April 1926), pp. 95-108.Land, Robert H., “Henrico and Its College,” William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd series, 18(October 1938), pp. 453-498.MacClenny, W. E., “Yeates free Schools,” William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd series, 5(January 1925), pp. 30-38.Mackey, Howard, “The Operation of the English Old Poor Law in Colonial Virginia,“Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 73 (January 1765), pp. 29-40.Moore, James R., “The University and the Readjusters,” Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography, 78 (January 1970), pp. 87-101.216

Muggleston, William F., “The Freedman’s Bureau and Reconstruction in Virginia: The Diaryof Marcus Sterling Hopkins, a Union Officer,” Virginia Magazine of History andBiography, 86 (January 1978), pp. 45-102.No Author Listed “Maury’s School in Williamsburg,” William and Mary Quarterly, 2ndseries, 18 (January 1938), pp.Rainbolt, John C., “The Case of the Poor Planters in Virginia under the Law for Inspectingthe Burning Tobacco,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 79 (July1971), pp. 314-321.Robinson, W. Stitt Jr., “Indian Education and Missions in Colonial Virginia,” Journal ofSouthern History, 18 (May 1952), pp. 152-168.Sanders, Robert M., “Crime and Punishment in Early National America: Richmond, Virginia,1784-1820,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 86 (January1978), pp. 33-44.Swem, Earl Gregg, “The Lee Free School and the College of William and mary,” Williamand Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 16 (April 1959), pp. 207-213.Turnbull, L. Minerva, “Private Schools in Norfolk, 1800-1860,” William and Mary Quarterly,2nd series, 11 (October 1931), pp. 277-303.Turnbull, L. Minerva, “The Southern Educational Revolt,” William and Mary Quarterly,2nd series, 14 (January 1934), pp. 60-76.No Author Listed “Supplementary Documents Giving Additional Information ConcerningFour Forms of the Oldest Building at the College of William and Mary,” William andMary Quarterly, 2nd series, 10 (January 1930), pp. 68-86.Walne, Peter, “The Collections of Henrico College, 1616-1618,” Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography, 80 (July 1972), pp. 259-266.Wilson, George P., “From a Virginia Physician’s Place-book, 1825-1827,” William andMary Quarterly, 2nd series, 16 (April 1936), pp. 234-240.Zornow, William Frank, “Aid for Indigent Families of Soldiers in Virginia, 1861-1865,”Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 66 (October 1958), pp. 454-458.217

218

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY:THE RISE OF FORT VIRGINIA; THE CONTINUINGIMPORTANCE OF THE MILITARY TO TIDEWATERSOCIETYJ. Thomas WrenDepartment of History, College of William and MaryIntroductionIn its conception, this essay purports to be a bibliographic study of the periodic literaturewhich has been published concerning the continued importance of the military to Virginiasociety. Unfortunately, the literature is woefully inadequate, and the following discussionbecomes more of a “wish list” than an extensive listing of helpful sources. This topic is notablechiefly for the lack of scholarly work that has been addressed to it; the field is wide open formeaningful research and publication. White there are accounts of certain conflicts, the socialand economic impact of the military (especially in peacetime) is largely ignored. Moreover, theattention of historians appears to begin in the middle of the eighteenth century, and to trail off atthe close of the Civil War. The modern period, as well as the early colonial period, is ignored.What follows, then, is a summary of the work that has been completed, together with somegeneral suggestions for further research.Fortifications and BasesScholarly description of Virginia military fortifications and bases is extremely thin. A few articlesdiscuss certain sites in use during the Revolutionary War. Charles Hatch details themilitary role of Jamestown, and in another piece does the same for Gloucester Point. EdwardRiley discusses the military importance of Yorktown with its deep harbor and high bluffs, anddescribes the great efforts that were made— by both sides— to fortify it (Hatch 1942, 1970;Riley 1979). Similarly, the Civil War receives some scholarly attention. James Robertson publisheda letter by a British observer that described the Confederate fortifications along theJames and around Richmond. He noted they extended eighty miles, and “it seems almostimpossible that any [Federal] ship could have reached Richmond.” Robertson’s visitor alsodepicted the formidable Federal earthworks encircling Petersburg. In a related piece, WilliamKay described “Drewry’s Bluff,” a fortified position overlooking the James and protectingRichmond (Robertson 1969; Kay 1969). In a slightly different vein, Melvin Herndon portrayedthe Confederate Naval Academy, which in reality was aboard the CSS Patric Henry(Herndon 1961).ConflictsOne of the more popular topics for military historians has been the depiction of actual battlesand campaigns. Occasionally such studies go on to discuss a broader theme. For example,Gwenda Morgan looks at the French and Indian War in terms of imperial relations and con-219

cludes that it was the friction generated during the course of that war which caused British-Virginia relations to sour. Similarly, Jack Sosin takes a broad approach to Dunmore’s War,looking to its causes, prosecution and implications (Morgan 1973; Sosin 1966). Other accountsare more traditional descriptions of military activities. Several related to the RevolutionaryWar, from accounts of Dunmore’s offensive actions in 1775-76 (Mooman 1958; Naisawald1952) to the battle of Green Spring (Hatch 1945) to the siege of Yorktown. The latter campaignengendered several accounts. Edward Riley gives the best description of the siege itself,while Riley and others have also published original accounts of the campaign by contemporaryobservers (Riley 1949, 1948; McMaster 1971; Johnston 1952).Similar descriptive pieces appear for conflicts down through the Civil War. Most go nofarther than mere description; however, Edward Gaines reaches a more sophisticated level ofanalysis in his depiction of the “Chesapeake Affair” of 1807. In describing the war fever thatbriefly raged over the incident, Gaines analyzes the close cooperation between federal andstate authorities in the ensuing mobilization (Gaines 1956). Two articles trace military events ofthe War of 1812. Lee Wallace follows the “Petersburg Volunteers” in their exploits duringWilliam Henry Harrison’s campaign in northwest Ohio, while Parke Rouse published a contemporarydescription of the British landing at Hampton in 18l3 (Wallace 1974; Rouse 1968).A smattering of articles portray Civil War actions at Williamsburg (Shotwell 1961), HamptonRoads (Herndon 196l), Drewry’s Bluff (Kay 1969; Herndon 196l), Trevillians (Ryckman1967; Vandiver 1943), and the capture of Richmond (Lightfoot 1933).It is clear from the above discussion that the few articles that have appeared in the majorperiodicals relating to Virginia history are both dated and narrow. The latter is of course thegreater sin. With the few exceptions noted above, virtually all of these articles describe purelymilitary activity. This serves an antiquarian purpose, but it is to be hoped that future scholarlystudies will move beyond the merely descriptive. A few articles have made a beginning in thisregard.One approach to the history of military conflicts has been to view them through theperspective of the soldiery. These articles tend to focus on the recruitment, provision andcombat experience of a selected group of soldiers. Thus Luther Jackson looks to the backgroundsof the blacks who served the American revolutionary cause, as well as their wartimeservice and postwar treatment. An interesting contrast to the relatively decent treatment ofthese soldiers is the tale spun by Willard Gatewood of the discrimination toward the SixthVirginia Volunteers, a black militia outfit during the Spanish-American War. The result wasabysmal troop morale and an undistinguished service record (Jackson 1942; Gatewood 1972).Another interesting contrast is that between the story of the recruitment of the “ProvisionalArmy” units in Virginia during the war scare of 1799 and that of the “Petersburg Volunteers” ofthe War of 18l2. The former were recruited from the lower echelons of society, and werepoorly fed, clothed and housed. The Petersburg unit, on the other hand, came from the elite,and feted as heroes even before their triumphal campaign under William Henry Harrison (Gaines1948; Wallace 1974). These four studies suggests the sort of regarding comparative analysisthat might be undertaken in this area. The articles further suggest the possibilities of developinga “social history” of selected regiments; the result would be a better understanding of both theirinternal dynamics and— possibly— of the consequent relationship to military achievement.Another issue that has engendered a spate of articles is that of the identity and role ofdeserters in various conflicts. Arthur Alexander published a brace of articles concerning desertionin the Revolutionary War. In the first he sought to describe the “typical” deserter, while in220

the second piece he moved on to a discussion of possible reasons for desertion (Alexander1946, 1947). Two other articles focus on slaves who “deserted” to the British side in twowars. Sylvia Frey traces slave deserters in the Revolutionary War, and finds they were frightfullytreated. She notes that the British had neither social (slave revolt) nor humanitarian objectivesin allowing this flow of personnel; blacks were accepted for purely military reasons.Frank Cassell focusses on the impact on the native white population in his treatment of the Warof 1812. This departure of slaves to the British created fear and economic loss among thewhites, but the fact of significant slave flight from the system did not cause most whites to reevaluatetheir view of the “benevolence” of the slave system. Frey and Cassell are two recentscholars whose work suggests the sort of analysis that can be achieved in the writing of militaryhistory. Looking beyond the mere descriptive to the analytical, they apply their insights tobroader social issues. Hopefully, future historians will follow their lead.OccupationsOne of the potentially most disruptive events in the life a community is its occupation in time ofwar by hostile troops. This actually occurred in several Virginia communities in the eighteenthand nineteenth centuries. And, while the scholarship on the effects of such occupations is farfrom satisfactory, there have at least been several attempts at the analysis of the dynamics ofmilitary occupation.Yorktown is one of the Virginia cities whose “occupation” by troops of both armiesduring the Revolutionary War has occasioned scholarly study. Edmund Riley is the foremosthistorian of Yorktown during the war. His studies clearly show that occupation by “friendly”troops can be as damaging as that by the enemy. During the garrisoning of Yorktown byAmerican troops, several of the recently-vacated houses were occupied by soldiers. Theresulting damage and destruction led one visitor to comment that the town had been “ruined bydisorderly soldiers.” Nor did things improve when the British replaced the American as occupiers.The British initially held some families hostage and later destroyed a substantial numberof houses— first to clear a “field of fire,” and later to obtain wood for redoubts and the like.The final blow was the Allied siege, during which the bombardment severely damaged thetown and wounded many of the remaining residents. An outbreak of smallpox also swept thebeleaguered city (Riley 1948, 1949; Hiden 1927; McMaster 1971).Parke Rouse provides a glimpse of the occupation of Hampton in 1813 in his collectionof original letters. According to contemporary observers, the port town suffered unduly, ascharges of rape, murder and pillaging were freely bandied about (Rouse 1968).The Civil War brought the occupation of several Virginia communities by Federal troops.Some of the best of recent scholarship has focused on the Union occupation of Norfolk.Lenoir Chambers provides a good summary of the impact of Federal occupation. Inhabitantswere isolated from outside contacts, normal trade disappeared,the economy deteriorated,buildings fell into disrepair, there was widespread hunger and a military government that wasless than zealous in the protection of citizens’ rights. In a recent article, Ludwell Johnson hastaken the analysis of the Norfolk occupation to a more sophisticated plane. He analyzes thetechnicalities and realities of the blockade of the port, and finds that with the indulgence of aseries of Union generals, a lively trade with the North ensued (the fruits of which, ironically,quite often found their way to the Confederate Army) (Chambers 1965; Johnson 1985).221

Again, we find here a few studies of military occupations of Virginia communities, but notmany. Perhaps the most glaring omission in the lack of scholarship dealing with the “occupation”of Virginia during Reconstruction. Despite the lack of quantity of such studies, however,the quality has been relatively high. Riley, Chambers, and Johnson have all done sound work.One can only wish that there will be more of the same, perhaps with an increased slant on thesocial impact of these occupations.BilletsAnother issue which has received the attention of historians has been the quality of the provisioningof soldiers. While no article was found which was devoted solely to the standard ofhousing, clothing and feeding of the troops, nevertheless references to this matter may befound in the literature. These allow at least occasional glimpses of this side of military life.Studies demonstrate that the provisioning of troops could vary widely by time and place.For example, the “Provisional Army” recruited during the war scare with France in 1799 wasill-fed, ill-clothed, and unpaid. Similarly, the First Virginia Volunteers who were called intoservice during the Mexican War were poorly supplied. On the other hand, the PetersburgVolunteers of the War of 1812 were extremely well provided for (Gaines 1948; Wallace1969, 1974). These studies raise a number of important questions, the implications of whichhave scarcely been addressed by historians. The first and most fundamental need is for a studyof the mechanics of provisioning a large concentration of the military. This would of courseoccasion a considerable impact upon the local economy (infra). A more subtle area of studyis the nature of the relationship between such things as the popularity of the war or the sociallevel of the troops to be supplied to the ease in securing provisions. It is to be suspected thata positive relationship will be found.A closely related issue to that of feeding and clothing the troops is that of housing them.Again, there is no specific analysis of the issue, although some insights can be gleaned from theliterature. And, again, it appears that the quality of military housing has varied tremendously.We have seen that the men garrisoned at Yorktown were first billeted in private houses. Later,however, barracks for troops were constructed. These consisted of “wooded tents” at first;later a more substantial structure was erected. In 1799, commanding general George Washingtondecided to house the Provisional Army in standard log huts built by the troops. Oversixty years later the habitations of Federal troops outside of Petersburg were still described as“huts of pine logs.” One the other hand, the garrison troops at Drewry’s Bluff apparentlyenjoyed substantial housing and beautiful surroundings. And, finally, however poor the housingfor troops might have been, it couldn’t compare with the terrible conditions found in mostmilitary prisons (such as that in Danville) (Riley 1949; Gaines 1948; Robertson 1961, 1969;Kay 1969; Chambers 1965).The issue of troop quarters is undoubtedly an important one. Far more significant, however,are the corollary issues that arise. Few of these have received any treatment in theliterature reviewed. For instance, there is not discussion of the legal and constitutional issuesarising from the billeting of troops in private homes. More important are the social reverberations.A large confluence of military personnel must inevitably impact on the surrounding society.Little or no scholarship has been initiated in this area. Finally, as noted with regard to theprovisioning of troops, there are significant economic implications. It is to these we now turn.222

Impact of the Military on the Local Economy and theDevelopment of Support ServicesThis is undoubtedly one of the most important issues posed by the military presence in theTidewater area, and to label the scholarly treatment of it as woefully inadequate is to understatethe case. Such treatment as exists is fitful, dated, and restricted to a very narrow focus.Perhaps the best of the lot is Riley’s treatment of the garrisoning of troops at Yorktown. Henotes that this effort involved localmerchants and artisans in supplying the needs of the troops:local residents served as quartermaster, local blacksmiths prepared arms, buildings were purchasedfor a hospital, a surgeon was hired, local carpenters and brickmasons were employedin building a barracks, and other laborers were hired to help build batteries. These economicripples, when taken with the inevitable increase of business in local taverns and other serviceindustries, provide an inkling of the impact a military presence can have on a local economy(Riley 1949). Unfortunately, there has been no study uncovered that parallels that of Riley forany other period. Moreover, even Riley’s treatment is superficial, and lacks the detailed analysisrequired to understand (as opposed to describe) the phenomenon.It should be noted that the Civil War has instigated a few studies that relate to this issue.They chiefly relate to the war’s impact upon local railroads. These are not without value, butthey hardly constitute the type of analysis needed in the area (Johnston 1955, 1957; Turner1946). What is needed is a full-fledged economic/historical analysis of the economic impact ofthe military presence in the Tidewater.The Development of Military-Related IndustriesJust as the periodical literature has failed to yield significant scholarship on the military’s impacton the local economy, so it is equally as barren in the matter of a closely-related issue: thedevelopment of military-related industries. Again, the isolated bits of scholarship available arenarrow in their coverage and shallow in their analysis. The journals yield nothing on the behemoth-likegrowth of Tidewater military- related industry that has occurred in the twentiethcentury. Indeed the entire range of studies can be summarized in a near paragraph.Melvin Herndon isolates one Virginia industry that received a considerable impetus as aresult of the Revolutionary War. That was the hemp industry, with its attendant manufactures ofclothing, sailcloth and rope. This rising industry boosted local employment and income as itemployed slaves, skilled workmen, and even farmed out some tasks to local households(Herndon 1966). The Revolutionary War also spurred the manufacture of small arms andartillery in Norfolk (Naisawald 1952). Yet another article by Herndon looks to the impact ofthe Civil War. He notes in particular the efforts of Confederate Secretary of the Navy StephenMallory’s effort to bring his nation up to speed industrially. In the process he commissioned apowder mill, machine shops, ropewalks and shipyards (Herndon 1961). That the Confederacydid not achieve total industrial independence is indicated by the fact that during the entireCivil War no railroad rails were rolled in the entire South; most replacements came fromtearing up existing roads (Johnston 1957).That is all. No other articles were uncovered that deal with this most important issue.Clearly there exists a substantial opportunity for scholars to make a further contribution to thisfield.223

The Home FrontIt is well known that war’s effects extend far beyond the purely military sphere. It also impactsthe economy, social institutions, and even the psychology of an entire society. Accordingly, anarea worthy of close attention is the impact of the war on those left behind: those on the homefront. The literature allows us to apply this analysis to the Civil War period.War has perhaps its most obvious impact at the economic level. In addition to the positiveimpact of increased war production and the like, there can be the negative scourge ofinflation and shortages. In the Civil War at least, such was true of Virginia (Johnston 1955;Johnson 1970). Indeed Ludwell Johnson goes so far as to suggest that the South erred by nottrading with the Union. Had the Confederacy done so, it could have obtained food for thearmy, specie to support the South’s paper money, and other benefits (Johnson 1970). Agriculturewas also hurt badly by the war. Farmers lost laborers, livestock, and farm implements.Railway transportation to markets broke down, and even salt to cure meats was wanting(Ramsdell 1930). These articles make clear that the Civil War had a damaging impact on thehome-front economy.Social institutions also suffered setbacks. The churches suffered from inflation, internalstrife and damaged property. Church seminaries closed; worst of all, theSouth as a wholebecame less religious during the war (Daniel 1974). Even welfare institutions suffered. WilliamZornow looks to the Confederate aid to the indigent. While the churches were active, thebrunt of the assistance to disabled soldiers and to the families of soldiers was borne by theindividual states. This became even more difficult. At first monetary relief was given; latergoods in kind. By the end of the war, the states were forced to impress goods for this purpose(Zornow 1958).The foregoing all merged into an increasing crisis of morale in Southern society. Thissapped energy at home and at the front, thus contributing to the Southern collapse (Zornow1958; Trexler 1950).The foregoing composite of articles written about various facets of the home front duringthe Civil War demonstrate the sorts of topics and analyses that can be fruitful. While by nomeans comprehensive, the Civil War literature at least cogently addresses the subject. Not sofor other conflicts. Indeed, with the exception of an excellent article by Myron Wehtje on antiwarsentiment in Virginia in the War of 1812, Civil War studies monopolize the field (Wehtje1970). Again, the call must go out for further research and publication.ConclusionBy now the essential outlines for further research should be clear enough. There is a desperateneed for more scholarship in all areas, but if two must be singled out, they would consist ofdiverse approaches. First, there is a need for research of all kinds into the impact of the militarypresence in the Tidewater from the Reconstruction period to the present. Second, in all studies,regardless of time period, there must be more attention paid to the social consequences ofthe military presence. In sum, the gaps in the present state of scholarship should be seen not somuch as a failure on the part of current historians, but rather as an opportunity for futurescholars to make meaningful contributions to an important yet undercultivated field of history.224

REFERENCES CITEDAlexander, Arthur1946 Desertion and Its Punishment in Revolutionary Virginia. William and MaryQuarterly 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.Cassell, Frank A.1972 Slaves of the Chesapeake Bay Area and the War of 1812. Journal of NegroHistory 57: l44-l55.Chambers, Lenoir1965 Notes on Life in Occupied Norfolk, 1862-1865. Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography 73: 131-144.Daniel, W. Harrison1974 The Effects of the Civil War on Southern Protestantism. Maryland HistoricalMagazine 69: 44-63.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 NationalHonor. 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 VirginiaVolunteers. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 80: 193-209.Hatch, Charles E., Jr.1940 Gloucester Point in the Siege of Yorktown, 1781. William and Mary Quarterly20(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’). VirginiaMagazine of History and Biography 53: 172-196.1970 Grace Church. General Study. Manuscript on file, York County Public Library,York County, Virginia.225

Herndon, G. Melvin1961 The Confederate States Naval Academy. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 69: 30-323.1966 A War-Inspired Industry: The Manufacture of Hemp in Virginia During theRevolution. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 74: 301-311.Hiden, Mrs. Philip Wallace1927 Losses of York County Citizens in the British Invasion, 1781. William andMary Quarterly 7(2nd series): 132-135.Jackson, Luther P.1942 Virginia Negro Soldiers and Seamen in the American Revolution. Journal ofNegro History 27: 47-287.Johnson, Ludwell H.1970 Trading with the Union: The Evolution of Confederate Policy. Virginia Magazineof History and Biography 78: 208-325.Johnston, Angus J., Jr.1955 Disloyalty on Confederate Railroads in Virginia. Virginia Magazine of Historyand Biography 63: 410-426.1957 Virginia Railroads in April 1861. Journal of Southern History 13: 307-330.Johnston, James Ambler1952 The War Did Not End at Yorktown. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 60: 444-457.Kay, William Kenna1968 Drewry’s Bluff or Fort Darling. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography77: 191-200.Lightfoot, Mrs. William B.1933 The Evacuation of Richmond. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography41: 215-222.MacMaster, Richard K.1971 News of the Yorktown Campaign: The Journal of Dr. Robert Honyman, April17-November 25, 1781. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 74:387-426.Mooman, W. Hugh1958 The British Leave Colonial Virginia. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography66: 147-160.Morgan, Gwenda1973 Virginia and the French and Indian War: A Case Study of the War’s Effect onImperial Relations. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 81: 23-48.226

Naisawald, Louis Van L.1952 Robert Howe’s Operations in Virginia, l775-l776. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 60: 437-443.Ramsdel, Charles W.1930 Materials for Research in the Agricultural History of the Confederacy. AgriculturalHistory 4: 18-22.Riley, Edward M.1948 St. George Tucker’s Journal of the Siege of Yorktown, l781. William andMary Quarterly 5(3rd series): 375-395.1949a1949b1949cYorktown During the Revolution. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography57: 22-43.Yorktown During the Revolution, continued. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 57: 176-188.Yorktown During the Revolution, continued. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 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.Rouse, Parke Jr.1968 The British Invasion of Hampton in 1813: The Reminiscences of James Jarvis.Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 76: 318-336.Ryckman, W. G.1967 Clash of Cavalry at Trevilians. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography75: 443-458.Shotwell, R. A.1933 Williamsburg and William and Mary College After the Battle of Williamsburg,May 5, 1862, As Seen by a Confederate Soldier (R.A. Shotwell). William andMary Quarterly 13(2nd series): 26-27.Sosin, Jack M.1965 The British Indian Department and Dunmore’s War. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 74: 34-50.Trexler, Harrison A.1950 The Davis Administration and the Richmond Press, 1861-1865. Journal ofSouthern History 16: 177-195.Turner, Charles W.1946 The Virginia Central Railroad at War, 1861-1865. Journal of SouthernHistory 12: 510-533.227

Vandiver, F. E.1943 Notes on an Engagement at Green Springs. William and Mary Quarterly23(2nd series): 160-161.Wallace, Lee A.1969 The First Regiment of Virginia Volunteers, 1846-1848. Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 77: 46-77.1974 The Petersburg Volunteers, 1812-1813. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 84: 458-485.Wehtje, Myron F.1970 Opposition in Virginia to the War of 1812. Virginia Magazine of History andBiography 78: 65-86.Zornow, William Frank1958 Aid for Indigent Families of Soldiers in Virginia, 1861-1865. Virginia Magazineof History and Biography 66: 454-458.228

Appendix 7.Submerged Cultural Resources inthe Tidewater Peninsula RegionSam Margolin

IntroductionDespite the obvious physical relationship of the Tidewater Peninsula to the waterwaysthat surround it, few archaeologists or historians have seriously considered the influenceof maritime affairs or the significance of submerged cultural resources in theirinvestigations of the area’s history. A possible explanation for this circumstance is suggested bythe observation of a former director of Colonial Williamsburg that “colonial dependence onshipping... lent a maritime flavor to life in Virginia... and made the inhabitants more acutelyaware than their descendants today of the importance of the sea and of navigation” (Middletonl984: 32).Throughout the historic period, water transport constituted an economic, social, andcultural lifeline for the people of the region. This was especially true in the colonial era whenships and boats of all sizes were required to market staple commodities abroad; import Europeanmanufactured goods, West Indian produce, and African slaves; convey news from andmaintain ties with the mother country; provide defense against foreign enemies and pirates; andfacilitate travel across inland waterways. Every planter must have had a boat of some kind tolighter tobacco bales and hogsheads to the transatlantic ships anchored in the river channels, tovisit neighbors, and to attend social and religious gatherings. According to a mid-17th-centuryobserver, the colony had “pinnaces, barks, great and small boats many hundreds, for most oftheir plantations stand upon the rivers’ sides and up little creeks and but a small way into theland” (quoted in Evans 1957: 12).The investigation of maritime history and submerged cultural resources forms an integraland obvious part of the study units concerned with early exploration, settlement, and thetransatlantic transfer of English culture; the development of the tobacco economy and localcraft specialization (boat building); industrialization (shipbuilding) and the transportation revolution;and, of course, naval history (including the revolution in naval warfare) and militaryaffairs in general. Less apparent is the role of ships in the development and expansion ofslavery and the influence of maritime culture on the formation of New World attitudes andbelief systems.Underwater Resource Investigations in the Study AreaFor purposes of analysis, submerged cultural resources may be classified into four groups: (1)inundated terrestrial sites, both prehistoric and historic, including dwellings, temporary or seasonalcamps, storage and production areas, and communal structures (2) shipwreck sites,including all types of vessels intended for water transport regardless of size, stage of completion,or cause of sinking (3) maritime support facilities such as the submerged remains ofdocks, wharves, ferry landings, and lighthouses, and (4) any object or structure which doesnot fit into one of the other three categories -- a collapsed bridge for example, or, morecommonly, items inadvertently lost or purposely discarded either from the shore or from avessel underway or at anchor. Because of the relative paucity of documented underwater sitesin the study area proper, the following discussion includes not only cultural resources located inthe waters surrounding the entire peninsula region, but also several further up the James Riverand two in the lower part of the Chesapeake Bay. The purpose of expanding the study area toencompass these sites is to introduce a broader range of property types which further investigationin the strictly defined study area may one day reveal.231

Submerged Terrestrial SitesVery few inundated terrestrial sites have been identified in the survey area to date, a circumstancewhich seems to reflect both the lack of a concerted effort to locate such resources andthe adverse environmental conditions that militate against the preservation of these sites. Theonly two submerged prehistoric sites documented thus far, YO5 and YO11, were both recordedin the Poquoson area. In 1977 archaeologists recovered Archaic period hammerstoneflakes, large triangular points, and a billet flake during a walking survey of the land componentof YO5; the site, which lies on a tidal flat, is described as extending an “indefinite distance outinto Chesapeake Bay” (VRCA February 1977). YO11 is a completely submerged site whichwas reported in 1983 by clammers who tonged a number of Savannah River points and largepieces of pottery in shallow water approximately 1000 meters east of Goodwin Island. Spreadover a 2000 meter area, the site is believed to actually represent a series of separate occupationsdating to the Late Archaic/Woodland period (VRCA July 1983).Only two attempts have been made to discover potential offshore components of historicland sites, both efforts relating to well-known 17th-century towns on the northern bank of theJames River. The first was undertaken in the mid-1950s in an effort to find evidence of theoriginal fort at Jamestown (Cotter 1958: 17-18). Since techniques for careful underwatersurvey and excavation had not yet been developed, the procedures employed by projectarchaeologists were regrettably, but understandably, crude and imprecise.The plan was to conduct fixed-interval testing from a barge using a power operatedclamshell bucket to dredge “bites” from the shallow shelf between the seawall and the riverchannel, focusing on the area directly offshore of the 1861 fort. Unfortunately, archaeologistswere not only unable to control the depth to which the dredge penetrated the bottom (reportedlyanywhere from 2 to 8 feet), but they also had difficulty directing the movements of thebarge itself. Although the 65 “drops” thus performed were random rather than systematic asplanned, their positions were recorded from shore-based transit stations and could thus beaccurately plotted. The results indicated that almost no cultural material lay beyond 200 feetfrom the seawall. While the operation failed to produce evidence of the fort, seventeenthcenturyartifacts were recovered in 19 of the drops, most of these close to shore.The other project designed to recover information about the possible offshore remains ofa 17th-century riparian settlement was conducted in 1979 by staff members of the VirginiaResearch Center for Archaeology (VRCA, a division of the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission)at the request of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (Hazzard & Margolin 1979).The work was prompted by the discovery of a village site, identified as Wolstenholme Towne,between the Carter’s Grove Mansion and the edge of a bluff overlooking the James River. Theobservation of archaeological features extending to and, in some cases, protruding from theface of the bluff led to speculation about how far the town might have extended offshore overthree and a half centuries ago. VRCA archaeologists hoped to provide an answer to thisquestion by means of artifactual and geological evidence acquired through the excavation of aseries of test pits and trenches.Unfortunately, attempts to resolve the issue through the analysis of period artifact distributionswere frustrated by the absence of datable cultural material in the test areas. The failureto recover any artifacts that might have been related to the Wolstenholme settlement may beattributed, at least in part, to the dynamics of the erosion and deposition sequence: as the riverundercuts the bank beneath the site, cultural remains, along with tons of earth and debris,232

plummet 30 feet to the shore or the water below where they then become subject to thecorrosive effects of brackish water, waves, and currents. Despite the lack of diagnostic artifacts,however, archaeologists were able to discern a pattern in the distribution of fossil shellmaterial suggesting the prior existence of a promontory which may have projected some 300feet further out into the river during the early 17th century. This evidence, in addition to otherdata indicating the extension of a ravine on the suspected headland’s north side, enabledColonial Williamsburg archaeologists to refine their estimates of the size and population ofWolstenholme Towne (Noël Hume 1982: 258-260).Shipwreck SitesThe overwhelming majority of submerged cultural resources that have been documented in thestudy area are shipwreck sites. By far the greatest number of these are associated with historicallysignificant Revolutionary and Civil War naval engagements or other operations whichoccurred at strategic points in the York and James Rivers. (In Maryland’s Patuxent River,remains of the United States’ Chesapeake Flotilla destroyed during the War of 1812 werediscovered and briefly examined in 1979 [Shomette 1982: 92-93]). Most of the archaeologicalinvestigations of these sites have been conducted by two organizations: the VRCA’s nauticalsection, established as a full-time operation in 1978, and Underwater Archaeological JointVentures, a private group formed in 1981.Since its inception the VRCA’s nautical section has focused its efforts primarily on theinvestigation of ships sunk during the Battle of Yorktown in 1781. Attempts to salvage thesevessels and their contents date back to the months immediately following the British surrenderand continued intermittently throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. A major effort to recoverartifacts from the wrecks was jointly undertaken by the National Park Service and the newlyfounded Mariners Museum in 1934 and 1935 (Ferguson 1939: 257-271). The work wasconducted by a single, helmeted diver operating from a 75-foot-long wooden barge equippedwith a winch and a clamshell bucket. A considerable quantity of artifacts including cannons,swivel guns, and nearly 200 glass bottles was recovered from three wrecks (two on the Yorktownside of the river and one on the Gloucester side), but scant attention was paid to archaeologicalprovenience, construction features, or the recording of specific site locations. Despite theapplication of what would be considered highly unsophisticated conservation methods bycurrent standards—or, in some instances, the absence of preservation treatments altogether—many of the artifacts have survived in remarkably good condition (Sands 1983: 125-131).In the mid-1970s, archaeologists and preservationists became seriously concerned whenrelic hunting by sport divers on what came to be known as the Cornwallis Cave Wreck reachedalarming proportions. Fearing that the continued existence of the site (which had been designatedYO12) was threatened, the Virginia State Legislature enacted an underwater antiquitieslaw in 1976 to protect this historic resource and any others as yet undocumented in the area.The same year the VRCA contracted with the American Institute of Nautical Archaeology toconduct test excavations on YO12. On-site investigations that summer confirmed the dating ofthe wreck to the late 18th century; established the general hull type, extent of preservation, andsite dimensions; and demonstrated the difficulty of performing systematic and precise archaeologicalprocedures under the conditions of strong current and poor visibility prevalent in theYork River (Bass 1976).233

Two years later the VRCA assembled its own team of diving archaeologists to conduct acomprehensive survey of the river near Yorktown for the purpose of locating as many sunkenvessels related to the 1781 battle as possible. Archaeologists were guided in their efforts bythe historical research of John Sands, currently Assistant Director for Collections at the MarinersMuseum, who had written a master’s thesis on the subject (Sands 1983), which he hassubsequently developed into a doctoral dissertation (Sands 1980) and a recently publishedbook (Sands 1983). The survey team was also aided by members of a local dive club whoprovided locational information which led to the detection of three wrecks, one of whichproved to be the best preserved of the combined assemblage.A total of eight shipwreck sites (including YO12) believed to be associated with theBattle of Yorktown were located during the survey. Six of these lay in a line approximatelyparallel to the Yorktown Beach and almost certainly represent some of the vessels scuttled byGeneral Cornwallis to prevent an amphibious landing by French naval forces. Of the twowreck sites discovered on the Gloucester side of the river, one contained a six-pounder ironcannon (which was subsequently raised) and the other, designated GL136, was consideredlikely to represent the remains of the flagship of the British York River Fleet, H.M.S. Charon.Almost all the wrecks were found to lie in less than 25 feet of water, but in 1980 a ninth vesselbelieved to be associated with the Yorktown engagement was discovered in much deeperwater (over 80 feet) near mid-channel. A summary of the results of the 1978 survey waspublished in 1980 (Broadwater 1980: 227-235).The next two field seasons were principally devoted to a more detailed examination oftwo of the sites surveyed in 1978. The excavation of a series of athwartship trenches on YO85in 1979 demonstrated that controlled excavation and accurate recording could be accomplisheddespite a hostile environment and that diagnostic hull features and artifacts can survivein surprisingly good condition even on poorly preserved sites (Hazzard 1982). In 1980 theVRCA co-sponsored a summer field school with Texas A & M University in which the primaryobjective was to determine whether GL136 did in fact represent the remains of theCharon. Although the flagship was known to have burned to the waterline before she sankand a preliminary survey of GL136 indicated that less than 10 percent of the original hull hadbeen preserved, careful analysis of construction features and subsequent comparison of thesewith extant builder’s plans of the warship furnished positive proof that GL136 and the Charonwere one and the same (Steffy 1981).In 1982 a large steel enclosure, or cofferdam, was constructed around YO88, the bestpreserved of the sites surveyed in 1978. The project’s research orientation has developedaround two principal considerations: “first, how project results can be related to existing knowledgeof the people and events of the American Revolution and, second, the performance ofthe cofferdam and associated methodology in improving the quality and rate of archaeologicaldata recovery” (Broadwater 1985). Analysis of the excavation record thus far has focusedalmost exclusively on the technical aspects of hull construction, interior carpentry, and artifactidentification. However, some broader theoretical issues concerning the ship “as an artifact... asa vehicle of commerce and a transport of war materials... as a closed community... [and] as afinal repository of material culture” are reportedly being explored as well (Broadwater 1985).The cofferdam itself has produced mixed results. Unquestionably, it has facilitated thecreation of a working environment within its walls that is immeasurably superior to that whichlies without. Increased visibility, the absence of currents and stinging nettles, and the protectionafforded by steel walls to the archaeological integrity of the site against destructive human and234

natural agents are all significant advantages. Nevertheless, several of the cofferdam’s anticipatedbenefits have failed to materialize and the project’s emphasis on the technological aspectof the excavation has made these shortcomings all the more apparent. A filtration system wasto have clarified the water sufficiently to permit photogrammetric recording of the site andenable the public to view the wreck from the surface, but neither of these goals has beenachieved. Moreover, despite the expectation of a shortened excavation time that would partiallyoffset the considerable expense of the cofferdam, the duration of the project has alreadyexceeded original estimates (Broadwater 1980) and a considerable amount of work remainsto be done.Whereas the study of Revolutionary War shipwrecks in the region has been largely confinedto the York River, the archaeological investigation of Civil War shipwrecks has beenconducted almost exclusively in the James River. Ironically, the impetus to undertake thisresearch was generated not only outside the state, but outside the archaeological and historicalpreservation professions as well.In early 1980, Clive Cussler, popular novelist and Chairman of the National Underwaterand Marine Agency (NUMA), decided to actively pursue his long-standing interest in twofamous Civil War vessels known to have sunk in Hampton Roads off lower Newport News:the U.S.S. Cumberland, victim of the ironclad Virginia (alias Merrimack) after a gallant fightin which over 120 men went down with the ship, and the C.S.S. Florida, first of the foreignbuiltConfederate commerce raiders which so devastated Union shipping during the war thatthe American merchant marine has never since recovered. Cussler hired a professional researcherto seek more specific information on the location of the wreck sites, entered into acooperative agreement with the VRCA to investigate a proposed survey area in the lowerJames River, and, in the summer of 1980, conducted a joint search with state archaeologistswhich failed to produce evidence of either of the two ships.The following year NUMA contracted with Underwater Archaeological Joint Ventures(UAJV) to renew the search. UAJV archaeologists reviewed the previous research, substantiallyreduced the survey area, and contacted local watermen in hopes of obtaining informationconcerning the recovery of artifacts or irregularities in the river bottom that might indicate thepresence of a wreck site. These strategies paid off when, with the aid of a local clammer andthrough the use of a simple recording fathometer as a remote sensing device, the UAJV teamsucceeded in locating two shipwreck sites within the survey area (Margolin 1984: 8-9).Conducting the work necessary to identify the two wrecks proved to be somewhat moreproblematical, however. Not only were diving archaeologists faced with the usual handicapsof swift current and poor visibility, but the depth of both sites (over 60 feet) completely precludedlight penetration and restricted no-decompression working times on the bottom. Themost distressing circumstance of all derived from the position of both sites in the middle of abusy ship channel utilized by many tankers, freighters, and barges. Not only did this vesseltraffic pose a serious hazard to the safety of the dive teams, but it was additionally responsiblefor the frequent loss of site-making buoys and lines, thus necessitating considerable time expendituresin the relocation of sites and the re-establishment of mooring and guide lines. Despitethese difficulties, archaeologists were able to construct a rudimentary plan of one of thesites and to record features and recover diagnostic artifacts from both sufficient to concludewith relative certainty that the two sites designated as NN72 and NN73 represent the respectiveremains of the Florida and the Cumberland (UAJV 1982a: 8-20).235

The fortuitous discovery by Cussler of an 1881 map depicting the location of the remainsof a sunken Confederate fleet prompted NUMA to contract with UAJV to perform anotherunderwater survey in 1982. Scuttled by the Southerners near the end of the war to prevent aUnion naval advance on Richmond, the flotilla lay some l2 miles south of the Confederatecapitol in a bend of the upper James River dominated by Drewry’s Bluff, a strategic and highlycontested site during the war.In searching for the ships, archaeologists relied heavily on the ferrous-object detectioncapabilities of a remote sensing instrument called a gradiometer (UAJV 1982b). Divers discoveredthat few vessel remains were visible on the river bottom, but probing with long metalrods seemed to indicate the presence of deeply buried iron. Because of the impracticality (andprobable gross inaccuracy) of attempting to define the dimensions of these sites by probingwith 20 foot rods, the survey team employed the surface-operated gradiometer to perform thesame task more easily and efficiently. Although the results obtained were still rather crude bynormal site mapping standards, the general locations and contours of ferrous concentrationscorresponded well enough with the positions of particular vessels indicated on the 1881 mapto permit the tentative identification of several anomalies with specific wreck sites. Investigationsof a gradiometer anomaly a short distance downstream (off Chaffin Bluff) revealed thepresence of exposed timbers believed to constitute the remains of another scuttled vessel ofthe Confederate James River Fleet, the C.S.S. Richmond (UAJV 1982b: 12).Additional sites in the study area include two wrecks dated to the late 18th century lyingoffshore of the Chickahominy Shipyard site (JC50, see following section), one of which wassurveyed in 1977 (VRCA January 1978a); the wreck of a small centerboard schooner, tentativelydated to the 19th century, which has been dragged to shore where it currently liesexposed at low-tide near a Hampton marina (HT54, VRCA September 1978b); the submergedand highly deteriorated remains of what is believed to be an early 20th-century bugeyein the Hampton River (HT18, UAJV 1983:77-79); and an unidentified wreck buried beneaththe bottom sediment in the Chesapeake Bay, located during a 1984 environmental impactsurvey (MT 36, UAJV 1985: 79-82).Maritime Support FacilitiesBeside the two shipwrecks at the JC50 site, investigators also discovered the remains of askid ramp used for launching ships beginning approximately 90 feet inland of the shoreline andextending 37 feet into the river. Slightly downriver, test excavations by land-based archaeologistsrevealed the foundation remains of a 12-foot × 18-foot structure apparently associatedwith the remains of a vessel slip located on the shoreline nearby. All of these features representelements of the Chickahominy Shipyard complex established in 1777 to construct vessels forthe Virginia Navy and destroyed by the British in 1781 (VRCA January 1978b).Perhaps the best known example of a maritime support facility in the study area isYorktown’s “Colonial Wharf.” Presumably the public wharf referred to in 18th-century documents,the structure is known to have existed at least as early as 1749 and was depicted inseveral maps drawn during the Revolutionary War (Hatch 1942: 224). In 1940 and 1941,Charles E. Hatch of the National Park Service took advantage of extraordinarily low tides inthe York River to photograph and measure the salient features of a 200-foot-long frameworkcomposed of timber cribs, large cut stones and smaller uncut ones. Hatch’s observations and236

graphic representations of the site provide rare documentation of a facility which occupied aposition central to the colonial economy and social nexus.Other examples of this type of resource include the remains of a dock or pier associatedwith a colonial and/or 19th-century ferry landing (HT17) as well as a late 19th-century boatslip (HT19) — both much less extensive and more poorly preserved than the colonial wharf atYorktown — recorded during a 1983 Phase II survey of a section of the Hampton River(UAJV 1985: 73-74, 90-95). A related type of structure, the remains of an 18th-centurywarehouse foundation, was uncovered during excavations at the water’s edge of the Burwell’sFerry Landing site (JC40) on the Kingsmill Plantation tract (Kelso 1984: 138). A row ofwooden pilings cutting through the brick foundation offers evidence of the subsequent constructionof a wharf, dock, or pier on the same site.Miscellaneous FindsNot infrequently in the course of an underwater survey, objects are encountered which, becauseof their lack of association with a more integrated cultural entity, defy generic classificationas an archaeological resource. The same absence of a recognizable cultural context severelyreduces the diagnostic value of these artifacts in the reconstruction of past events orpatterns of behavior. Occasionally, as was the case with a magnificent French ship’s bell discoveredin 1980, these objects possess an intrinsic interest, aesthetic appeal, and uniquenessthat justifies their recovery, study, preservation, and display (The Daily Press 1980). Moreoften, though, isolated finds such as metal debris, anchors, or even, as in one instance, arailroad tank car offer little that might be deemed significant from any standpoint (UAJV 1985).Researchers should not automatically assume that all isolated, or apparently isolated, finds areinherently irrelevant, however. Artifacts carefully removed from the moat around Fort Monroe,for example, could reveal a chronology of disposal patterns indicative of social and economicconditions within the stronghold over a period of many years. The same might be true oflocations near riverbanks or streams that have been the sites of successive or periodic encampmentsor habitations, military or civilian, over a span of time.Research Potential, Problems, and RecommendationsGiven the ubiquity of colonial plantations with their own docks and piers, it seems likely thatthe remnants of such complexes still lie buried in the sediments offshore of many of the area’shistoric sites. Obviously, high energy environments (like the shoreline adjacent to theWolstenholme Towne site) where considerable erosion has occurred would probably notyield such resources. A site like Burwell’s Ferry Landing, though, where foundation structuresare known to have survived close to the water’s edge might contain discernible offshore components.More importantly, perhaps, the investigation of such a site could provide some insightinto the dynamics of the erosion process and the potential for other sites to survive in comparablecircumstances, a relationship which is poorly understood at this time.Unfortunately, the probability of discovering relatively intact prehistoric sites that havebecome inundated as a result of sea level rise in the bay or its major tributaries appears to berather small. This is because as the water level rose, those sites about to become submergedwould have been exposed to the most destructive effects of winds, waves, and current. Thebest opportunity for finding submerged prehistoric sites, therefore, would be in low energy237

areas such as the marsh flats of minor tributaries, but the difficulty encountered here is that thesites would most likely be buried beneath deep layers of sediment (Johnson, personal communication1985).The underwater sites in the study area most likely to produce quantities of useful historicaland archaeological data that cannot be obtained from terrestrial resources are clearlyshipwrecks. By now the “time capsule” aspect of wreck sites— i.e., their ability to provideunimpeachable dating contexts— has become widely recognized. Less well understood, however,is the potential of shipwreck investigations to reconstruct spatial relationships and socialdynamics within the tightly circumscribed boundaries of a closed community; to reflect, throughcargoes, personal possessions, and even hull construction, the values of a society and theinfluences being brought to bear upon it; or to provide evidence and perhaps quantifiable dataconcerning the extent of public participation in such socially deviant behavior as smuggling andpiracy (Schmidt & Mrozowski 1983).The enormous chronological and thematic gaps in the inventory of shipwreck resourcesdocumented through actual first-hand investigation reflects a preoccupation with sites relatedto the dramatic naval events of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. We have yet to discover asingle vessel dating to the 17th, early to mid-18th, or early 19th centuries within the study area.Likewise, we have no examples of the ships which regularly conducted the trade that sustainedthe colony and later the nation nor of the myriad types of small boats that exemplified localcraft traditions— the vessels, in other words, that would best serve to reconstruct the broadpatterns and specific details of the area’s economic and social development. Questions ofparticular importance to maritime historians concern the construction of pre-18th-century andmerchant ships (which tend to be much less well documented than later vessels and warships)and the emergence of the Chesapeake Bay clipper-schooner, an event described as “the mostspectacular... in the history of naval architecture in the eighteenth century” (Middleton 1984:239).Searching for a particular kind of site poses the fundamental problem of how to find it.Predictive models based on the presence of navigational hazards and the volume of shippingover those areas during a given period of time have been developed, but are as yet untested(ICR 1979). Moreover, such strategies ultimately depend on the success of expensive remotesensing surveys which sometimes produce misleading results. A magnetometer survey in theYork River failed to detect the presence of a cannon on the GL136 site, for instance, whileothers conducted in the Hampton River and the Chesapeake Bay have generally indicatedconcentrations of inconsequential modern debris. These instruments seem to be most effectivewhen used in situations where the researchers have some prior notion of the nature and locationof what is being sought (e.g., the gradiometer survey of the Confederate James RiverFleet).As the examples cited in this essay indicate, accurate information about the location ofsubmerged cultural resources generally derives from two sources: documentary research andreliable informants. In 1979-80 the VRCA commissioned a literature search to compile aninventory of recorded shipwrecks in Virginia throughout the historical period. The results ofthese efforts consist of hundreds of data sheets (one per wreck, organized alphabetically byvessel name) and a series of maps indicating approximate wreck locations (the latter only for19th and 20th-century sites). For all practical purposes, the data sheets are unmanageable intheir present form. Computerization would permit shorting of the information by any number ofcriteria, but for the purposes of the OAE resource inventory the most important categories238

would be period, wreck location, vessel type, data quality and sources (Whittenburg, personalcommunication 1985).Naturally, the usefulness of the computer-generated data will depend on the quality andcomprehensiveness of the original research — something of an unknown quantity at this time— but analysis of the results viewed from various historical, anthropological, and archaeologicalperspectives should provide a sound basis for the establishment of research priorities. As apractical matter, researchers should simultaneously solicit information from local watermenand sport divers regarding submerged resources actually known to exist. In view of the difficultyof underwater search and survey, the presence of confirmed sites in the study area shouldbe given serious consideration in the development of any research design.REFERENCESBass, George, et al.1976 The Cornwallis Cave Shipwreck. Manuscript on file, Virginia Research Centerfor Archaeology.Broadwater, John D.1980 Yorktown Shipwreck Archaeological Project: Results from the 1978 Survey.International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 9 (3) : 227-235.Broadwater, John D., et al.1985 Yorktown Shipwreck Archaeological Project: The 1984 Season. Reportsubmitted to the National Endowment for the Humanities. Washington, D.C.Cotter, John L.1958 Archaeological Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia. Washington D.C.The Daily Press1980 November 3, 1980. Hampton, Virginia.Evans, Cerinda W.1957 Some Notes on Shipbuilding and Shipping in Colonial America.Williamsburg, Virginia.Ferguson, Homer L.1939 Salvaging Revolutionary Relics from the York River. William and MaryQuarterly, 2nd series, 19: 257-271.Hatch, Charles E.1942 An Old Wharf at Yorktown, Virginia. William and Mary Quarterly, 2ndseries, 22.Hazzard, David K.1982 The Yorktown Shipwreck Archaeological Project: The 1979 Season. UnderwaterArchaeology.Hazzard, David K., and Sam Margolin1979 Wolstenholme Towne Offshore Survey. Manuscript on file at the VirginiaResearch Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.239

Institute for Conservation Archaeology (ICA)1979 Summary and Analysis of Cultural Resource Information on the ContinentalShelf from the Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatteras. Volume II. HistoricShipping. Boston, Massachusetts.Johnson, Gerald1985 Personal communication.Kelso, William M.1984 Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in ColonialVirginia. Academic Press, Orlando.Margolin, Sam1984 Search for the U.S.S. Cumberland and the C.S.S. Florida. Proceedings ofthe Thirteenth Annual Conference on Underwater Archaeology. SanMarino, California.Middleton, Arthur P.1984 Tobacco Coast: A Maritime History of Chesapeake Bay in the ColonialEra. Baltimore, Maryland.Noël Hume, Ivor1982 Martin’s Hundred. Alfred Knopf, New York.Sands, John O.1973 Shipwrecks of the Battle of Yorktown, 1781: A Preliminary ArchaeologicalStudy. Master’s thesis on file at the University of Delaware.1980 Sea Power at Yorktown: The Archaeology of the Captive Fleet. Ph.D. thesis.Georgetown University.1983 Yorktown’s Captive Fleet. Charlottesville, Virginia.Schmidt, Peter R. and Stephen A Mrozowski1983 History, Smugglers, Change, and Shipwrecks. In Gould, Richard A. (ed.),Shipwreck Archaeology. Albuquerque, New Mexico.Shomette, Donald G.1982 Shipwrecks on the Chesapeake. Centreville, Maryland.Steffy, J. Richard, et al.1981 The Charon Report. Underwater Archaeology: The Challenge Before Us.San Marino, California.Underwater Archaeological Joint Ventures (UAJV)1982a 1981 NUMA/UAJV Hampton Roads Project: Search for theU.S.S. Cumberland and C.S.S. Florida. Report on file at the Virginia ResearchCenter for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.1982b1982 NUMA & UAJV James River Survey. Report on file at the VirginiaResearch Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.240

1983 Phase II Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Dredging Site in the HamptonRiver, Hampton, Virginia. Report on file at Langley and McDonald, Inc. and theVirginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.1985 Phase II Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Proposed Wolf Trap andRappahannock Shoals Alternate Disposal Sites, Chesapeake Bay, Virginia.Report on file at the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown,Virginia.Virginia Research Center for Archaeology (VRCA)1977 Site Survey Report, February 9, 1977. Report on file at the Virginia ResearchCenter for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.1978a National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, January 5, 1978.1978bSite Survey Report, September 8, 1978. Report on file at the Virginia ResearchCenter for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.1983 Site Survey Report, July 21, 1983. Report on file at the Virginia ResearchCenter for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.Whittenburg, James1985 Personal communication.241

242