Archaeological Investigations at the Brush

Archaeological Investigations at
the Brush-Everard Site
Williamsburg, Virginia
By Patricia M. Samford
COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS
Archaeological Investigations at the
Brush-Everard Site,
Williamsburg, Virginia
by
Patricia Samford
with contributions by
Stephen C. Atkins
Joanne Bowen
Gregory J. Brown
Michael Jarvis
Stephen A. Mrozowski
Karl J. Reinhard
Colonial Williamsburg Research Publications
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Cover and binding by
Dietz Press
Richmond, Virginia
©
1999 by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Printed in the United States of America
Graphic Design and Layout:
Gregory J. Brown
with the assistance of Tami Carsillo
Maps and Illustrations:
Heather Harvey
Table of Contents
Page
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. v
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. vii
Photo and Illustration Credits .................................................................................................... ix
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
Research Design ......................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ........ 7
Historical Background .............................................................................................................. 7
CHAPTER 3. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY .........................................................................11
1947 Excavation ........................................................................................................................11
Archaeological Area D ..................................................................................................... 12
Archaeological Area E ..................................................................................................... 13
Brush-Everard House ................................................................................................ 13
Kitchen ......................................................................................................................... 13
Smokehouse ................................................................................................................. 14
Potting Shed or Office ............................................................................................... 15
Laundry ........................................................................................................................ 15
Well and Dairy ............................................................................................................ 15
Boxwood Garden ........................................................................................................ 16
Archaeological Area F ...................................................................................................... 16
Pond Area ................................................................................................................... 16
Palace Power Plant and Surrounding Area ......................................................... 17
Results of The 1947 Excavation ...................................................................................... 17
1967 Excavations ..................................................................................................................... 17
Features Found in 1967 ................................................................................................... 18
Kitchen ......................................................................................................................... 18
Results of Archaeological Monitoring, 1982-1987 ............................................................ 21
Electrical Line .................................................................................................................... 21
Storm Drain Project .......................................................................................................... 21
Natural Gas Line ............................................................................................................... 21
Communication Cable ..................................................................................................... 21
Summary of Previous Excavations at Brush-Everard ...................................................... 22
CHAPTER 4. FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODS ..................................................... 23
Field Methods ........................................................................................................................... 23
Laboratory Methods ............................................................................................................... 26
i
Table of Contents (cont'd)
Page
CHAPTER 5. THE MIDDLE PLANTATION PERIOD (1633-1699) ................................. 29
Borrow Pit ................................................................................................................................. 29
Ditch and Gully ....................................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 6. THE JOHN BRUSH HOUSEHOLD (1717-1727) ......................................... 33
Archaeological Results ........................................................................................................... 37
Brush Sheet Refuse ........................................................................................................... 37
John Brush Trash Pit ......................................................................................................... 40
John Brush Ravine Layers ............................................................................................... 40
Primary Ravine Layers ..................................................................................................... 40
Renovation Debris Layers ............................................................................................... 42
Summary of Results .......................................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 7. THE JOHN BRUSH PRIVY ............................................................................. 49
Feature Description ................................................................................................................. 49
Excavation Techniques ........................................................................................................... 50
The Privy as an Excercise in Site Formation Processes ..................................................... 50
Artifacts ..................................................................................................................................... 52
Architectural Artifacts ..................................................................................................... 53
Ceramics and Glass .......................................................................................................... 54
Tobacco Pipes ..................................................................................................................... 55
Gun Parts and Metalworking Debris ............................................................................ 55
Faunal Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 56
Oyster Shell Analysis .............................................................................................................. 57
Ethnobotanical Analysis ......................................................................................................... 59
CHAPTER 8. THE CARY/RUSSELL AND DERING PERIOD (1727-1749) .................... 63
Thomas Barbar and Elizabeth Russell Cary ....................................................................... 63
The William Dering Household ............................................................................................ 65
CHAPTER 9. THE DR. GEORGE GILMER HOUSEHOLD (1735-1757) ......................... 69
Archaeological Results ........................................................................................................... 70
Gilmer Sheet Refuse .......................................................................................................... 70
The Gilmer Trash Pits ....................................................................................................... 71
Trash Pit A ................................................................................................................... 71
Trash Pit B .................................................................................................................... 72
Trash Pit C ................................................................................................................... 72
Trash Pit D ................................................................................................................... 72
Trash Pit E .................................................................................................................... 73
Trash Pit F .................................................................................................................... 73
Discussion .................................................................................................................... 73
Gilmer's Apothecary Shop ..................................................................................................... 76
ii
Table of Contents (cont'd)
Page
The Gilmer Household ............................................................................................................ 77
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 79
CHAPTER 10. THE THOMAS EVERARD HOUSEHOLD (1752/6-1781) ....................... 81
Renovations During Everard's Tenure ................................................................................ 83
Everard Ravine Deposits ........................................................................................................ 85
Main Ash Ravine Layer ................................................................................................... 85
Secondary Ash Ravine Layer .......................................................................................... 88
Clay Layer .......................................................................................................................... 88
Coal Layer .......................................................................................................................... 88
Shell Spread ....................................................................................................................... 88
Renovation/Destruction Debris ..................................................................................... 88
Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 89
Ceramics and Glass .................................................................................................... 92
Everard and His Contemporaries ......................................................................................... 96
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 98
CHAPTER 11. POLLY VALENTINE HOUSEHOLD ........................................................... 101
1967 Findings and Preliminary Documentary Research ............................................... 101
The Tucker Family ................................................................................................................. 102
Polly Valentine ....................................................................................................................... 102
Archaeological Results ......................................................................................................... 103
Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 104
CHAPTER 12. THOMAS JEFFERSON'S TOOTHBRUSH ................................................ 109
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................... 111
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. John Brush Probate Inventory ..................................................................... 125
Appendix 2. The Gunsmithing Activities of John Brush, 1717-1726, A Report by
Michael Jarvis .................................................................................................................... 127
Appendix 3. Zooarchaeological Analysis, by Gregory J. Brown, Stephen C.
Atkins and Joanne Bowen ................................................................................................. 135
Appendix 4. Ethnobotanical Results, by Stephen A. Mrozowski .................................... 149
Appendix 5. Analysis of Latrine Soils From the Brush-Everard Site,
Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, by Karl Reinhard ..................................................... 153
Appendix 6. Parasitological Analysis of the Brush-Everard Site, Williamsburg,
Virginia, by Karl Reinhard .............................................................................................. 159
Appendix 7. Minimum Vessel Counts for Brush Privy and Everard Main
Ravine ............................................................................................................................... 163
iii
iv
List of Figures
Page
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
Williamsburg, Virginia ............................................................................................................. 2
Brush-Everard house ............................................................................................................... 2
The “Frenchman‘s” map, circa 1781/82 ............................................................................. 4
Location of Brush-Everard property on ca. 1800 "College" or Bucktrout map ............ 8
Brush-Everard kitchen and smokehouse, looking south .................................................. 9
Archaeological areas cross-trenched in 1940s .................................................................. 12
Archaeological cross-trenching at Brush-Everard ........................................................... 13
Archaeological remains found in western part of archaeological area E ................... 14
Garden shed/office ................................................................................................................ 15
Laundry foundations after cross-trenching ...................................................................... 16
Dam located during cross-trenching .................................................................................. 17
Area dug by Noël Hume in 1967 ........................................................................................ 18
Profile of 1967 excavation through kitchen ...................................................................... 19
Plan and profile of root cellar in kitchen ........................................................................... 20
Postholes comprising part of fence line found in 1967 excavation .............................. 20
Areas excavated 1987-1989 ................................................................................................. 23
Soil triangle .............................................................................................................................. 24
Location of clay borrow pit .................................................................................................. 29
Plan and profile of palisade trench ..................................................................................... 30
Floor plan of first-period Brush house ............................................................................... 34
Floor plan of second-period Brush house .......................................................................... 34
Section of cellar wall from earlier southeastern wing ..................................................... 36
Archaeological remains which suggest the location of John Brush‘s gunsmith
shop ..................................................................................................................................... 36
Location of house and other structures during the John Brush period ....................... 36
Extent of John Brush period sheet refuse layers excavated 1987-1989 ....................... 38
Distribution of artifacts in Brush sheet refuse layer ....................................................... 39
Artifact distribution in John Brush trash pit ..................................................................... 40
Profile of John Brush-period ravine layers ........................................................................ 41
Artifact distribution in primary ash layer of John Brush period ravine fill ................ 42
Artifact distribution in renovation debris layer of John Brush period ravine fill ....... 42
Spatial variation in ceramic vessel function—house and ravine areas ....................... 46
Food related vessels: John Brush and his contemporaries .............................................. 48
Plan of privy foundations .................................................................................................... 49
Profile of privy pit .................................................................................................................. 50
Delft teacup and teabowl recovered from the Brush privy ........................................... 52
Complete wine bottles from privy .................................................................................... 52
Profile of privy showing layers containing unbroken artifacts ..................................... 53
Four of six virtually complete tobacco pipes from privy ................................................ 53
Range of artifacts from privy fill ......................................................................................... 54
Distribution of gunsmithing debris within privy fill ....................................................... 54
Delft boat plate from the privy ............................................................................................ 54
v
List of Figures (cont'd)
Page
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
“HH” marked pipebowl like those from the privy .......................................................... 56
Relative dietary importance based on biomass ................................................................. 57
Height to length ratio (HLR) for oyster shells ................................................................... 58
Oyster types from John Brush privy .................................................................................. 58
Water salinity ranges of Brush privy oyster shells ........................................................... 59
Pollen percentages from the John Brush privy ................................................................. 60
Seeds from the John Brush privy ......................................................................................... 61
Brush-Everard property as it is believed to have appeared around 1745 ................... 64
Archaeological evidence of possible stable or slave quarter at Brush-Everard ......... 64
Location of excavated portions of Layer 26 ...................................................................... 68
Artifact distribution in Layer 26, Lot 165 .......................................................................... 68
Detail of the "Frenchman's" map showing possible location of Gilmer's
Apothecary shop ............................................................................................................... 69
Plan map of Gilmer trash pits .............................................................................................. 72
Examples of drug jars and salve pots from Gilmer's trash pits ..................................... 77
Chinese porcelain plate from one of Gilmer's trash pits ................................................. 78
Floor plan of the Brush-Everard house .............................................................................. 82
Periods of kitchen development at Brush-Everard .......................................................... 84
Profile through ravine at north end of Lot 166 ................................................................ 85
Wine bottle glass and coarse earthenware in situ in Everard main ash layer ............ 87
“Frenchman‘s” map detail .................................................................................................. 92
Brush-Everard property as it is believed to have appeared around 1775 ................... 93
Scottish delftware shaving bowl from the Everard ravine fill ....................................... 93
“The Quilting Party,” by John Lewis Krimmel, 1813 ...................................................... 94
Stemmed salver ....................................................................................................................... 95
Archaeological remains of the Polly Valentine house ................................................... 103
Bone handle and line drawing showing the inscribed characters ............................. 109
vi
List of Tables
Page
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Ceramic and Glass Vessels from the Brush Trash Pit ...................................................... 41
Brush Ravine Layer—Primary Ash Layer, Vessels Organized by Form ...................... 42
Ceramic and Glass Vessels from the John Brush Household ......................................... 43
Brush Ravine Layer—Brick Layers, Vessel Type Organized by Form .......................... 47
Hypothesized Sequence of Events—John Brush Privy.................................................... 51
Ceramic and Glass Vessels from the Brush Privy ............................................................. 55
Taxa Identified ........................................................................................................................ 56
Minimum Ceramic Vessel Count for Layer 26 on Lot 165 ............................................. 67
Gilmer Sheet Refuse & Trash Disposal Layers—Lot 164 (Layers 26,55,56) ................ 71
Vessels from Trash Pits A-F ................................................................................................... 73
Vessels Recovered from Gilmer Trash Pits, Organized by Function ............................. 76
Ceramic and Glass Vessels from Main Ash Layer ............................................................ 86
Ceramic and Glass Vessels from Secondary Ash Layer .................................................. 89
Ceramic Vessels from the Clay Layer, Coal Layer, and Shell Spread .......................... 90
Ceramic Composition of Main and Upper Ash Deposits, Thomas Everard
Period (1752/6-1781), Tableware and Teawares ........................................................ 91
16. Comparison of Antebellum Slave Unit Dimensions ...................................................... 104
17. Ceramic Vessels from the Polly Valentine Household ................................................... 105
vii
viii
Photo and Illustration Credits
— All artifact illustrations and maps by Heather Harvey, except for Fig. 67 (line drawing of “Thomas
Jefferson” handle) by Kimberly A. Wagner.
— Figs. 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 15 courtesy of Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library, Visual Resources Department.
— Fig. 3 (“Frenchman‘s” map) is reproduced from photostats held by Colonial Williamsburg. The
original is owned by Swem Library, College of William and Mary.
— Figs. 13 and 14 are adapted from drawings in R. Neil Frank, “Brush-Everard House Kitchen and
Surrounding Area; Block 29, Area E. Colonial Lots 164 and 165. Report on 1967 Archaeological
Excavations.” Report on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation.
— Fig. 17 is adapted from Susan Limbrey, 1975. Soil Science and Archaeology. Academic Press, New
York.
— Figs. 20 and 21 are adapted from Mark R. Wenger, 1994, “Investigations at the Brush-Everard
House.” The Colonial Williamsburg Interpreter 15(1):5-9.
— Fig. 26 (SURFER distribution maps) are created using Surfer 6.0 for Windows, from Golden Software, Golden, Colorado.
— Fig. 44 is adapted from Brett Kent, 1988, “Making Dead Oysters Talk.” Report on file, Department of
Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
— Fig. 57 is copied from Marcus Whiffen, 1960, The Eighteenth-Century Houses of Williamsburg: A Study
of the Architecture and Building in the Colonial Capital of Virginia. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg.
— Fig. 64 is copied from Barbara Carson, 1990, Ambitious Appetites; Dining, Behavior and Patterns of
Consumption in Federal Washington. American Institute of Architects Press, Washington.
— Fig. 65 is copied from G. Bernard Hughes, 1956,English, Scottish and Irish Table Glass. Bramhall
House, New York.
— Artifact photographs (Figs. 35-37, 41, 55-56, 63, and 67) are by Tamera Mams.
— Field photographs (Figs. 28 and 60) are by field crew of the Brush-Everard site.
ix
x
Acknowledgments
T
he author would like to thank the numerous people who supported this
project throughout its many years.
AT&T provided funding, without which this
project would not have been able to proceed.
The three seasons of fieldwork could not have
been completed without the assistance of
many people, including students enrolled in
the joint Colonial Williamsburg Foundation/
College of William and Mary Archaeological Field School, participants in Colonial
Williamsburg's Learning Weeks in Archaeology program, staff members of the Department of Archaeological research, and countless volunteers. The site would not have run
smoothly without the assistance of some of
the ablest assistant site supervisors around:
David Muraca, Meredith Moodey Poole and
Nate Smith. My many thanks go to them.
Artifact processing and analysis was completed at the Department of Archaeological
Research under the direction of Collections
Supervisor William Pittman, with the assis-
tance of S. Kathleen Pepper, Sue Alexandrowicz, Amy Kowlaski, and Pegeen
McLaughlin. Joanne Bowen, Steve Atkins,
Susan Trevarthen Andrews, and Elise Manning were responsible for the analysis of the
faunal remains from the site. Joanne Bowen,
Steve Atkins and Richard Cartwright also
lent assistance in devising strategies for the
recovery of microfaunal data. Ywone
Edwards examined the Polly Valentine period archaeological evidence, while Michael
Jarvis analyzed artifacts associated with
John Brush's gunsmithing operation at the
site.
Other Colonial Williamsburg staff who
provided support were the staff of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library, Mark
R. Wenger, and Carl Lounsbury.
Maps and graphics were produced by
Kimberly Wagner, Virginia Brown, and
Heather Harvey. Gregory J. Brown and Tami
Carsillo did a wonderful job of editing and
formatting the final report.
xi
xii
Chapter 1.
Introduction
A
s with modern cities, colonial American urban areas were complex and
unique entities. Each town or city
fulfilled certain basic functions, but each had
its own individual character, based on its
own place in the social, political, and economic environment of its region. Williamsburg, the capital of the Virginia colony between 1699 and 1780 (Fig. 1), was no exception; an eighteenth-century visitor to the city
could expect to find public buildings, retail
businesses, skilled craftsmen, taverns and
other lodging and dining accommodations,
townhouses, and a number of what have
been called “urban plantations.” These urban plantations were self-contained and
largely self-sufficient properties, usually consisting of at least three contiguous half-acre
lots. Often located along the boundaries of
town, these urban estates were generally
owned by wealthy individuals, serving as the
primary residence for their families, and
were usually staffed by a number of domestic slaves who kept the property running on
a daily basis. What distinguished these plantations from other typical household properties in town was not only their larger size,
but the number of household activities taking place there. Because the properties were
sizable enough to contain gardens, pastures
and numerous outbuildings, food could be
grown, some livestock could be raised, and
horses could be stabled.
Over the past two decades, a number of
these plantations have been examined
archaeologically by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation’s Department of Archaeological Research, including the Peyton
Randolph property, Tazewell Hall, and Green
Hill Plantation. The most recent of these re-
search excavations took place on the BrushEverard property (Fig. 2), an urban site continuously occupied since 1717. The results
of this archaeological work, combined with
architectural analysis and documentary research, form the basis of this report.
*****
The Brush-Everard site is located in the restored colonial town of Williamsburg, Virginia, owned and operated by the Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation. Large-scale archaeological excavation was undertaken at
the Brush-Everard site by Colonial
Williamsburg’s Department of Archaeological Research for three consecutive summers
(1987-1989), under the overall direction of
Dr. Marley R. Brown III. Funding for the excavation was provided in part by the AT&T
Foundation as a portion of a research grant
concerning slave life in eighteenth-century
Virginia. The field crew consisted of students
enrolled in the College of William and Mary/
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archaeological Field School, participants in Colonial
Williamsburg’s Learning Weeks in Archaeology, and numerous volunteers. Department of Archaeological Research Staff Archaeologists Patricia M. Samford, Meredith
M. Poole and David F. Muraca directed the
fieldwork, assisted by graduate students
from William and Mary’s Anthropology and
History programs. Artifact processing and
analysis were overseen by William E. Pittman,
then Supervisor of Collections Research, assisted by Laboratory Technicians S. Kathleen
Pepper, Sue Alexandrowicz, Pegeen McLaughlin, and Amy Kowalski. Animal bone
processing and analysis was completed by
Joanne Bowen and Steve Atkins.
1
Figure 1. Williamsburg, Virginia.
Figure 2. Front of Brush-Everard house, looking east across Palace Green.
2
Serving as a home and workshop to gunsmith John Brush in the first quarter of the
eighteenth century, the Brush-Everard property was owned between ca. 1751 and 1781
by Thomas Everard, Mayor of Williamsburg
and Clerk of York County. A wealthy man,
Everard had numerous slaves during his approximately thirty-year tenure on the property. The Frenchman’s Map (Fig. 3), prepared in ca. 1781 at the end of Everard’s
years on the Brush-Everard site, shows the
property containing a house and five outbuildings. The original house, kitchen, and
smokehouse survived and were restored by
the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in the
late 1940s. Three additional outbuildings—
a laundry, an office and a dairy—were located through earlier archaeological trenching in 1947 and reconstructed during the
property’s restoration. Two large outbuildings depicted north of the house on the
Frenchman’s Map were not found by the
archaeological trenching at this time, although one of these structures was reconstructed based solely on the map evidence.
The goals of the excavation at the BrushEverard property were multifold. One principal goal was to locate any remaining traces
of these outbuildings through open-area excavation, with work focusing primarily on
the northern half of the property. Potential
information about the size, construction and
destruction dates, construction methods,
function, and spatial patterning of artifacts
around any excavated buildings could be
used by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation to reconstruct those dating to the late
eighteenth century. Such a reconstruction
would more accurately portray the lot as it
appeared during Everard’s tenure on the
property.
The main focus of excavation, however,
was not on architectural reconstruction
alone. One of the primary purposes of
searching for buildings at Brush-Everard
was to provide information on slave life in
eighteenth-century Williamsburg, and in a
broader perspective, on slaves in colonial
period urban areas. The Brush-Everard
property was selected for this purpose for
several reasons. Although the two outbuildings depicted on the Frenchman’s Map were
most likely built as a stable and a coach
house, records indicate that such buildings
were often used as slave housing in eighteenth-century towns and cities. Thomas
Everard, with his numerous slaves, would
have most likely housed them in “found
space” in outbuildings. Most evidence suggests that these lofts and corners—where
slaves could place a bedroll and a few possessions—were far more typical in colonial
urban areas than structures built specifically
as family or dormitory style units for African-American laborers. In addition to providing architectural information about the
two buildings, then, information was sought
on the material possessions of the slaves
who would have inhabited these buildings.
This information would be used by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, in the context of other standing outbuildings on the
lot, to interpret black family life in
Williamsburg during the second half of the
eighteenth century.
While this project was undertaken primarily to recover information on AfricanAmericans in Williamsburg, a good deal of
the data, of course, relates to the BritishAmerican owners of the property. Soil layers and features associated with the households of gunsmith John Brush (1717-1727)
and Mayor Thomas Everard (c. 1750-1781)
were found on the north and south sides of
the property. These, along with assemblages
related to a mid-eighteenth century apothecary and to a nineteenth-century enslaved
household, are discussed later in this report.
3
Figure 3. Part of the “Frenchman’s” map, circa 1781/82; inset, detail showing Brush-Everard area.
Research Design
cus on household analysis (Beaudry 1984;
Cressey 1983; Kramer 1982; Mrozowski
1981, 1984). A household has been defined
as a
In this study, archaeological and historical
documentation are used as complementary
sets of data. It is in this integration of the
documentary and archaeological evidence
where lies one of the major strengths of historical archaeology. Through the use of
documents, archaeologists progress beyond
inferences based on the archaeological data
alone (Spencer-Wood 1987:2; Crumley
1974; Leone and Crosby 1987; Beaudry
1984), with both sets of data combining to
provide a more detailed picture of eighteenth-century Williamsburg and its inhabitants than either could give separately
(Deetz 1977; Noël Hume 1978:27; SpencerWood 1987:2). Several recent studies effectively combine historical and archaeological data to make statements about social and
economic change (e.g., Felton and Schulz
1983; Herman 1984).
An important advance in the field of historical archaeology has been its recent fo-
“co-resident domestic group” composed
of “those who share the same physical
space for the purposes of eating, sleeping,
taking rest and leisure, growing up,
childrearing, and procreating” (Laslett
1972:24, as quoted in Beaudry 1984).
The household, which serves as the basic social unit for most cultures, has long been
used by as an analytical unit by anthropologists (Goldschmidt and Kunkel 1971; Horne
1982), historians (Lemon 1972, 1980;
Henretta 1978; Greven 1966; Demos 1970;
Macfarlane 1977), and prehistoric archaeologists (Longacre 1970; Reid and Whittlesey
1982; Netting 1982; Hill 1970). Household
archaeological assemblages have been
shown to contain the greatest potential for
studying changes in social and economic
stratification (Cressey 1983:9; Spencer-Wood
1987:9), and techniques have been adapted
4
to isolate those assemblages (Mrozowski
1984). Recent work has successfully made
use of household analysis (Baugher and
Venables 1987; Dyson 1982; McBride and
McBride 1987; Mrozowski 1984; Shepard
1987; Stachiw 1989) to discover meaningful patterns of behavior.
Since research has shown households to
be a basic unit of analysis, it is imperative
that archaeologists be able to isolate household data from their sites. This has been accomplished successfully on urban lots
through the combination of archaeological
and historical data (Moran et al. 1982;
Mrozowski 1984). Fortunately, excellent
documentation provides an almost unbroken chain of title for the Brush-Everard
property. Artifact assemblages chosen for
analysis were primarily from discrete features which had been used for the deposition of garbage, such as abandoned privies,
trash pits, or gullies. All features chosen for
analysis had a tightly datable range of deposition, usually less than twenty years. Additionally, horizontal layers of occupation debris, known as sheet refuse, which had been
created through activity on the lots were
excavated and used for analysis. Although
more difficult to attribute to household occupations, those layers which could reasonably be assigned to a household through
ceramic dating and crossmend information
were also used. Periods of property ownership were compared with each assemblage’s
ceramic date ranges, using a technique discussed in Mrozowski (1984). Other specialized artifact evidence, such as inclusions of
gunsmithing or pharmaceutical debris in
several of the analyzed features, also indicated specific household associations.
This archaeological study of the BrushEverard site focuses not only on the func-
tion of the property, but also examines socioeconomic data. Through the analysis of
glass and ceramics in archaeological assemblages at the household level, information
on social and economic changes occurring
at Brush-Everard are determined. Households, it should be stressed, are not strictly
tied to kinship with the property owner, but
include others living on the property at that
time, such as indentured servants, lodgers,
and slaves.
While attributing archaeological assemblages to households proved to be fairly
simple, the task of isolating African-American slave material possessions from those of
their owners was much more difficult. It
had been hoped that the two northernmost
structures appearing on the Frenchman’s
Map would be discovered through archaeology and would reveal concentrations of
domestic material that could be related to a
slave occupation. Unfortunately, all traces
of both buildings had been destroyed by
more recent construction activities in this
area. A line of structural postholes located
east of the reconstructed dairy may indicate
a possible slave house, but modern disturbance of the soil in the area east of the building made attributing a function and occupation date tentative at best. All of the garbage from the Everard household, from
black or white occupants, appears to have
been dumped together in a large gully at the
north end of the property. Separating slave
food and material remains from those of
Everard, his daughters, and guests, proved
impossible. Numerous potential “markers”
or artifacts believed to have been associated
with slaves on the property were discovered,
however, and are analyzed in a later chapter of this report.
5
6
Chapter 2.
Property Description and Historical Background
T
Historical Background
he Brush-Everard site (Block 29, Archaeological Areas D, E, F and G) is
located on the east side of Palace
Green, south of Scotland Street, diagonally
across from the Governor’s Palace (Fig. 4).
When the property was purchased by the
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in 1928,
it still retained a number of its eighteenthcentury buildings, including the main house,
the kitchen and the smokehouse (Fig. 5). Archaeological excavations were begun in
1947 under the direction of James M. Knight
in an attempt to locate colonial period structures shown on the Frenchman’s Map of
1781. Using the results of these excavations,
the property was restored in the late 1940s
and early 1950s to its projected appearance
during the ownership of Thomas Everard
(circa 1750s through 1781). Archaeological
trenching uncovered the remains of a laundry, a building believed to have been a garden shed or office, and the original foundations of the property’s smokehouse. These
buildings were reconstructed or restored to
their original locations based on Knight’s archaeological trenching. Several additional
structures, including the dairy, well and
stable, although they were not well documented archaeologi-cally, were also reconstructed. A large boxwood garden, presumably dating to the early nineteenth century,
is present to the east of the kitchen and reconstructed laundry. Since this garden was
felt to contain some of the oldest boxwood
in Williamsburg, no archaeological trenching was allowed in the garden area. Consequently, the use and appearance of this portion of the property during the eighteenth
century is unknown.
Like most properties located within the confines of the colonial town limits, the BrushEverard lots have experienced a long and
varied history. Following will be a summary
of the property history, with more complete
descriptions of individual households provided in later. Additional information can
be found in the Brush-Everard property history, prepared in 1956 by Mary Stephenson
(Stephenson 1956), and in the York County
files stored at Colonial Williamsburg’s Department of Historical Research.
By the time gunsmith John Brush purchased Lots 165 and 166 in 1717, Williamsburg had been the capital of the Virginia
Colony for almost two decades. Growth of
the city had been slow during the opening
years of the eighteenth century, but increased considerably during the second decade, with lot sales increasing fivefold compared with the period 1700-1710 (Hellier
1989:28). Brush was part of this initial push
to purchase property and, in compliance
with the Building Act of 1705, constructed
a frame house fronting Palace Green within
two years of acquisition of the land. When
Brush bought his lots, the Governor’s Palace, begun in 1706, was virtually complete
at the far end of Palace Green. The construction of this building made the land on either side of the green highly prized, and
soon other lots along Palace Green began to
sell.
Williamsburg, as the new capital, had
replaced Jamestown as the Virginia Colony’s
center of commercial, government and social activities. During this period, the lots on
7
COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY
A
C
E
G
B
D
F
H
72
73
80
74
75
82
76
77
84
78
79
86
64
66
68
70
65
67
69
71
358
359
N
O
360
361
62
63
81
I
41
83
K
42
85
L
350
87
M
351
212
213
214
215
216
217
32
33
34
HENRY STREET
35
36
37
9
10
11
319
320
321
324
325
326
12
13
322
323
327
328
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
NASSAU STREET
89
1
2
352
239
329
333
90
91
3
4
353
241
330
334
92
93
5
6
354
331
335
94
95
7
8
332
336
161
162
MAGAZINE
202
203
204
ENGLAND STREET
163
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
251
252
253
254
255
257
258
CAPITOL
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
QUEEN STREET
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
GREENHOW'S STREET
17
18
19
44
45
46
NICHOLSON STREET
16
43
DUKE OF GLOUCESTER STREET
13
14
15
FRANCIS STREET
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
12
166
172
173
174
170
171
225
226
227
228
QUEEN STREET
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
165
COURTHOUSE
201
246
604
164
SQUARE
600
WALLER STREET
23 22 21 20
24
25
42
45
26
55
56
57
58
59
60
54
27
53
28
52
29
51
50
49
39
38
37
36
18 17
16 15
19
14 13
12 11
10 9
43
44
41
46
40
47
48
8
7
6
MOODY'S STREET
159
160
200
1
2
3
4
Brush-Everard
Property
PALACE STREET
KING STREET
192 193 194 195 196
34
33
32
31
PALACE
SCOTLAND STREET
IRELAND STREET
88
5 4
3
2
1
30
31
32
33
34
35
Figure 4. Location of Brush-Everard property on ca. 1800 “College” or Bucktrout map.
Block 29 (as the block bounded by Palace
Green, Nicholson Street, North England
Street, and Scotland Street was defined by
Colonial Williamsburg in the early days of
the Restoration) comprised a mixed neighborhood of commercial, domestic and industrial properties. There, John Brush plied
his gunsmithing trade adjacent to the home
of the Governor, while William Levingston
constructed a theatre and a bowling green
on his nearby lots. Levingston’s home also
functioned as an ordinary, no doubt serving visitors who came into Williamsburg on
business.
Brush, a gunsmith, retained Lots 165
and 166 until his death in 1727, at which
time the property passed into the hands of
his unmarried daughter, Elizabeth Brush,
and his son-in-law, Thomas Barbar (husband of his daughter Susannah). Elizabeth
8
Figure 5. Brush-Everard kitchen and smokehouse, looking south.
Brush subsequently sold her share of the
property to Thomas Barbar in 1727. When
Barbar died several months later, his widow
sold the lots in 1728 to Mrs. Elizabeth Russell
(perhaps her now-married sister). Most
likely, Elizabeth Russell later married Henry
Cary II, because in 1742, Cary and his wife,
Elizabeth, conveyed Lots 165 and 166 to
William Dering. Dering, a dancing teacher
and an artist, experienced financial difficulties and mortgaged the property in 1744 to
secure a debt. With the property still mortgaged, Dering apparently moved to Charleston in late 1749. There is no clear title to the
lots until 1779, although they may have been
purchased in 1751 at an “outcry” by either
Thomas Everard or John Blair. Archaeological evidence suggests that Williamsburg
Mayor Thomas Everard lived on lots 165
and 166 as early as 1756, when he sold his
house and property on Nicholson Street to
Anthony Hay (Frank 1967). By 1779, deed
books show Everard as the owner of Lots
165, 166 and 172.
By 1750 or so, the character of the lots
along Palace Green had changed considerably from that of thirty years earlier. As
other towns formed in the western part of
the colony, Williamsburg began to diminish
in social and economic importance. As the
need for consumer services decreased, the
commercial character of the Palace Green
lots virtually disappeared, and they became
almost entirely residential after the early
1760s. With this abandonment of commercial establishments, Palace Green took on the
character of a gentry neighborhood, a character which it was to maintain throughout
the years preceding the Revolutionary War.
The ownership history of the lots after
the Revolutionary War is mostly unremarkable. After Everard’s death in 1781, John
Stith was taxed for the three lots (165, 166,
and 172). Dr. Isaac Hall owned the prop9
erty between 1787 and 1788, when he conveyed it to Dr. James Carter. After 1798, the
property was taxed as part of James Carter’s
estate. Land tax records between 1820 and
1830 charge the lots and buildings to Milner
Peters. From 1830 to 1847, Dabney Browne
owned the property, which he transferred
to Daniel Curtis in 1847. Curtis conveyed
this property to Sydney Smith in 1849. The
property remained in the Smith family until W. A. R. Goodwin purchased it in 1928
for the Williamsburg Restoration. The BrushEverard house was the setting for an early
twentieth-century historical novel and became popularly known as the Audrey House
after its publication. Between 1949 and
1952, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
restored the Brush-Everard House and its
outbuildings, which today are used as exhibition buildings interpreted to the Thomas
Everard period of ownership.
10
Chapter 3.
Previous Archaeology
A
s with most recent archaeological
projects undertaken by the Depart
ment of Archaeological Research,
the 1987-1989 Brush-Everard excavation
was not the first project of its kind. Archaeological investigations had been previously
conducted twice on the property, once in
1947 and again in 1967. But the methods
used could hardly have been more different. The 1947 excavation was part of a program designed principally to find eighteenthcentury brick foundations for reconstruction. The property was “cross-trenched” by
workers using shovels and digging parallel
trenches, approximately five feet apart, systemically over the area. Three brick foundations were found, and three outbuildings
were thus reconstructed as a result of this
work.
Far different techniques were employed
in the 1967 excavation, although the project
had largely similar goals. Work took place
around the eighteenth-century kitchen and
adjacent areas in order to obtain dating evidence for the structure and to enable the Architecture Department to finish their restoration of the kitchen’s interior.
Each of these excavations will be discussed below, as well as the results of archaeological monitoring of utility work on
the property between 1982 and 1987.
as shown on the revised 1932 Archaeological and Research Key Map (Perry, Shaw &
Hepburn 1932). Each of these areas has a
designation composed of its block number,
which in this instance is Block 29, and a letter indicating its so-called (and arbitrarily
defined) “archaeological area.” Each time
archaeology was conducted within a block,
a letter designation was assigned to the area
excavated; for instance, the first area examined on Block 29 would be given the designation 29A, the second section 29B, and so
forth. The three areas examined in 1947
were assigned the designations 29D, 29E,
and 29F.
Colonial Williamsburg’s standard archaeological procedure prior to 1957, when
English archaeologist Ivor Noël Hume arrived to take over the program, involved the
use of cross-trenching as an investigative
technique. Placing narrow trenches at 45 degree angles to the property lines, spaced five
feet apart and dug to the depth of sterile
subsoil, would generally guarantee that any
structures containing brick foundations
would be located. Since the purposes of the
early excavations were to locate buildings
while working under tight time and budgetary constraints, this technique as a rule
worked very well. Fig. 7 shows examples of
this cross-trenching technique as used on the
Brush-Everard property during the 1947 excavation.
Historical sources suggested that the
cross-trenching technique would be particularly fruitful on the Brush-Everard property.
The Frenchman’s Map of 1781 showed six
structures standing on the property during
the Revolutionary War. Of these, only two,
the house and the kitchen, remained stand-
1947 Excavation
During the winter of 1946/47, extensive archaeological work was conducted on the
Brush-Everard property under the direction
of James M. Knight of Colonial Williamsburg’s Architecture Department. The excavation was divided into three areas (Fig. 6),
11
Figure 6. Archaeological areas cross-trenched in the 1940s.
ing until the present day. Since the purpose
of the Frenchman’s Map was to show buildings which could be used for billeting soldiers, smaller structures such as smokehouses and dairies were generally not depicted on the map. The remaining four
buildings shown appeared to be at least as
large as the kitchen.
James Knight and his crew located the
remains of a laundry, a dairy, a well, a
smokehouse and an office during their
trenching, and with the reconstruction of
these buildings the property was restored
to what was then believed to have been its
late eighteenth-century appearance. Their
efforts failed, however, to locate traces of
two (perhaps three) of the outbuildings portrayed on the Frenchman’s Map in the
northern part of the property. A number of
factors could have been involved in the failure to find these buildings, including de-
struction by later landscaping and construction activities, or more likely, that the buildings were supported on wooden posts or
brick piers. The remains of buildings with
these types of structural foundations were
generally not found using archaeological
cross-trenching.
James Knight prepared a summary archaeological report of his investigations, as
well as a detailed map of the brickwork that
was located (Knight 1947a, 1947b). Both of
these have been used to describe the results
of his work. Discussion of these findings will
be grouped according to his archaeological
areas.
Archaeological Area D
Archaeological Area D, measuring approximately 80 feet east-west x 50 feet northsouth, is located in the northwest corner of
12
Figure 7. Archaeological cross-trenching at Brush-Everard.
Brush-Everard House
the property, bordering on Palace and Scotland Streets. Although it was definitely
cross-trenched, no mention was made of this
area in the 1947 archaeological report. Since
the archaeological map does not show any
structural remains within Archaeological
Area D, it was not probably not thought
worthy of discussion.
Excavations around the house revealed the
presence of an earlier wing along the southeast side of the house, giving the house a Ushaped floor plan during the eighteenth century. As discussed later, the construction of
this wing appeared to date to the same period as the currently standing northeast
wing. Other features which were excavated
in 1947 and later reconstructed on the property included the remnants of a front porch
and extensive brick paving between the
house and the kitchen, laundry, and
smokehouse.
Archaeological Area E
Trenching through Archaeological Area E,
encompassing an area 26 feet east-west by
130 feet north-south around the house, outbuildings and boxwood garden, was a relatively more ambitious task than that of Area
D. This, too, was the area which provided
the most information about the BrushEverard property, revealing the buried remains of four outbuildings. Fig. 8 shows
some of the brickwork revealed during
Knight’s excavation.
Kitchen
The existing kitchen at the Brush-Everard
House is a brick structure measuring 28′7½″
north-south x 17′0″ east-west, with a large
brick chimney on its southern end. It is the
only extant eighteenth-century brick kitchen
13
Figure 8. Archaeological remains found in western part of Area E.
in Williamsburg. Initially built as a frame
structure around 1730, it was subsequently
altered twice during the eighteenth century.
The kitchen was restored by the Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation between 1952 and
1968, using information from the two excavations that had taken place there.
The 1947 excavations were conducted
around the exterior foundation walls and
located evidence that the kitchen was originally a frame structure. The existing chimney, the south wall, and parts of the east
and west walls of the kitchen had been built
on the original chimney foundation. Photographs of the excavation show trenching
around the outside foundation walls, extending out 1-3 feet from the foundations.
The ground outside of these areas does not
appear to have been disturbed at that time.
These excavations also located step foundations at the southeast corner of the kitchen,
and an L-shaped brick foundation, which
probably served as a support or retaining
wall built beside the original chimney. Ap-
parently no excavation occurred inside the
kitchen foundations at this time.
Smokehouse
Cross-trenching immediately west of the
kitchen revealed a 8 x 8 foot shallow brick
foundation. The brickwork, according to
Knight, dated to the eighteenth century. The
building’s size, as well as the wood ashes
scattered within its interior, led to its designation as a smokehouse. At the time of the
1947 excavations, a frame structure with the
same dimensions as this foundation was
standing to the east of the kitchen. Serving
as a storage facility and servants’ toilet, this
building was determined to have been the
frame structure originally located on the
eighteenth-century smokehouse foundations, having been moved to its new location behind the kitchen sometime in the
nineteenth century. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation returned the structure to
its original location, west of the kitchen, during the property’s restoration.
14
Potting Shed or Office
x 16′9″ east-west). Based on architectural information revealed during excavation, it is
postulated that this building was constructed in two phases. The building is currently interpreted, most likely on the basis
of its large fireplace, as a laundry (Fig. 10).
The Frenchman’s Map depicts what appears to be a small wing on the southern
side of the Brush-Everard House. Trenching
in an effort to locate this wing discovered
instead a small non-contiguous building
(16 x 12 feet), which has since been reconstructed as a potting shed or office (Fig. 9).
No evidence of a hearth was found for the
building, which led to its interpretation as
an office for Everard. Here, official documents could be stored with a decreased risk
of being destroyed by fire.
Well and Dairy
A well, 3 feet in diameter, was located 23
feet north of the laundry. Although the foundation of the well head itself was of modern construction, the brick lining below the
ground surface appeared to date to the colonial period. This well, currently interpreted as a colonial feature, was probably
not excavated beyond a depth of 5 feet below present ground level. A 9 x 9 foot dairy
has been reconstructed immediately south
of the well, with the basis of reconstruction
Laundry
Twenty-nine feet north of the present brick
kitchen, archaeological cross-trenching uncovered the foundations of an outbuilding
similar in size to the kitchen (28′ north-south
Figure 9. Garden shed/office.
15
Figure 10. Laundry foundations after cross-trenching.
Archaeological Area F
being a small 2′2″ section of brickwork uncovered in the area.
Archaeological Area F, an L-shaped block,
encompasses most of the northern portion
of the property, including the location of the
dammed pond.
Boxwood Garden
East of the Brush-Everard House and outbuildings is a large boxwood garden that is
believed to date from the second quarter of
the nineteenth century. Reputed to be the
oldest stand of boxwood within the Historic
Area, great pains have been taken through
the years by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation to preserve these shrubs. During the
1947 excavations, James Knight and his
crew apparently cross-trenched the area
south of the house, stopping well short of
the boxwood in order to avoid damaging
their roots (Knight 1984). Shown as undeveloped on the Frenchman’s Map, this area
revealed no brickwork through cross-trenching. There is no documented reference to this
portion of the property serving as a formal
garden in the eighteenth century.
Pond Area
Excavations at the northeastern end of the
property along Scotland Street revealed a
brick dam running east-west along the street
(Fig. 11). This dam was apparently located
at the northern end of a colonial pond
(Knight 1947c). A small outbuilding foundation was uncovered at the western end
of the dam, and a six-inch opening in the
dam wall suggested the presence of a water
wheel or mill. Various letters and memos
concerning the dam and its possible interpretation were written within the Foundation during the late 1940s and early 1950s.
No agreement could be reached concerning
the definite function of the small outbuild16
Figure 11. Dam located during cross-trenching.
Results of the 1947 Excavation
ing as a shop or millhouse, and its linkage
with the possible water wheel. The building was finally reconstructed as a privy, despite the apparent lack of the privy pit within
the foundation walls.
With plans under consideration to reconstruct the pond, Knight trenched in the pond
area in order to locate the old silt lines of
the pond. When the pond was constructed
in 1962/63, a bulldozer was used to excavate the earth, level it, and to haul the surplus soil away.
The 1946/47 excavations led to the reconstruction of three outbuildings and the restoration of two original structures. Although
standard archaeological practice at that
time, cross-trenching reveals far less information about a site and its inhabitants than
the techniques used today. Artifacts were
kept only sporadically and usually with no
regard to their stratigraphic or horizontal
placement within the ground. Differences
in soil layers were not noted, and the technique of cross-trenching focused largely on
structural remains with brick foundations.
Smaller and less permanent structures, as
well as features like trash pits and postholes,
were largely ignored.
Palace Power Plant and Surrounding
Area
There was no mention of the area around
the Palace Power Plant in the 1947 archaeological report, although photographs taken
during the excavation show that the entire
area was cross-trenched. There is some indication that a separate report was written
for Archaeological Areas D and F, but no
copy of this report has been located to date.
1967 Excavations
The 1967 excavations around the BrushEverard kitchen were conducted using excavation techniques first introduced in the
17
Historic Area by Ivor Noël Hume in the late
1950s and early 1960s. Stratigraphically
controlled digging provides archaeologists
with the ability to chart changing conditions
within narrow time ranges on properties,
and to make statements about specific inhabitants, their activities, and their social
and economic status. The 1967 excavations,
while providing information about the original kitchen, also furnished details about
eighteenth-century property divisions, and
how the property was used by its various
residents.
Under the direction of Archaeologist
Ivor Noël Hume, an in-depth excavation of
the Brush-Everard kitchen and surrounding
area was performed in early 1967. The area
covered by these investigations is shown in
Fig. 12.
formation recovered through this work allowed the complete restoration of the
kitchen in the late 1960s by the Colonial
Williamsburg Department of Architecture.
A brief discussion of the results of the 1967
excavation will follow. For a detailed account of the excavation, see Neil Frank
(1967).
Kitchen
One of the first steps in the 1967 excavations was to remove the various floors and
soil layers within the interior of the kitchen.
The kitchen appears to have evolved in three
stages. Sometime around 1730, the kitchen
was constructed as a frame building resting
on a shallow, continuous brick foundation
with an interior clay floor. Around the mideighteenth century, the wooden frame structure was altered to become a brick structure
with the original foundation walls enlarged
to support the extra weight of the walls. A
small northern addition, possibly built as a
slave living area, was constructed sometime
between 1750 and 1790. Two brick floors
were removed from the northern addition
of the kitchen, with artifacts found beneath
the upper pavement dating its construction
Features Found in 1967
Although the archaeology done in 1947 had
included work around the kitchen, this excavation was conducted in order to determine additional detail about the dating of
the structure and information about time periods on the lot which were not well represented in the documentary record. The in-
Figure 12. Area dug by Ivor Noël Hume in 1967.
18
Figure 13. Profile of 1967 excavation through kitchen (after Frank 1967: Fig. 1).
to after 1825. The construction of the lower,
or earlier, brick floor dated as early as the
mid-eighteenth century, but possibly as late
as 1790 (Fig. 13).
When excavation proceeded to the
southern, earlier portion of the kitchen, it
was found that the brick floor there had been
constructed in the second half of the nineteenth century. The earliest floor in the
kitchen, dating to the second quarter of the
eighteenth century, was composed of hard
packed clay. This is the type of floor that has
been reconstructed in the kitchen.
Perhaps one of the most interesting features revealed by the kitchen investigation
was a rectangular pit excavated inside the
building, to the west of the hearth (Fig. 14).
This feature, with five distinct layers of fill,
contained artifacts dating from the beginning of the nineteenth century and has been
interpreted as a root cellar. Given the recent
interest in root cellars and their occurrence
within slave quarters on other eighteenthand nineteenth-century sites in Virginia
(Kelso 1984; Pogue 1991), this feature will
be discussed in detail later in the report.
In addition to excavation inside the
kitchen interior, the 1967 project extended
into the area adjacent to the restored
smokehouse and reconstructed garden shed.
Here, a number of archaeological features
revealed previously unknown information
about the property. First, traces of a longstanding fence line dating to the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries was found extending east-west, in line with southern wall of
the garden shed. Since the currently standing fence separating the Brush-Everard and
the St. George Tucker properties had been
reconstructed approximately 20 feet to the
south, this meant that the land south of the
shed actually belonged with the adjacent
property (Fig. 15). In consideration of this,
the additional findings in this area were
more easily understood. Five large trash pits
filled with eighteenth-century pharmaceutical ceramics and glass were the product
of Dr. George Gilmer, who owned this property from 1735 to 1757. Additionally, traces
of a nineteenth-century pier-supported
structure turned out to be a slave house for
the Tucker family enslaved African-Ameri19
Figure 14. Plan and profile of root cellar in kitchen (after Frank 1967: Fig. 2).
Figure 15. Postholes comprising part of fence line found in 1967 excavation.
20
can nurse. These archaeological features will
be discussed at length later in this report.
facts, as well as structural debris such as
brick bats. The report documenting this
trenching concluded that during Knight’s
1947 archaeological work, trenching was
halted at the top of the redeposited clay layer
in the belief that this was sterile subsoil
(Samford 1983). The grey ash and charcoal
layer was postulated to be the destruction
debris from a building which had stood in
this area, and since it was sealed by the yellow clay, mistakenly identified as subsoil,
had never been discovered by Knight.
Results of Archaeological
Monitoring, 1982-1987
Since the formation of the Department of
Archaeological Research in 1982, four projects which necessitated archaeological
monitoring have taken place on the BrushEverard lot. Each of these monitoring episodes was instigated when a utility line was
installed or repaired. A member of the Department of Archaeological Research was
present during these projects, in order to
protect archaeological resources, record archaeological stratigraphy, and recover artifactual material. At best, this monitoring is
a last-ditch effort to record those areas being destroyed in the wake of human
progress, but it can also serve a useful function in allowing archaeologists a “free” (of
sorts) look at areas they may never otherwise get a chance to examine. Each of these
monitoring activities will be discussed below, along with the effect they had on guiding the course of the 1987 excavation.
Storm Drain Project
A broken storm drain instigated the next
construction project on the Brush-Everard
property during the summer of 1984. Colonial Williamsburg’s Mechanical Operations
and Maintenance Department repaired this
brick drain and installed a new drainage
pipeline northwest of the laundry. Results
of this monitoring showed there had been
extensive twentieth-century disturbance in
this area (Alexandrowicz 1985). Two intact
soil layers of eighteenth-century origin, containing sheet refuse, were cut during the
trenching efforts, but no features dating to
the colonial period were discovered.
Electrical Line
Natural Gas Line
Activities connected with the 1983
Williamsburg Economic Summit of Industrialized Nations led to the excavation of an
east-west running trench through the field
between the Brush-Everard House and the
Palace Power Plant. Examination of the
trench stratigraphy revealed a thick, 2.25foot-thick layer of black loam extending
down from the topsoil horizon. This layer,
consistent throughout the 20 foot length of
the trench, sealed a stratum of redeposited
yellow clay that was approximately six
inches thick. Below this clay was a layer of
ash and charcoal, containing numerous
eighteenth-century ceramic and glass arti-
During the winter of 1986, the Virginia
Natural Gas Company installed a gas line
through the Palace Power Plant lot (Lot
166). This installation necessitated the excavation of a trench extending west across
the lot, from the east wall of the Power Plant
out to Palace Green. The archaeological
monitoring of this trench revealed much the
same stratigraphic information as the 1983
trenching on the lot (Samford 1986a).
Communication Cable
As part of a large project to install a telecommunication cable throughout the His21
toric Area, a trench was run through the
Brush-Everard property, north of the house
and gardens, in July 1986. This trench
spanned a much larger area than any of the
previous projects, and also provided information about the area adjacent to the reconstructed pond. Household debris from
the early twentieth-century house that stood
on the now-vacant portion of Lot 166 was
dumped in an area just west of the pond.
Observation of the soil strata along the
length of the trench showed a great deal of
modern soil deposition, and possibly two
layers of eighteenth-century origin. No features of archaeological significance were cut
by this trenching (Samford 1986b). Notably
absent was the ash and brick rubble layer
which had been present in the electric and
natural gas line trenches.
on the Brush-Everard property prior to 1987,
in actuality, the only areas which have been
exhaustively studied are those excavated
during the 1967 investigation. Knight’s
cross-trenching proved, fairly conclusively,
that no structures with continuous brick
foundations were located in the area between the laundry and the Palace Power
Plant. The potential for post- or pier-supported buildings still remained a strong possibility, however. Monitoring of utility
trenches in the area showed a great deal of
twentieth-century disturbance, so chances
of finding the map-predicted buildings could
have been compromised by later activity. The
ash and rubble layer beneath the redeposited yellow clay in the northwestern portion
of the site, however, suggested the potential
for this area containing structural debris of
a building or buildings constructed, occupied, and destroyed prior to the rendering
of the Frenchman’s Map in 1781/2.
Summary of Previous
Excavations of Brush-Everard
Although what seems like a great deal of
archaeological research has been conducted
22
Chapter 4.
Field and Laboratory Methods
Field Methods
zontal control of archaeological features
and objects. A baseline was established, running north-south, parallel with Spotswood
Street, within the Brush-Everard property.
An arbitrary datum for the work was an
iron rebar set at point 200N/80E. From this
point, a system of 10-foot squares was placed
over the entire area encompassed by Lot 166.
Vertical control over the site was established
by using a dumpy level to measure the position of soil strata and archaeological features
in relation to sea level. The level was set up
each day over the rebar at 200N/80E, and
elevations were tied in with a known benchmark.
Color and texture changes in the soil
were used to guide the excavation of the site.
Color was determined by removing a small
T
he excavations between 1987 and
1989 were conducted on Lots 165
and 166 of the Brush Everard property, north and south of the house. Since map
and documentary evidence, as well as the
results of utility trench monitoring, had suggested the probable presence of eighteenthcentury structures north of the house, a
strategy of “open-area excavation” was
deemed the best technique for locating these
buildings. Excavation areas were located in
places shown by maps and remote sensing
to be those most likely to yield structural
remains (Fig. 16).
Prior to beginning the excavation, a grid
system was imposed over the site for hori-
Scotland Street
Stable
Spotswood Street
N
Buildings Currently
Standing on the Property
Areas Excavated in 1987
House
Areas Excavated in 1988
Laundry
Areas Excavated in 1988-89
Shed
Kitchen
0
0
Smokehouse
Figure 16. Areas excavated 1987-1989.
23
80 FT
20 M
chunk of undisturbed moist soil and comparing it with Munsell color charts (Munsell
1975). The main soil color was noted, as well
as any mottlings or streakings. Soil texture
was determined through analyzing the percentages of sand, silt, and clay contained
within the soil and comparing this with a
soil chart published in Susan Limbrey’s Soil
Science and Archaeology (Fig. 17). Any inclusions, such as brick, shell, mortar and charcoal were also noted.
With some exceptions, mason’s trowels
were used to excavate all undisturbed soil
layers and features. Only topsoil, the backfill of the 1947 archaeological trenches, and
the fill of utility trenches were removed using shovels. All soil, except that noted above,
was screened through ¼” wire mesh, to facilitate the recovery of small finds. Cultural
material from each layer was retained, with
the exception of brick and charcoal, whose
presence was simply noted. Information
about soil color, texture, inclusions and
stratigraphic position was recorded on a
context record form. All layers and features
were mapped in plan and features were bisected and mapped in profile after half their
fill had been removed. Photographs of archaeological features and strata were taken
as necessary.
Archaeological sites are made up of two
components: features and layers. These components occur with varying frequency, but
tend to increase in number with the length
of site occupation. At a certain point the
density of features and layers, especially on
urban sites, causes site interpretation to become increasingly difficult. One traditional
way to simplify interpretation is to create
an overall “composite” map of all relevant
features and layers, color coding each feature and layer based on artifact dating and
stratigraphic sequences of these components. This system of interpretation works
well when the density of features and lay-
Figure 17. Soil triangle (after Limbrey 1975:261).
ers is not great, thus making possible to ascertain any patterns that represent the remains of fencelines, post-set buildings, formal gardens, and activity areas. As the density of activities becomes greater, however,
it becomes increasingly difficult to ascertain
such patterns. The urban nature and long
occupation range of the sites inside Colonial Williamsburg’s Historic Area result in
such a high density of activities through time
that the use of composite maps as an interpretative tool is greatly hampered.
When confronted with a similar problem, though of even greater magnitude, Bermudian (formerly English) archaeologist Edward Harris developed the so-called “Harris Matrix” approach. The Harris Matrix itself is a flow chart that illustrates stratigraphic relationships between layers and
features. Layers can be formed either by
nature (erosion, for example) or by humans,
and consist of thin deposits of soil spread
over a large area. These layers can develop
over a relatively long period of time and are
usually the product of one particular activity. When an activity ceases or changes, the
layer formation process ends and a new
layer starts to form. Subtle changes in the
landscape can cause a particular layer be
replaced by a different soil formation. An
24
example of this would be the construction
of a fence, which may be related to changes
in patterns of land use and therefore cause
an alteration of soil formation. Possible
changes in behavior such as pedestrian traffic flow patterns, or an altering of trash disposal would also result in changing layer
formation processes.
Archaeological stratification may also be
formed by excavation of holes or pits (features) by man or animals. Features are generally, although not always, dug and filled
in a short period of time and can vary in
size, shape, depth and composition. Some
features are filled with soil all at once, while
others are left open and filled through a slow
silting activity. When this occurs, the feature
can be filled with various different soil layers that accumulate through time. A feature
actually has two components: its fill, the
actual soil used to fill in the concavity, and
its cut or (as Harris calls it) its “interface”.
An interface is a rather abstract concept that
represents the actual act of digging the hole.
For a more detailed description of interfaces
and their importance to the study of stratigraphy, see Harris’ book Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy (Harris 1979,1989).
Each layer or feature was assigned a sequential “Harris” number that represented
the entire layer or feature. Each number was
added to the flow chart under the numeric
designation of the layer that sealed or was
on top of it. All features that intruded a particular layer were grouped together and the
layer that they intruded was added beneath
the features. All features were assigned an
interface number regardless of the type of
filling episode and the interface number was
added to the chart under the last fill number of each feature.
The actual charting of the stratigraphy
at Brush-Everard was fairly simple even
with the large amount of disturbance
present, since the soil layers were fairly uni-
form and extended over large areas of the
site. A recurring problem in the Historic
Area has been that layers are often similar
in color and composition, making separation of layers very difficult. A system was
initiated to insure that layers created slowly
over long time periods were not accidentally
lumped together, obscuring any data manipulation involving these layers. Any layer
that was over 0.25 feet thick was subdivided
into separate layers. After the artifact inventory was completed, deposition dates of the
subdivided layers were compared and a
determination was made to lump the layers
because of similar dates or have them remain separate for analytical purposes.
When the Harris Matrix flow chart was
finished it was easy to understand, not only
the sequence of layers, but the time relationship between features . Instead of a map
showing all features excavated on a site, the
Harris flow chart allow the production of
phase plans that recreate what the site
looked like during a particular period. Each
layer of interest receive its own plan with
all features that existed directly after the
layer was formed. Analysis is simplified because only features that date to a particular
time period are represented and the problem of high density of feature activity is resolved.
The recovery of microfauna, botanical
materials and oyster shell from the BrushEverard site required specialized sampling
procedures. All features, excluding
postholes, postmolds and utility trenches,
were screened through both one-quarter and
one-eighth inch stacked wire mesh screens.
Small bones and other artifacts remaining
in the one-quarter-inch screen were carefully removed and bagged. Any soil and material that did not readily fall through the
one-eighth-inch screen was placed into
marked plastic bags for later waterscreening.
After waterscreening, the remaining mate25
rial was sorted according to category (seeds,
small bone, eggshell, crab claws, beads, ceramics, straight pins, etc.) and added to the
artifact inventory. In order to sample botanical material, ten-liter samples of soil from
each layer and pertinent feature were
bagged without screening. All oyster shell
(with the exception of small fragments) were
retained from soil layers and features, excluding postholes, postmolds and utility
trenches.
other distinctive characteristics were recorded for every artifact.
At this time a terminus post quem (TPQ)
date was given to each unit. The terminus
post quem represents the earliest date that
the context could have been deposited, and
it was assigned by determining which artifact had the most recent initial documented
date of production.
Cross-mending was the final phase of
processing, and was conducted only on selected objects. Its purpose was to demonstrate relationships between various layers
and features, through showing that portions
of the same ceramic or glass object were deposited in each. Two categories of relationship were noted: cross-mends (glue-fits between sherds from different contexts) and
non-contiguous relationships (sherds that do
not glue together but are most likely from
the same vessel). All relationships, whether
cross-mend or non-contiguous, were recorded. Cross-mending was conducted on
ceramics, wine bottle glass, and table glass
from eighteenth-century contexts.
Another important purpose of crossmending was to reveal the minimum number of vessels or objects present on the site.
A “vessel” or “object” was determined to
be one or more fragments that represented
what had most likely once been a single entity. Each vessel or object was assigned a
unique vessel (U.V.) number, and each sherd
of every vessel was labelled with its corresponding U.V. number, so that cross-mend
information would not be lost.
Cross-mending of ceramics, wine bottle
glass, and table glass produced a minimum
vessel count. Minimum numbers of vessels
were determined using either rims or bases—
whichever was in greater abundance—as
the initial count. Distinctive vessels were
added subjectively by the lab staff, based
upon their unique decorative or technologi-
Laboratory Methods
Processing of the Brush-Everard artifacts—
washing, numbering, inventorying, and
cross-mending—was conducted in the laboratory of the Dept. of Archaeological Research. Initially, incoming groups of artifacts
were received on a daily basis. At this stage,
a laboratory technician recorded the
context(s) represented, the number of bags
within each context, and the date each was
received.
All logged-in artifacts were washed, with
extremely delicate or unstable artifacts removed for conservation during this phase.
Following cleaning, several categories of artifacts, including shell, brick, and coal, were
simply counted and re-bagged. Animal
bones from each context were counted and
removed to the zooarchaeology laboratory
for further processing and analysis. All other
artifacts were retained.
After washing and sorting, artifacts
were labelled with their provenience number so that context information would not
be lost during analysis. Artifacts were inventoried at this time, using a micro-computerassisted system developed by the D.A.R.
Numeric codes were assigned for specific descriptive information, in order to permit
easier data manipulation. The type, decorative attribute(s), technology, mark(s), and
26
cal attributes. Vessel counts were compiled
conservatively so as to provide an actual
minimum number of vessels. This is not to
say that there were no additional vessels
present—there undoubtedly were—but this
was the least number represented in the assemblages.
Minimum vessel information was
grouped into four household groups: the
John Brush household (1717-1727), the
George Gilmer household (1735-1757), the
Thomas Everard household (c. 1750-1781),
and the Polly Valentine household (c. 18401865). This information was additionally
quantified by ware type, vessel form, and
vessel function.
Artifact records are stored in the department laboratory. Selected artifacts, based on
their representativeness, uniqueness, or potential for further research, were catalogued, assigned an individual catalog number, and housed in drawer storage in the
D.A.R. study collection. All other artifacts
are stored in the Archaeology Warehouse.
27
28
Chapter 5.
The Middle Plantation Period (1633-1699)
T
Borrow Pit
wo features dating from the Middle
Plantation period (1633-1699), predating the inception of the town of
Williamsburg, were found on the BrushEverard property. At that time, the future
site of the town contained several tobacco
plantations connected by a horse path
(roughly paralleling the Duke of Gloucester
Street) and some public buildings typical of
Tidewater Virginia’s dispersed settlements—
a church, a tavern and several stores
(Anonymous 1930). While one feature at
Brush-Everard appears merely to be a borrow pit for the recovery of clay for
brickmaking, the other may be a section of
the 1634 palisade line which stretched across
the Peninsula.
(Harris Numbers 231, 232)
One feature, north of the present house on
Lot 166, consisted of a large circular hole,
approximately 15 feet in diameter, excavated
2.5 feet into the clay subsoil (Fig. 18). This
pit was left open to partially fill with silt,
and was later deliberately filled with yellow
clay. Very few artifacts were found in the
pit fill; these included only non-datable materials, such as animal bone and pipestems.
Two test trenches, one running north-south
and another running east-west, were excavated through the feature. In total, approximately one-third of the feature was excavated.
Figure 18. Location of clay borrow pit.
29
Ditch and Gully
At the present time, it is believed that
the pit may have been excavated during the
seventeenth century as a borrow pit for the
recovery of brickmaking clay. The hole was
left open, silting in to a depth of about eight
inches, until it was later filled with clay, possibly when John Brush excavated the cellar
for his house shortly after purchasing the
lot in 1717. The stratigraphic position of this
pit, sealed by an early eighteenth-century
layer and cutting through sterile soil layers,
suggests the seventeenth-century date assigned for the creation of the feature. Borrow pits, sometimes dug near the site of seventeenth-century dwellings, were often used
as garbage dumping areas for the residents
of these structures (Edwards 1987). The lack
of artifacts recovered from the fill of this pit
suggests that the structure for which these
bricks were intended did not stand nearby.
(Macro-Feature 14
Harris Numbers 91 and 102
ER1256R and ER1261L)
A second Middle Plantation period feature,
consisting of two parallel trenches, was discovered on the southern portion of Lot 165,
south of the reconstructed garden shed (Fig.
19). Portions of this feature, running southwest to northeast, had been discovered extending under the kitchen and smokehouse
during the 1967 excavation. At that time,
these trenches were interpreted as a squaresided ditch (ER1261L) and a natural gully
(ER1256R).
The square-sided ditch (Harris Number
91 and 102), 1.5 feet wide, cut to a depth of
1.5 feet into the sterile clay subsoil. Although
a 40 foot segment of this ditch was excavated in 1967 (ER 1261L), no artifacts were
Figure 19. Plan and profile of palisade trench.
30
recovered from its mixed yellow clay fill, precluding any precise dating of the feature.
Since this trench ran under the foundation
of the 1730 kitchen, however, it can be safely
dated as having been created and filled before the kitchen was constructed.
A larger 4-foot-wide ditch (ER 1256R)
ran parallel with the square-sided trench
approximately 8 feet to the south. Filled with
a hard grey sandy loam, the ditch contained
sloping sides, a rounded bottom and was a
little over 1 foot in depth. A 20-foot portion
of the ditch was excavated in 1967. There
were no artifacts in the fill of the ditch, suggesting that it too had been completely filled
before the development of the property in
the second decade of the eighteenth century.
During the 1988 excavation, additional
portions of the square-sided ditch were uncovered and excavated. This feature appeared as a 1.2-2.0 foot wide trench cut 1.5
feet deep through sterile clay subsoil, sealed
by a layer of soil whose deposition dated to
the early eighteenth century. Portions of the
trench excavated in 1988 contained two distinct types of fill, leading to its reinterpreta-
tion as a slot fence. A dark brown (Munsell
color 10YR4/3) sandy loam fill, visible along
one edge of the trench, is believed to have
been created by the decay of wooden fence
posts placed upright against one side of the
ditch. The second fill, a mottled brownish
yellow (10YR6/8) sandy clay with sparse
oyster shell and charcoal flecking had been
packed against the wooden posts to hold
them in place. No artifacts were recovered
from either of these two fills to assist with
further dating of the trench.
Similar trenches identified as slot fences
have been discovered on various seventeenth-century sites, including Wolstenholme Towne (Noël Hume 1979), Nansemond Towne in Suffolk (Luccketti 1988)
and along the Hampton River (Edwards et
al. 1989). These fences were constructed by
first placing planks upright side by side in a
narrow, fairly shallow ditch with soil packed
around the boards to secure them in place.
Such slot fences were fairly insubstantial
and used primarily to keep animals from
gardens or yards (Edwards et al. 1989:92).
31
32
Chapter 6.
The John Brush Household (1717-1727)
O
n July 7, 1717, the trustees of Williamsburg granted to John Brush of
James City County two one-half
acre lots numbered 165 and 166 (DAB
3:246-248). Brush, a gunsmith by trade, constructed his frame story-and-a-half house on
Lot 165 by 1719. This house, with subsequent
modifications, is standing on the property
today. Archaeological excavations around
the foundation of the house (Knight 1947a,
1947b) and research conducted by architectural historians when the house was restored in the late 1940s (Kocher and
Dearstyne 1950), indicate that Brush built a
fairly modest home, measuring 44 x 20 feet
in size, with two rooms on the first floor
separated by a central passage (Fig. 20).
These rooms, the hall and the chamber, were
used for formal entertaining and family living, respectively. This central passage floor
plan had begun making its appearance in
the Virginia colony during the first quarter
of the eighteenth century (Wenger
1986:137). Since the house, as originally constructed, contained no dormer windows
that would emit light into the second story
of the house, it is believed that the second
floor was used for little more than storage
during Brush’s occupation. The roof was
sheathed with wooden clapboards and the
interior of the house was floored with yellow pine.
Sometime within a few years of 1720,
John Brush added the north wing of the
house (Fig. 21). Dendrochronology performed in 1982 indicated that, while timbers for the front portion of the main house
were cut in 1718, 1720 was the last growth
year for the trees used in constructing the
framing of the wing (Heikkenen 1984). Measuring 16 feet east-west by 18 feet northsouth, this wing added 288 square feet of
living space to the first floor of the original
house. The 1947 archaeological excavation
revealed brickwork from two successive
south wings, the later of which matched the
north wing (Knight 1947a, 1947b). Only a
12 foot section of the earlier brickwork (Fig.
22) remained intact; it revealed merely that
the earlier south wing contained a cellar.
Unfortunately, restoration of the southeastern wing in the late 1940s destroyed all
soil stratification and other information
which would aid in dating the construction
of the two wings. Architectural evidence,
however, strongly suggests that Brush
planned the construction of the north and
south wings as part of the original design of
the house. Placing the hall and chamber fireplaces along the eastern walls of these
rooms, rather than at the north and south
gable ends of the house, allowed the hearths
in the later wing additions to be easily joined
with the original chimneys. Additionally,
analysis revealed that no dormers had ever
been placed along the eastern roof line of
the house. Since any windows would have
needed removal in order to construct the
two wings, this again suggests that these
additions were conceptualized prior to the
actual house construction or took place soon
thereafter.
The original stairway to the second floor
is believed to have been replaced later in the
eighteenth century, so its appearance during Brush’s ownership is not known. It is
possible that the second floor was reached
by a simple ladder arrangement at this time.
33
minimum of furniture, some of it bearing the
designation “old.” The clustering in the inventory, however, of a clock, a desk, a looking glass, a tea table and a chest of drawers
suggest that these items were placed together in one room. The nature of the items,
plus their valuation of £12 relative to the
value of all of Brush’s other furniture (£7),
suggests that these were grouped in the more
public room of the house. Perhaps here is
evidence that the emphasis of Brush’s buying power was being placed on public display areas and activities, such as the ritual
of tea taking. This may also indicate that
Brush was beginning to use some space in
his home for specialized purposes.
At the time of his purchase of the lots,
Brush was around the age of forty, a widower with four children. There is no documentation that he owned any slaves or employed the services of indentured labor.
Brush, a gunsmith by trade, was trained in
England, receiving his admittance into the
Gunmakers Company Guild in 1699 (Brush
1977). There is some indication that Brush
was brought to Virginia by Governor
Alexander Spotswood sometime after 1710
to serve as a gunsmith (Anonymous
1922:299). Brush was keeper of the arms at
the Magazine and also ran a gunsmithing
operation on his Palace Green lots. Analysis
of a Brush period trash pit excavated in
1967 and the Brush layers and features from
the current excavation suggest the range of
activities at Brush’s shop. Gun parts found
during the excavations indicates that Brush
repaired old guns, as well as manufactured
new ones for the government and for private customers. Older dog lock guns were
being converted into flintlocks at his shop
and he was also casting decorative gun elements from brass and lead. Additionally,
documents and artifacts indicated that John
Brush was performing many general
blacksmithing jobs, as well as woodwork-
Figure 20. Floor plan of first-period Brush house
(adapted from Wenger 1994:7).
Brush’s estate inventory (Appendix 1)
suggests the multifunctional use of some of
the rooms in the house. Recent research has
suggested that many early eighteenth-century homes were built modestly, with multipurpose space common (Upton 1979; Walsh
1983; Wenger 1986). It was only later in the
eighteenth century that specialized use of
rooms for dining or entertaining began to
take place. Brush’s inventory also lists a
34
Figure 21. Floor plan of second-period Brush house (adapted from Wenger 1994:7).
ing and casting (Frank 1967:29; see Appendix 2).
Although the remains of his shop have
not been positively located through archaeological excavation, evidence from the work
done around the colonial period kitchen in
1967 and again in 1988 initially suggested
that Brush’s shop was east of the house, in
the vicinity of the present kitchen building.
Ashes and iron slag found sealed beneath
the circa 1730 clay floor of the present
kitchen indicated that this building was not
standing during Brush’s occupation (Frank
1967).
The 1967 excavations located two shallow slot trenches, predating the construction of the kitchen, which possibly represent
the locations for the wooden sills of an earlier outbuilding (Frank 1967:27). Significant
amounts of gunsmithing debris were located in this area, both from yard scatter
and within trash pit and privy fills (Fig. 23).
Although no forges (which would have been
an integral component of Brush’s shop)
were found during the 1967 excavations, the
possible sill building was only partially excavated. Fig. 24 shows the conjectured location of the shop as well as other features
present on the property during Brush’s occupation.
Waterproofing of the Brush-Everard
House cellar in 1994 revealed another possibility for the location of the gunsmith shop.
A trench dug along the east wall of the
house showed that coal and slag was most
concentrated near the house, rather than
toward the kitchen. This fact, and the fact
that gunsmith remains were found associ35
Figure 22. Section of cellar wall from earlier southeastern wing.
Figure 23. Archaeological remains which suggest the
location of John Brush's gunsmith shop.
Figure 24. Location of house and other structures
during the John Brush period (1717-1727).
36
ated with debris from the house, suggests
that Brush’s shop may have been instead in
the north wing of the house (Pickett 1994).
At present either location is possible.
The kitchen currently standing on the
property was constructed as a frame building on a brick foundation after 1730, at least
several years following Brush’s death. No
early kitchen building has been located
through archaeological excavation, and
cooking may have taken place in the basement of the house during Brush’s tenure.
The danger of fire from a constantly lit
kitchen hearth and the heat and odors of
cooking may have prompted the construction of an exterior kitchen on the property
after 1730. It is also possible that the earliest
kitchen on the property stood north of the
house on Lot 166 in an area heavily disturbed by the construction and destruction
of a later house. There, analysis of a soil layer
created in the 1720s showed concentrations
of ceramics, bottle glass and cutlery, suggesting that the earliest kitchen may have stood
in this area.
quarter of the eighteenth century as John
Brush purchased and occupied the property.
This layer was evident in areas excavated
on both the north and south sides of the
house (Fig. 25) and contained ceramics and
glass dating to the first quarter of the century, as well as gunsmithing debris such as
iron slag, coal and gun parts.
In 1987, an 800 square foot section of
this layer directly north of the house on Lot
166 (Fig. 25, Area A) was excavated. This
layer was separated horizontally into three
arbitrary levels (29F-54, -147, -183) in an attempt to sort out any temporal differences
in the soil accumulation. It appears, however, that there was no substantial (or at least
discernable) time difference in the deposition of the three layers, and, therefore, for
the purposes of this analysis, the artifacts
from these layers have been combined to
form Macro-Feature 12.
A standard modern archaeological technique is to study artifacts from test units of
limited size in order to delineate patterning
in artifact function or dating. On sites where
soil layers have been disturbed by plowing
this method has proven to be a very effective means for interpretation (King and
Miller 1987; Pogue 1990). On sites which
have not been disturbed by plowing, and
thus where artifacts accumulate naturally
as a result of years of activity and disposal,
the potential for determining yard use
through artifact patterning is even more
promising. Artifacts within the Brush-period
sheet refuse layer were thus recovered in 2.5
foot square units in an attempt to draw conclusions about use of the yard around the
house. Only the areas excavated to the north
of the Brush House revealed any meaningful patterns. Consequently, the following discussion will pertain only to this area.
Plotting all artifacts from the layer
showed a more abundant artifact distribution at the north end of Lot 166, adjacent to
Archaeological Results
A number of excavated soil layers and features related to the John Brush occupation
(1717-1727). These included a sheet refuse
layer, a privy, a trash pit and two layers of
debris in a ravine on the northern extent of
the property. Each assemblage will be discussed here in terms of its composition, artifacts, and any specialized analysis that
was completed.
Brush Sheet Refuse
(Macro-Feature 12
29F-Layers 54, 147, 183
29G-Layers 103, 153)
A layer of mottled tan and brown sandy clay
loam formed on the property during the first
37
Scotland Street
Stable
Spotswood Street
Area A
N
Buildings Currently Standing on the Property
Area B
Extent of Brush Sheet Refuse as
Revealed by Excavation
House
Disturbed by Modern Grading
Laundry
Areas Excavated 1987-1989
0
Kitchen
Shed
0
80 FT
20 M
Smokehouse
Area C
Figure 25. Extent of John Brush period sheet refuse layers excavated 1987-1989.
the ravine which formerly bisected this area
(Fig. 26). As discussed later in the report,
since this ravine was used as a garbage
dump by the Brush household, it is reasonable to suppose that artifacts would be more
highly concentrated near the edges of the
dump rather than adjacent to the house.
Kitchen and dining artifacts, along with animal bone and oyster shell, though most
heavily concentrated at the west edge of the
excavation near the ravine, were also fairly
heavily concentrated in the southwestern
corner of the unit. Analysis of similar sites
in Maryland has shown that concentrations
of wine bottle glass and other kitchen items
tend to be heaviest adjacent to areas where
these vessels and objects were used and
stored (Pogue 1990). This could suggest that
the Brush kitchen stood north of the house,
at the southern end of Lot 166. This is supported by artifactual evidence discussed
later. Gunsmithing debris, however, was
concentrated at the northern edge of the ex-
cavation, suggesting that waste products
from the forge were being dumped into the
ravine, along with other household trash.
Northeast of the house, directly adjacent
to the dairy, a 275 square foot area of excavation revealed a 0.1-0.3 foot thick deposit
of this same sheet refuse layer (Fig. 25,
Area B). Only 218 artifacts were sparsely
distributed in this area and formed no meaningful pattern, although there were no traces
of gunsmithing debris in the area near the
dairy.
Only a forty-four square foot section of
the Brush sheet refuse layer to the south of
the house was excavated (Fig. 25, Area C),
so few conclusions can be drawn about this
area. Containing relatively few artifacts, this
layer overlay sterile subsoil. Dating the deposition of this layer to the John Brush period
was based on the presence of forge and gunsmithing debris, such as slag, coal and
gunflints. Only three ceramic vessels were
recovered from this area—a dipped white
38
KEY MAP
Scotland Street
Stable
N
Spotswood Street
Brush Sheet Refuse Layer
(distribution shown below)
House
Laundry
Kitchen
Shed
Smokehouse
0
80 FT
0
Architectural
20 M
Kitchen/Dining
Bone/Shell
Gunsmithing
Figure 26. Distribution of artifacts in Brush sheet refuse layer (Macro-Feature 12).
salt glazed stoneware mug, a hollow form
vessel of dipped white salt glaze stoneware,
and a flatware vessel of North Midland
slipware. A terminus post quem of 1715 was
provided by fragments of the dipped white
salt glazed stoneware. A further connection
with the Brush household was provided by
a direct crossmend between this layer and
a trash pit (Macro-Feature 3) believed to be
associated with John Brush.
The robber’s or destruction trench for a
privy built, used, and destroyed during
39
Brush’s occupation cut the sheet refuse on
the south side of the house, suggesting that
this layer had formed before the privy building was dismantled. Supposing that some
of all of the artifacts originated from the
privy, the concentration of artifacts within
the layer suggests that the door of the privy
building faced east, away from Palace Street.
In summary, Macro-Feature 12 was a
sheet refuse layer formed during the years
that John Brush owned the property. Although generally sparse, the artifacts recovered from the layer showed that Brush’s tenure of occupation on the lot was a period of
marked house and outbuilding construction,
gunsmithing, and the more mundane activities associated with everyday life.
Architectural
61.7%
Kitchen/Dining
27.2%
Gunsmithing
1.0%
Unidentified
Metal
4.2%
Tobacco Pipes
4.9%
Other Tools
1.0%
0
50
100
150
200
Number of Artifacts
(Total = 423)
250
300
Note: “Architectural” category includes roofing tiles, door knob and window glass (an
unidentified number of nails was not included); “Kitchen/Dining” category includes
ceramics, bottle glass, table glass, cutlery, and other items of food preperation,
storage and consumption. Totals for animal bone and oyster shell were not included.
Figure 27. Artifact distribution in John Brush trash pit.
construction on the property. This is also
consistent with the upper layers of fill in the
Brush privy and a layer of brick and mortar
in the ravine, and indeed all of these deposits are believed to be linked with renovation
of the main house in the early 1720s.
John Brush Trash Pit
(Macro-Feature 3
ER1269A)
John Brush Ravine Layers
A trash pit dating to the tenure of John
Brush was excavated in 1967 under the direction of Ivor Noël Hume. Located just west
of the present kitchen, this large (8 feet
north-south x 4 feet east-west) oval pit was
primarily filled with iron waste, metallic slag
and ashes (Fig. 27). The artifacts from the
pit (Table 1) were re-analyzed in conjunction with the 1987-1989 excavation, revealing that the assemblage contained a mixture
of domestic, gunsmithing, and blacksmithing debris. Only three artifacts from
the feature could be definitively linked to
gunsmithing—a small French pistol flint, an
iron gun thumb plate and a brass chape fragment—and the quantities and appearance
of iron debris from the pit suggest that Brush
was performing general blacksmithing as
well as gun repair and manufacture (Frank
1967:29).
The high percentage of architectural artifacts (nails, window glass and clay roofing tiles) in the pit suggests that it was being filled during a period of renovation or
A large ravine is shown to the north of the
Brush-Everard property on the late eighteenth-century Frenchman’s Map. When the
map was drawn, this ravine was depicted
as extending to the north across Scotland
Street and into Lots 175 and 176, east of the
Palace Stable. Excavation, however, revealed that during most of the eighteenth
century, this ravine extended into the northern end of Lot 166 on the Brush property.
This area was used as a trash dump throughout the eighteenth century by the residents
of the Brush-Everard property. Two distinct
fill layers at the bottom, or earliest, levels of
this ravine can be attributed to John Brush’s
occupation of the property (Fig. 28).
Primary Ravine Layers
(Macro-Feature 1
29F-Harris 140, 154, 141, 155, 166, 333, 334)
The earliest soil layer in the ravine consisted
of a dark brown (10YR4/2) silty clay loam,
40
Table 1.
Ceramic and Glass Vessels from the Brush Trash Pit
Type
Form
Chinese porcelain
Dipped white salt glazed stoneware
Cup
Hollow
Mug
Milkpan
Chamberpot
Wine bottle
Pharmaceutical bottle
Wine stem
Crucible
Yorktown-type
Glass
Leaded glass
Ceramic fireclay
No. of Vessels
Total
% of Total
2
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
13.3
13.3
6.6
6.6
6.6
33.0
6.6
6.6
6.6
15
100.0
Note: One of the two dipped white salt glazed hollowares crossmends with sheet refuse Layer 153/103.
Figure 28. Profile of John Brush-period ravine layers.
containing charcoal and brick flecking. This
ashy layer, which ranged from 0.3-0.4 feet
in thickness, sealed sterile subsoil and can
be linked to the earliest years of occupation
(c. 1717-early 1720s) on the property. A range
of domestic and architectural debris dating
to the first quarter of the eighteenth century
were recovered from this layer (Fig. 29).
Twenty-three ceramic vessels were recovered from the earliest ravine layers
(Table 2). Fragments of three delft fireplace
tiles decorated in blue suggest a delft fire-
place surround, and leaded window cames
from the ravine and the trash pit excavated
in 1967 indicate casement windows were
in use somewhere on the property, perhaps
in the first period house or shop. No identifiable gun parts, and no gunsmith-related
material other than slag and coal, were recovered from the primary ravine fill, further
corroborating the idea that Brush’s shop
was located at the opposite, or southern, end
of the property, where numerous gun parts
were recovered.
41
Table 2.
Brush Ravine Layer—Primary Ash Layer
Vessels Organized by Form
Type
Form
Yorktown-type
Chamberpot
Bowl
Milk pan
Fireplace tile
Cup
Plate
Dish
Chamber pot
Bowl
Storage jar
Milk jug
Plate
Saucer
Mug
Milkpan
Jug
Delftware
Westerwald stoneware
Nottingham stoneware
Fulham stoneware
White salt-glazed
Chinese porcelain
Fulham stoneware
Red sandy ware
English stoneware
No. of Vessels
Total
Renovation Debris Layers
% of Total
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4.3
4.3
13.0
13.0
4.3
13.0
4.3
4.3
4.3
8.7
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
23
100.0
4000 artifacts (Fig. 30). The brick and mortar were sampled, but not saved (hence the
lower percentage of architectural artifacts
represented in Fig. 30). This layer, containing early eighteenth-century ceramics and
other domestic and architectural artifacts,
is believed to have been formed during
(Macro-Feature 7
29F-131 and 139)
Sealing the Brush period ash was a 0.4-0.5
foot thick layer of dark greyish brown sandy
loam containing large quantities of broken
brick, mortar and charcoal, as well as over
17.5%
Architectural
Kitchen/Dining
39.9%
Architectural
8.7%
1.7%
Personal
Kitchen/Dining
Gunsmith
Related
71.9%
2.2%
Personal
0.7%
Gunsmithing
1.3%
33.5%
Bone/Shell
5.3%
Other
16.8%
Bone/Shell
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0.6%
Other
Number of Artifacts
(Total=2933)
0
Note: “Architectural” category includes nails, window glass, architectural hardware;
“Kitchen/Dining” includes ceramics, glass, cutlery and other items used for storing,
preparing and consuming food; “Personal” includes clothing items, jewlery, tobacco
pipes, groomomg items, etc.
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Number of Artifacts
(Total=4112)
Figure 29. Artifact distribution in primary ash layer of
John Brush period ravine fill.
Figure 30. Artifact distribution in renovation debris layer
of John Brush period ravine fill.
42
Brush’s enlarging of the house during the
early 1720s.
A fragment of a Westerwald stoneware
chamberpot from the ash layer crossmended
with a sherd found in the Brush period sheet
refuse layer (Macro-Feature 12). Additionaly, fragments from a delft tile, a Fulham-
type stoneware mug, and a Yorktown-type
coarse earthenware bowl were recovered
from both the privy fill and the ash layer of
the ravine, establishing their relationship
with the Brush tenure on the property.
Table 3 lists the ceramic and glass vessels recovered from the renovation debris ra-
Table 3.
Ceramic and Glass Vessels from the John Brush Household
Type
Form
Delftware
Fireplace tile
Cup
Plate
Dish
Porringer
Drug jar
Lid
Punch bowl
Chamberpot
Bowl
Saucer
Coffee cup
Tea bowl
Hollow
Cup
Plate
Saucer
Bowl
Bowl
Hollow
Mug
Cream jug
Coffee pot
Mug
Chamberpot
Storage jar
Storage jar
Mug
Jug
Milkpan
Bowl
Milkpan
Wine bottle
Pharmaceutical bottle
Stemmed glass
Tumbler
Decanter
Pitcher
Jelly glass
Crucible
Chinese porcelain
Nottingham stoneware
Dipped white salt glazed stoneware
White salt glaze stoneware
Westerwald stoneware
Fulham stoneware
English stoneware
Yorktown-type
Red sandy ware
Glass
Leaded glass
Ceramic fireclay
No. of Vessels
Total
43
% of Total
8
1
14
1
1
9
1
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
3
2
4
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
9
4
1
8
3
1
32
2
5
1
1
1
1
2
5.6
0.7
9.8
0.7
0.7
6.3
0.7
3.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
3.5
0.7
2.1
1.4
2.8
0.7
1.4
0.7
2.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.4
0.7
6.3
2.8
0.7
5.6
2.1
0.7
22.4
0.7
3.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.4
143
100.0
tural research, a new picture of John Brush
begins to emerge. Although a gunsmith of
middling wealth, Brush was leading a
lifestyle beyond that of other artisans of the
period in several ways. The central passage
plan of Brush’s house, which was to become
a standard feature of colonial period Chesapeake houses, was just making its appearance during the first quarter of the eighteenth century. This floor plan, with two
rooms opening off of the passage, embraced
new ideas about privacy and specialized use
of space (Wenger 1986). The items of high
social display listed in Brush’s inventory
were clustered in one room, suggesting that
Brush was beginning to participate in these
new concepts about segregation of space.
Additionally, Brush appeared to be concerned about quantity of space, since within
several years of purchasing his property and
constructing his dwelling, he was able to
build an addition and almost double his
useable living space. Evidence from trash
deposits suggest Brush may have changed
from casement to more modern sash windows at the time he added the northeastern
wing. The discovery of delft tiles also indicate that his fireplaces had decorative surrounds.
Brush’s estate of household and shop
goods, valued at only £90, placed him
squarely in the middling ranks of York
County society, yet some of his personal possessions suggest that Brush was emulating
his social and economic betters. Although
the 1727 inventory describes some of Brush’s
furniture as old, he was able to set his table
with finely painted English delftwares and
a few pieces of Chinese porcelain. Various
other decorative and luxury items, such as
a silver watch, a looking glass, pictures, and
a tea table, also set Brush apart from other
artisans of the time.
Of Brush’s table- and teawares, the most
prevalent ceramic is delftware, as was prob-
vine layer. There were anumber of ceramic
fragments which cross-mended with sherds
from the earlier ash layer of the ravine.
Summary of Results
Combining archaeological data from the
three excavations at Brush-Everard provided a much better opportunity to formulate an accurate portrayal of John Brush.
Relying on primary documents alone suggests that John Brush was a middling artisan and keeper of the arms at the Magazine. An inventory taken at his death
showed a total estate value at £90, a figure
which placed him squarely in the middling
ranks of society. Some of his furniture was
described as “old” in the 1727 inventory.
When Brush died, an inventory was prepared of his estate (OW 16:424, 438). The
estate included household possessions as
well as equipment and supplies associated
with his shop. The house was furnished with
some items which were unusual for a man
of his social standing: a tea table, a desk, a
corner cupboard, and a chest of drawers.
Carson and Walsh (1981) found that owning desks, chests of drawers and other items
of case furniture was very unusual for a
man of Brush’s economic standing during
the second decade of the eighteenth century.
His personal possessions also included a silver watch and a clock. The kitchen equipment listed in the inventory is meager (one
jar, one earthenware and two stoneware
pots and one dripping pan), belying the
wide range or kitchen, table and teawares
found in Brush’s trash deposits. Brush was
also listed as owning a horse and equipage.
No stables have been located through archaeological excavations on the property,
however, and it is possible that Brush
boarded his horse elsewhere.
Through combining information from
archaeological, documentary, and architec44
ably true of most colonial households at that
time. Excavation also revealed two Chinese
porcelain plates, as well as eight porcelain
teawares (see Table 3). That Brush had porcelain at all was unexpected, but finding
more tea- than tableware vessels in this expensive ceramic was not. Since the taking
of tea was a social activity, ceramics used in
this ceremony would be more visible than
those associated with dining; hence more
money would have been expended on tea
vessels. The porcelain drinking vessels were
handleless cups and saucers painted in red
and blue, while Brush’s beverage serving
vessels (a coffeepot and a milk jug) were of
white salt glazed stoneware. Such unmatched tea and tablewares were common
throughout the eighteenth century (Miller,
personal communication, 1992).
Walsh (1983:111) has shown that, by the
1730s, middling families were beginning to
acquire amenities which had been previously restricted to the gentry. Items such as
teawares, clocks, mirrors, and prints were
finding their way into the homes of middling planters. Urban artisans and laborers
were purchasing many more amenities than
their rural counterparts. Perhaps this phenomenon is reflected in the inventory and
archaeological remains of John Brush. He
had begun to exhibit some social display
items, such as a clock and looking glass,
while his English delftware and Chinese
porcelain teawares would have probably
served display as well as functional purposes.
The majority of Brush’s personal possessions, however, were still more indicative of
his middle class status. For example, Carr
and Walsh (1994) discovered in their analysis of York County probate inventories that
acquiring and upgrading beds and bedding
were uppermost in the expenditures of early
eighteenth-century York County citizens of
all economic classes. In the period 1723-
1732, the probate inventories of urban York
County estates valued between £50 and
£225 show that 20.7% of the estate value
consists of beds and bedding (compared with
of only 7% of Brush’s estate value). On the
other hand, Brush had 11% of his wealth
invested in timepieces, compared with 4.3%
for the average urban York County citizen
of the same economic class (Walsh 1983).
Like others of his economic group
(Carson and Walsh 1981), Brush’s inventory
contained no specialized kitchen equipment, such as bake ovens, egg slices, or copper pans. The pollen samples and faunal material from the privy, however, suggest a varied diet. This diet was one which was flavored with spices, and supplemented with
fruits and vegetables, such as potatoes and
broccoli. Indeed, broccoli, which required
specialized growing conditions, was one of
the exotic vegetables which were favored by
elite classes (Stiverson and Butler 1977:34).
Although Brush’s personal possessions
(such as the porcelain, the teawares, and a
mirror) bespeak of a man of wealth, the remainder of his household goods show a
man who falls squarely within his wealth
category (Carson and Walsh 1981). His purchases of amenities make him a man ahead
of his time; he was several decades ahead
of the push by the middle class to purchase
luxury items. The extent of renovation and
new building activity taking place on the lot
during his ownership suggests someone of
greater means or, at least, an expectation of
greater means.
The archaeological data, particularly
when joined with recent architectural analysis, however, paints a much different picture of John Brush than the documentary
records alone. Here was a man who was
able to substantially enlarge his modest
home within several years of its construction; in fact, evidence suggests that this renovation was envisioned as part of the origi45
45
nal house design. Additionally, the northern room of the house was plastered—an
embellishment which would have lifted
Brush’s house above that of typical middling
artisan. Fragments of delft fireplace tiles also
found in Brush period assemblages suggest
additional decorative elements in his home
or other outbuildings. Additionally, fragments of casement window lead suggest
that Brush was upgrading the appearance
of his home, by switching from casement to
more modern sash windows.
During the three excavations which
have taken place on the Brush-Everard
property, no structural trace of a Brush period kitchen was ever located (the currently
standing kitchen was built after 1730). Examining the artifacts from features and layers dating to the early eighteenth century
suggests, however, that a kitchen may have
stood at the southern end of Lot 166. Artifact distribution maps of layers formed on
Lot 166 during the early eighteenth century
show a concentration of kitchen-related artifacts, animal bone, and oyster shell along
the southern portion of the lot (see Fig. 26).
Additionally, comparing ceramic vessels
from features on the southern half of Lot
165 (which contained the house) with those
recovered on Lot 166 showed a distinct difference in vessel functions (Fig. 31). A higher
percentage of food preparation and storage
vessels, forms which would have been more
commonly used in kitchens, were recovered
from the ravine on Lot 166. More table and
teawares, used in the house, were recovered
from features near the house. Although this
is slender evidence upon which to base a
conclusion, spatial analysis of ceramics from
the van Sweringen site in St. Mary’s City,
Maryland supports this same pattern. Ceramic tableware and teaware forms in porcelain and delft were concentrated near the
main house, while storage vessels were more
prevalent near the property’s outbuilding
40
Number of Artifacts
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Tableware/
Teawares
Food
Preparation/
Storage
House Area (Lot 165)
Chamberware/
Medicine
Tiles
Ravine Area (Lot 166)
Note: House area includes sheet refuse near house, privy and trash pit (1269A); ravine
area includes sheet refuse and two ravine layers. Total count: house area = 68, ravine
area = 52.
Figure 31. Spatial variation in ceramic vessel function—
house and ravine areas.
(King and Miller 1987:50). It is possible that
a Brush period kitchen stood in the area directly north of the house, where construction and destruction of an early twentiethcentury house obliterated all traces of the
earlier building.
Examining the ceramic and glass vessels
from Brush’s assemblages also suggests that
he was no ordinary artisan. Research on
York County probate inventories and archaeological assemblages indicates that,
while most families would have owned ceramics in the first quarter of the eighteenth
century (Walsh 1989), these ceramics would
have been largely restricted to earthenware
utilitarian vessels, such as milkpans, bowls
and storage jars. The Brush ceramics and
table glass, however, showed an amazing
diversity of vessel forms and types (Table 4).
Delft was by far the most important ceramic,
making up 65% of table- and teawares
(which were present in delft, white salt
glazed stoneware and porcelain). Delft
served primarily as a tableware for plates
and serving bowls, while Chinese porcelain,
the most expensive ceramic available at this
time period, was more prevalent in teaware
forms (70% of porcelain vessels were
teawares such as cups and saucers). White
salt glazed stoneware was used for tea serv46
Table 4.
Brush Ravine Layer—Brick Layers
Vessel Type Organized by Form
Type
Form
Yorktown-type
Bowl
Milk pan
Porringer
Drug jar
Fireplace tile
Lid
Punch bowl
Chamberpot
Storage jar
Coffee pot
Mug
Mug
Saucer
Crucible
Wine stem
Tumbler
Delftware
Fulham stoneware
White salt glazed stoneware
Dipped white salt glazed
Chinese porcelain
Ceramic fireclay
Leaded glass
No. of Vessels
Total
ing vessels, including a milk jug and a coffee pot). Thus, with this fancy assemblage,
Brush would have been able to seat his
guests around a tea table in the hall, a room
furnished with a clock, a desk and a looking glass.
In the early eighteenth century, tea was
very expensive, so just the ability to buy and
serve tea was a status indicator itself. The
ceramics and table glass recovered from the
privy and other Brush period assemblages
suggests that Brush, a middle class artisan,
enjoyed a much higher quality of life than
that which documentary research shows
that his peers enjoyed. The teabowls,
cappucino cup, saucers and slop bowls, plus
the listing of a tea table in the 1727 inventory of John Brush’s estate, indicate Brush’s
participation in the formal proceeding of the
tea ceremony.
In the third decade of the eighteenth
century, only 33% of York Country inventoried urban estates valued between £226 and
% of Total
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4.8
9.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
14.3
4.8
14.3
4.8
4.8
9.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
21
100.0
£490 listed tea or teawares (Carr and Walsh
1994:87), with the prohibitive cost of tea and
its furniture restricting its access to only the
very wealthy. Brush, with his entire estate
valued at only £90 at his death, certainly
did not fit into this economic category. Moreover, during that same time period, no inventoried urban York County estates valued
between £50 and £94 contained listings of
tea or teaware.
Even more surprising than the delft
teawares were the Chinese porcelain tea and
tablewares included in the Brush period deposits. The costliness of porcelain in the early
eighteenth century guaranteed its place as
a symbol of wealth and status. For this reason, porcelain was commonly found only
in the households of the upper class until
the second quarter of the eighteenth century
(Noël Hume 1969:257), and generally was
not available to middle and lower classes in
local stores until the 1740s (Martin 1988).
Two molded Silesian pedestal stemmed wine
47
glasses, popular between 1710 and 1730, as
well as a decanter and jelly glass, were also
recovered. Such expensive and elaborate
table glass would have been, like the delft
and porcelain teawares, a visible symbol of
Brush’s purchasing power.
Analysis of probate inventories (Fig. 32)
suggest that urban dwellers were more
likely to participate in the purchase of
amenities, such as teawares, clocks and
lighting devices, than their rural counterparts (Carr and Walsh1994). Comparing
the ceramics excavated on the Brush site
with those of his contemporaries certainly
shows this to be the case. While Brush’s food
preparation, storage and distribution ceramics were found in percentages comparable to those at the Clifts IV and John Hicks
sites, quite a change was evident in vessels
associated with beverage consumption. Traditional beverage consumption forms were
almost nonexistent in Brush’s assemblage;
instead this site shows a much higher incidence of ceramic vessels used for serving and
drinking tea and other hot beverages.
A higher incidence of gun and
blacksmithing debris in the southern portion of the property suggests that the shop
was located on Lot 165. Although structural
remains of the shop were not positively located through archaeological excavation,
Food Preparation/Storage
Food Distribution
Beverage Storage
(Bottles)
Food Consumption
<0.1%
Traditional Beverage
Serving
Traditional Beverage
Consumption
New Beverage Punch
Bowls
<0.1%
New Beverage Serving
New Beverage
Consumption
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percent of Total Artifacts
Clifts IV (1720-1730)
John Hicks (1721-1740)
John Brush (1717-1727)
Note: Clifts IV and John Hicks data taken from Anne Yentsch,1990, "Minimum Vessel
Lists as Evidence of Change in Folk and Country Traditions of Food Use." Historical
Archaeology 24(3): 24-53.
Food preparation/storage vessels include butter pots, milk pans, storage jars, olive
jars, bowls, colanders and pipkens, etc. Food distribution vessels include bowls,
basins, platters, dishes, salts, chargers and pie pans. Food consumption vessels
include plates and porringers. Traditional beverage consumption and serving vessels include ewers, beakers, jugs, drinking pots and tankards. New beverage consumption and serving vessels include cans, mugs, chocolate cups, teabowls, saucers, teapots, coffeepots, creamers, and sugar dishes (see Yentsch 1990: 28 for
further information).
Total count: Clifts IV = 185, John Hicks = 263, John Brush = 114.
Figure 32. Food related vessels: John Brush and his
contemporaries.
the 1967 excavation revealed two shallow
slot trenches, which possibly represent the
locations for wooden sills of an earlier building. These slots predated the 1730s kitchen
and significant amounts of gunsmithing
debris located in this area suggest this possible structure may have been Brush’s shop.
48
Chapter 7.
The John Brush Privy
O
nly one outbuilding which can be
positively identified with John
Brush has been located through archaeological research. This structure
(Macro-Feature 2) was apparently a privy
foundation, measuring 8 x 10 feet, with a
large (6 x 5 foot) rectangular pit inside (Figs.
33 and 34). It is believed that Brush constructed this building around the time he
completed the house. Sometime during the
ten years Brush owned the property before
his death in 1727, he removed the frame superstructure from the building foundation
and began to fill the privy pit with gunsmithing and household debris. Over 7,000
artifacts were recovered from the privy fill,
with only the bottom soil layers showing any
evidence of actually being related to use of
the privy. The pit appeared to have been
filled quickly, probably within less than a
year, and its remaining brickwork dismantled for use elsewhere. A probable reason for the rapid demise of this building will
be discussed later in the report. Due to the
short depositional period, its unusually good
preservation of ethnobotanical materials,
and to the variety and amount of artifacts
recovered in association with it, this privy
proved to be one of the more interesting features excavated in Williamsburg in recent
years.
Figure 33. Plan of privy foundations.
from proceeding any further, the report concluded that this was the robbed wall line of
a colonial period building.
The primary goal of the 1988 excavation
along the southern border of the BrushEverard property was to uncover the remains of a nineteenth-century slave house.
Once mains of an 8 x 10 foot structure, which
had once comprised a frame building seated
on a brick foundation. Intact brick remained
only at the northeastern and southwestern
corners of the building, the rest of the brick
having been removed, probably for reuse
elsewhere. Traces of the foundation were
evident in concentrations of crushed brick
which were present extending south and
west from the northwest corner of the structure. The interior of the building contained
a number of clear soil layers extending into
a deep pit which had been dug inside the
building.
The pit, which measured 5 x 6 feet, was
originally excavated to a depth of five feet
into the surrounding subsoil clay. Containing slightly sloping walls and a flat bottom,
Feature Description
This building was first discovered during
Noël Hume’s 1967 excavation, when the intact southwest corner of its brick foundation was uncovered and mapped. Although
time constraints prevented the excavation
49
Figure 34. Profile of privy pit.
the pit showed no evidence that it had been
lined with brick or wood. A water line,
which had been installed to service the
Brush-Everard House sometime early in the
twentieth century, cut through the center of
the privy foundation and pit, causing some
soil disturbance down to a depth of 2.5 feet
below the present ground surface. Although
the placement of this water pipe made excavation logistically difficult, it did not significantly damage the integrity of the feature.
was hand excavated and the soil screened
through one-quarter and one-eight-inch
wire mesh. Ten liter soil samples were saved
from each layer of fill for flotation, seed, pollen, parasite and phytolith analysis. All artifacts were retained, with the exception of
brick, mortar and charcoal, of which
samples were taken.
The Privy as an Exercise in Site
Formation Processes
The archaeological record is created
through sets of events which have been labeled “formation processes” (Schiffer 1987).
Schiffer discusses two main types of formation processes; cultural formation processes,
which are the result of human behavior, and
non-cultural formation processes, resulting
from environmental events such as erosion,
decay or seimic activity.
Through examining the privy remains,
the composition of its soil layers, its artifacts
and ecofacts, and the relationships of these
Excavation Techniques
After the structure was revealed in plan
view through removing the overlying soil
layers, the building was divided into four
equal-sized quadrants for excavation. This
was done to gain some control over artifact
distribution within the feature. Each layer
or tip of fill was assigned a layer number
and a suffix representing the four subdivisions within each layer (a-d). The feature
50
Table 5.
Hypothesized Sequence of Events—John Brush Privy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Event
Date Range
Privy construction
Privy partially filled through human waste disposal
Mortgage of property to south to Archibald Blair
Removal of frame building from foundation,
brick foundation left intact
Silting of soil layers 167 & 168 into privy
House renovation
Filling of pit with household shop & renovation debris
Removal of foundation wall & creation of robber's trench
Erosion along edges of robber’s trench into pit
East-west fence constructed over former privy location
Fence maintained 18th/19th c.
ca. 1717-1719
ca. 1719-1721
May 1721
ca. 1721
with the surrounding soil, a historical sequence of events can be reconstructed for
the privy.
The soil was examined in terms of its
physical composition, its chemical components, its placement within the privy pit,
and its artifactual content. Each of these
factors was used to help determine the origin of the soil layer and what information it
could provide about the life cycle of this
structure, and on a more general level, about
the Brush-Everard property as a whole. The
artifacts were categorized by type and examined for patterns. It appears that the soil
layers were generated by three distinct activities: (1) actual use of the privy, (2) silting
or erosion, and (3) deliberate deposition of
household, construction and industrial debris (Table 5).
John Brush purchased his lots on Palace
Green in 1717 and, in accordance with city
building ordinances, had completed his
house within two years. The construction
of the privy probably took place during the
house construction or soon thereafter. The
privy was located along the southern perimeter of the property, at a distance of 20 feet
from the house. Sometime during the ten
1720s
ca. 1721-1723
1721-1727
98, 137, 142
Soil Layer
169-173
167-168
139-166
post 1730
years Brush owned the property, he removed the frame superstructure from the
building foundation and began to fill the
privy pit with gunsmithing and household
debris. The pit appears to have been filled
quickly, probably within less than a year,
with any remaining brickwork dismantled
for use elsewhere. One possible explanation
for the rapid demise of this building may be
the fact that it straddled the property line
between Lot 165, owned by Brush, and Lot
164, owned by ordinary-keeper William
Levingston. Although no evidence of a
boundary dispute has been located in the
York County records, it is possible that
Levingston, or later owner Archibald Blair,
who mortgaged the adjoining property from
the financially troubled Levingston in 1721,
may have wanted the building removed.
Of the sixteen layers of fill within the
privy pit, only the bottom five (Layers 169173) showed evidence that they were generated by actual use of the privy. These layers showed mixing, as might be expected in
the wet environment typical of a functioning privy. Interspersed within several of the
layers were washed lenses of silt. The bottom three layers were grey in color and, al51
though not particularly organic in appearance, contained dietary pollen, vegetable
and fruit seeds, and human intestinal parasites. Additionally, soil testing showed that
these layers contained very high levels of
phosphorus. Analysis at the King’s Reach
site (Pogue 1988) and at Clocker’s Fancy
(Keeler 1978), both colonial sites in Maryland, showed high concentrations of phosphorus in privies, animal pens, and in areas
where chamberpots had been emptied.
These bottom layers also contained proportionally fewer artifacts than layers deposited later, in what is believed to have been
deliberate disposal of household and industrial debris.
Interestingly, of the eleven complete or
completely mendable ceramic and glass
items discovered in the privy pit (Fig. 35 and
36), ten of these were recovered from layers
believed to have been created primarily
through human waste disposal (Fig. 37). Additionally, six white clay tobacco pipes, with
unbroken bowls and at least six inches of
stem attached were also found in the bottom layers of the privy (Fig. 38). Recovery
of unbroken or virtually reconstructable
items from archaeological contexts is rare,
and usually indicates some specialized discard behavior or loss. The pipes, ceramics
and glass items may perhaps most reasonably be explained as the result of loss dur-
ing activities such as smoking and drinking
in the privy building.
Some 99% of the material from Layer 169
was animal bone. Some 543 bones were
found, including, in addition to the nearlycomplete skeletons of at least two cats, dietary remains of pig, cow, striped bass,
chicken and sheep or goat.
Layers 167 and 168 appear to have been
created through erosional silting after the
privy superstructure was removed from its
foundation. Composed of silted sand particles containing small patches of yellow subsoil clay, these layers were found only along
the perimeter of the pit. As might be expected, these layers contained low artifact
totals (19 and 86 items, respectively).
The remainder of the soil (Layers 139166) appears to have been created as the result of deliberate pit filling. The artifacts, sizable in number, suggest three sources for the
garbage: household trash in the form of broken ceramics, glass and faunal bone; waste
and gun parts from Brush’s gunsmithing
operations; and architectural debris from a
renovation or building episode, probably the
renovation of the main house.
Figure 35. Delft teacup and teabowl recovered from the
Brush privy.
Figure 36. Complete wine bottles from privy.
Artifacts
Excavation of soil layers from the interior of
the privy building and its pit revealed a to-
52
Figure 37. Profile of privy showing layers containing
unbroken artifacts. (Note: For a complete profile of privy
with layerdescriptions, see Fig. 34.)
Figure 38. Four of six virtually complete tobacco
pipes from privy.
tal of almost 5,000 artifacts. These artifacts
included the typical range of household
items recovered through excavation on
Anglo-American sites of the early eighteenth
century (Fig. 39). Aiding in attributing this
feature to the John Brush household were
numerous artifacts which could be associated with Brush’s gunsmithing operation,
namely, gun parts, gun flints, gunmaking
tools, and industrial waste in the form of
slag and coal. The smithing debris was scattered throughout the privy (with the exception of the bottom five layers), strongly suggesting that the feature was completely filled
during Brush’s ownership of the lot (Fig. 40).
for the trees used in constructing the framing (Heikkenen 1984). Several privy soil layers (Layers 165 and 166) contained many
complete bricks and even large mortared sections of brick wall. These segments of wall
may represent portions of the eastern foundation of the first period Brush-Everard
house, removed in order to allow joining
new brickwork of the wing, or destruction
of the southeastern wing. Although the
majority of curated architectural artifacts
from the privy were handwrought nails,
various woodworking tools, including a
plane and a drill, and architectural hardware, including locks, hinges, and escutcheons, were also present.
Fragments of eight delft tiles were recovered from the Brush period assemblages, including five from the privy. Delft tiles were
used to trim the perimeter of fireplace openings and are a common artifact on BritishAmerican colonial sites. The Brush tiles,
which were painted in blue landscape and
pastoral scenes contained within concentric
circles, exhibited two main types of corner
designs. Some of the examples were painted
with what is known as the barred ox-head,
the most common design used throughout
the eighteenth century at Bristol and
Liverpool (Horne 1989:27). Noël Hume
(1969) dates this motif to the first half of the
Architectural Artifacts
Many of the soil layers in the privy contained
high percentages of brick, mortar and other
architectural debris. It is believed that these
architectural remains were discarded during Brush’s enlarging of the house sometime
between 1721 and 1723. Dendrochronology
performed in 1984 on the Brush-Everard
house reveals that the main portion of the
house, measuring 44 x 20 feet, was built between 1717 and 1719. Sometime within a
few years, Brush probably constructed the
northeastern wing, since dendrochronology
indicates that 1720 was the last growth year
53
16.1%
Architectural
Ceramics
8.5%
Bottle Glass
34.4%
Table Glass
0.9%
Other Kitchen
<0.1%
Gunsmithing Layer
0.6%
Unidentified Metal
2.8%
0.4%
Clothing/Personal
1.6%
Tobacco
0.3%
Other Tools
Bone
30.8%
Shell
3.2%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Number of Artifacts
(Total = 7452)
Figure 39. Range of artifacts from privy fill (Layers 131173).
Figure 40. Distribition of gunsmithing debris within
privy fill. (Note: For a complete profile of privy with layer
descriptions, see Fig. 34.)
eighteenth century. The other tiles whose
corner motifs could be determined were
painted with the “bug” or Spider’s-head,”
which was common on tiles dating from the
second half of the seventeenth century and
into the eighteenth century (Noël Hume
1969:291). Thus, these date ranges for the
corner designs and of the tile central designs
fall well within the time period of Brush’s
tenure on Lots 165 and 166 (Noël Hume
1969:293). None of these tiles showed any
signs of mortar on their reverse sides, suggesting that they had been rejects damaged
in shipping or in construction itself.
teabowls and a cappucino cup were also
present (Fig. 41). Delft was not particularly
suited as a teaware, since the tin glaze and
low-fired earthenware body was not able
to withstand repeated contact with boiling
water. Chinese porcelain, the most prestigious and expensive type of ceramic available in the early eighteenth century, was less
well represented in the assemblage, but occurred more frequently in vessel forms used
in tea-drinking. This is not unusual; most of
the porcelain listed in early eighteenth-century Virginia inventories were teawares. In
the early eighteenth century, the expense of
tea and the specialized equipment which accompanied it limited this beverage’s use in
the colonies to the prosperous and governing classes (Roth 1961:65). It was somewhat
Ceramics and Glass
A total of 89 ceramic and glass vessels were
recovered from the privy (Table 6). Ceramic
forms which would have been used and
stored in the house (rather than kitchenwares) were prevalent. Table- and teawares
made up 32 (or 65%) of the 49 ceramic vessels, with storage, toilet and food preparation vessels comprising the remainder. Delft,
a relatively inexpensive decorated earthenware, was most prevalent, comprising 81%
of all the delft and porcelain vessels. Delft
was more likely to occur in tableware forms
(plates and bowls), although five delft
Figure 41. Delft boat plate from the privy.
54
Table 6.
Ceramic and Glass Vessels from the Brush Privy
Type
Form
Yorktown-type
Milk pan
Bowl
Bowl
Saucer
Coffee cup
Chamberpot
Hollow vessel
Fireplace tile
Ointment pot
Plate
Punch bowl
Tea bowl
Cup
Saucer
Plate
Bowl
Storage jar
Mug/tankard
Storage jar
Bowl
Mug/tankard
Stemmed glass
Decanter
Pitcher
Jelly glass
Wine bottle
Pharmaceutical bottle
Delftware
Chinese porcelain
Westerwald stone
Fulham stoneware
Nottingham stoneware
Dipped white salt glazed stoneware
Leaded glass
Glass
No. of Vessels
Total
surprising therefore to find Chinese porcelain teawares, albeit in small quantities, in
the privy of a middle class artisan, indicating not only that Brush was participating
in the social act of taking tea, but also that
he and his guests were able to enjoy this
beverage from fashionable and expensive
Chinese porcelain vessels.
% of Total
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
5
8
11
2
5
1
2
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
3
1
1
1
27
1
2.2
1.1
2.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
5.6
9.0
12.4
2.2
5.6
1.1
2.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
3.4
4.5
1.1
1.1
3.4
1.1
1.1
1.1
30.3
1.1
89
100.0
factured by Henry Hoar, an English
pipemaker who was operating between
1696 and 1723 (Walker 1977:1444). The
“HH” pipes were all found in the lower four
levels of the privy, representing privy use
rather than abandonment and filling. Also
present were pipes bearing the initials “AS”
and “HS,” about which no information
could be located.
Tobacco Pipes
Gun Parts and Metalworking Debris
Twelve marked pipebowls were recovered
from the privy fill; of these nine were marked
with the initials “HH” astride the back of
the bowl (Fig. 42). These pipes were manu-
Brush, as one of Williamsburg’s earliest gunsmiths and metalworkers, operated from his
Palace Green lots. The analysis of gun parts
55
discussion of Brush and artifacts associated
with his operation is presented in Appendix 2.
Faunal Analysis
Some 2337 bones from the Brush privy were
analyzed in 1990-91 by Stephen Atkins of
Colonial Williams-burg’s Zooarchaeology
Lab. At least twenty-one species were represented (Table 7), inlcuding a variety of fish,
turtles, domestic fowl, wild mammals, and
commensal species such as cats and rats.
The overwhelming majority of remains,
however, both from the standpoint of raw
numbers and even more so from the standpoint of meat contributed to the diet, came
from the major domestic livestock—cattle,
swine, and sheep or goats.
Figure 42. “HH” marked pipebowl like those from the
privy.
and other metalworking debris from the
privy and other Brush period features and
layers on the site can provide information
about the range of Brush’s activities and the
state of available weaponry in Williamsburg
in the early eighteenth century. A complete
Table 7.
Taxa Identified
FISHES
Class Osteichthyes (Bony Fish)
Acipenser spp. (Sturgeon)
Perca flavescens (Yellow Perch)
Morone saxatilis (Striped Bass)
Family Sciaenidae (Croaker or Drum)
Pogonias cromis (Black Drum)
Sciaenops ocellatus (Red Drum)
Cynoscion regalis (Weakfish)
MAMMALS
Class Mammalia (Mammal)
Class Mammalia I (Large Mammal)
Class Mammalia II (Medium Mammal)
Class Mammalia III (Small Mammal)
Sylvilagus floridanus (Eastern Cottontail)
Oryctolagus cuniculus (Domestic Rabbit)
Sciurus carolinensis (Eastern Gray Squirrel)
Rattus spp. (Old World Rat)
Felis domesticus (Domestic Cat)
Equus spp. (Horse or Ass)
Order Artiodactyla I (Sheep, Goat, Deer, or Pig)
Order Artiodactyla II (Sheep, Goat, or Deer)
Sus scrofa (Domestic Pig)
Odocoileus virginianus (White-Tailed Deer)
Family Bovidae (Cow, Sheep, or Goat)
Bos taurus (Domestic Cow)
Ovis aries/Capra hircus (Domestic Sheep or Goat)
REPTILES/AMPHIBIANS
Order Anura (Toad or Frog)
Chrysemys spp. (Slider or Cooter)
BIRDS
Class Aves (Bird)
Class Aves/Mammalia III (Bird/Small Mammal)
Anser spp. (Goose)
Anser anser (Domestic Goose)
Anas platyrhynchos (Domestic Duck or Mallard)
Duck spp. (Duck)
Family Phasianidae (Grouse, Partridge, or
Pheasant)
Meleagris gallopavo (Turkey)
Gallus gallus (Chicken)
OTHER
Subphylum Vertebrata (Other Vertebrate)
56
Biomass estimates (described in Appendix 3) indicate that, like virtually every other
site in the Chesapeake, this one was dominated by cattle, with 69.6% of the utilized
meat (Fig. 43). Pig was a distant second at
11.5% of the total biomass. No other taxon
represented more than 1.7%. It seems clear
that beef was by far the predominant meat
eaten; as Bowen (1992) has noted, it appears
to have been much later that the impression
arose that it was in fact pork, rather than
beef, that was the signature meat of historic
Virginia.
Sheep or goat (Ovis aries/Capra hircus)
was present in small numbers, as was whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Small
mammals, including rabbit (Sylvilagus
floridanus) and grey squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), were probably eaten. Horse,
cat, and rat were also found, but are unlikely to have been dietary remains.
A variety of birds were found, including duck, goose, chicken, and turkey. All
were kept as domesticates in the eighteenth
century, although wild ducks and geese
were also commonly taken.
A few turtle bones were found, and
turtles appear reguarly in eighteenth-century receipt books. A few frog or toad bones
most likely were from accidental visitors.
A number of commonly-taken fish were
found, including sturgeon (Acipenser spp.),
yellow perch (Perca flavescens), striped bass
(Morone americana), black drum (Pogonias
cromis), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), and
weakfish (Cynoscion spp.).
Cattle
69.6%
Swine
11.6%
Caprines
1.7%
Fish
0.2%
Turtles
0.0%
Wild Birds
0.0%
Wild Mammals
0.3%
Domestic Birds
0.4%
Commensals
0.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Pct. of Total Biomass
Figure 43. Relative dietary importance based on biomass.
in the studies of oyster shell allow information about oyster harvesting, marketing, and
preparation to be gleaned from this source.
An extended discussion on oyster shell
analysis and its ramifications can be found
in Kent (1988); the specific results from the
analysis of the oyster shell from the Brush
privy will be discussed here.
The privy oysters were examined individually in three ways. The dorsal-ventral/
anterior-posterior dimensions of each shell
were first measured in order to determine
the height to length ratios (HLR) for each
shell (Fig. 44). This measurement can be correlated to marine environment (Galtsoff
1964:18-20). For example, an oyster which
grows on a firm, sandy marine bottom,
known as a sand oyster, will develop a shell
whose HLR is less than 1.3. Bed oysters,
which grow on a mixed sand and mud substrate, have an HLR of between 1.3 and 2.0.
Channel oysters (which grow in clusters)
and reef oysters have an HLR of over 2.0.
By analyzing height to length ratios, the
marine environment from which the oysters
were obtained can be determined.
Secondly, the shells were examined for
the presence of attached organisms. Many
marine organisms attach themselves to oysters while they are in their natural environment, and the presence and distribution of
such organisms can assist in interpreting en-
Oyster Shell Analysis
Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) were an important and abundant food source in colonial Virginia; their shells are found in great
numbers on seventeenth- and eighteenthcentury Chesapeake sites. Recent advances
57
6.6%
Sand Oyster
Bed Oyster
87.7%
Channel Oyster
3.8%
Reef Oyster
0.9%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Number of Shells
(Total = 106)
Figure 45. Oyster types from John Brush privy.
teenth century. The Swiss visitor Frances
Michel wrote in 1701 of oystering in Virginia:
The abundance of oysters is incredible.
There are whole banks of them so that the
ship must avoid them.... The inhabitants
usually catch them on Saturday. It is not
troublesome. A pair of wooded tongs is
needed. Below they are wide, tipped with
iron. At the time of the ebb they row to the
beds and with the long tongs they reach
down to the bottom. They pinch them together tightly and then pull or tear up that
which has been seized (Wharton 1957:3738).
Figure 44. Height-to-length ratio (HLR) for oyster
shells (after Kent 1988).
vironmental conditions, most particularly,
salinity of the water.
Thirdly, the shells were examined for
scarring and damage associated with food
preparation.
Some 231 shells were recovered from the
privy. All complete valves and broken shells
with intact hinges were saved for analysis.
The shells were first separated into upper
and lower valves, which broke down as follows:
Intact
Broken
Lower
Upper
106
93
22
10
Hand tongs such as these were first introduced in the Chesapeake Bay area
around 1700 (Chowning 1990:87). The
Brush oysters, it appears, were not recovered along tidal flats, but were instead
tonged from deeper water.
Oysters can tolerate a wide range of water salinity, but the presence, distribution and
density of organisms such as boring sponges,
polycheate worms, and boring clams indicate general salinity regime from which the
oyster originated. Salinity regimes are
ranked from I to IV, with I representing the
lowest level of salinity. Analysis showed that
the shells from the privy were harvested
from a range of water salinity levels, suggesting recovery from different regions of
the nearby rivers and bay (Fig. 46). This sug-
Since more lower valves were recovered,
analysis was limited to these components.
Measuring height to length ratio shows
that the shells were primarily from bed oysters (Fig. 45). This type of oyster would be
consistent with that recovered by standard
oyster harvesting methods of the early eigh58
in place in Williamsburg by the end of the
first quarter of the eighteenth century.
Salinity Level
I
27.2%
II
Ethnobotanical Analysis
21.6%
III
Excavation of the Brush privy revealed a
large sample of botanical material in the
form of macrofossils (seeds) and pollen.
Analysis of the feature’s seeds was undertaken by Dr. Steve Mrozowski of the University of Massachussetts/Boston (see Appendix 4), and pollen and parasite identification was conducted by Dr. Karl Reinhard
of the University of Nebraska (see Appendices 5 and 6). Both reports contained information which shed light on the diet and
health of the John Brush household.
One of the first tasks undertaken was to
determine if the Brush-Everard feature was
indeed a privy, as it appeared to be, and if
so, which soil layers were deposited in the
pit as a result of human wate disposal. Soil
samples suspected to contain fecal material
based on their physical appearance and position within the feature were submitted for
parasite testing, along with a control layer
from a garbage deposit from the same site
and time period. The privy soils produced
numerous egg sacs from two species of
parasite: human whipworm (Trichuris
trichuria). These species were present in large
enough numbers (over 1,200 eggs per gram
of soil) to indicate that the soil was indeed
derived from latrine deposits (Reinhard
1989). No parasite egg cases were present
in the control sample. Testing also revealed
a wide diversity of species in the pollen and
seed spectra from the same soil strata, a result that also fits the profile typically seen in
primary privy fill.
Two main types of pollen were recovered through the testing: wind-pollinated
plants, such as trees, grasses and weeds,
and insect-pollinated species (Fig. 47). De-
32.0%
32.0%
19.2%
IV
0
10
20
30
40
50
Number of Shells
(Total = 125)
Figure 46. Water salinity ranges of Brush privy oyster
shells.
gests that, rather than being collected from
a single area nearby by Brush or a servant,
an established oyster harvesting and marketing system was in place in Williamsburg
by this time and that Brush was probably
purchasing his oysters in town from hucksters or at the market.
Food preparation techniques can also be
discovered indirectly from oyster shells. Seventy-one percent of the shells which exhibited preparation marks showed signs of
hacking. Hacking, or cracking open the
shells by hand, would allow oysters to be
extracted to be eaten raw or for the preparation of dishes such as scalloped oysters.
Oysters were also smoked and dried, fried,
pickled and fricasseed in eighteenth-century
Virginia (Wharton 1957:46, Jackson
1988:68). Some 21% showed scorch marks
consistent with roasting, while only 4%
showed shucking scars.
In conclusion, it appears that oysters
were an important or preferred food at the
Brush household, since the privy contained
large numbers of discarded shells. The majority of oysters were bed oysters, recovered
by tonging in fairly deep water. The even
distribution from all water salinity ranges
suggests that an oyster marketing system was
59
Parsley
Sage
Barberry
Broccoli
Pecan
Goosefoot
Bean
Sunflower Family
Mint
Sweetgum
Ragweed
Gum
Pine
Grass
Cottonwood
Other
14.05%
Oak
Willow
Caper
85.95%
Unidentified
Maize
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Percent of Sample
Figure 47. Pollen percentages from the John Brush privy (from Karl J. Reinhard,
Texas A & M University).
85.95
termining past site vegetation can be problematic using evidence from wind-pollinated plants, since the ease of contamination from wind-borne pollen must be taken
into account (Pearsall 1989). Insect-pollinated plants, such as those of fruit trees and
vegetables, however, are rarely present in
archaeological features unless they have
been deposited through humn activities,
such as food consumption. Pollen grains,
along with vegetable and fruit seeds, are
ingested with food, and except for their internal cytoplasm, pass through the digestive
tract virtually intact. The insect-pollinated
species can almost always be attributed to
dietary use.
One of the most obvious subjects of inquiry from pollen and seed analysis is that
of dietary reconstruction. Increased attention to pollen and seeds will enable archaeologists to expand their current data on meat
consumption patterns in the Chesapeake
into a more comprehensive interpretation of
colonial diet. Although relatively little work
has been completed to date on historic sites,
some patterns may have already begun to
emerge. Something in excess of 10,000
blackberry or raspberry (Rubus) seeds were
recovered from the privy (Fig. 48). Steve
Mrozowski (personal communication 1996)
and Karl Reinhard (personal communication 1996) have reported simular levels of
blackberry seeds in 18th and 19th century
privies from Rhode Island to North Carolina. Eightennth-century English cookbooks
known to have been sold in Williamsburg,
as well as Mary Randolph’s 1824 “The Virginia Housewife”, list numerous recipies for
blackberry wine, raspberry vinegar, and
raspberry conserves and jams (Hess 1984).
Other seeds from the privy included two
species of pear (Pyrus sp.), muscadine grape
60
Pokeberry
Clover
Black Nightshade
Mapleleaf
Viburnum
Grass
Pear
Other
1.0%
Virginia Creeper
Muscadine Grape
Blackberry
99.0%
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Percent of Sample
Figure 48. Seeds from the John Brush privy (from Stephen A. Mrozowski,
University of Massachussetts, Boston).
(Vitus rotundiflora) and the herb thyme
(Labiatea). Other herbs and spices were also
represented in pollen spectrum: sage (Artemisia), parsley (Apiaceaea) and mint
(Lamiaceae). What makes these spices interesting is their very presence in the privy.
Documentary research using probate inventories from the Williamsburg area has indicated that the use of spices was restricted to
the elite throughout most of the 18th century (Carr and Walsh 1994). A probate inventory, taken at the time of Brush’s death
in 1727, valued his entire estate at £ 90, a
figure that placed him firmly in the lower
middling ranks of society; yet it appears he
was using various herbs and spices to season his food. Equally surprising were the
large quantities of the mustard family, broccoli and cauliflower are seasonal vegetables,
requiring specialized planting and growing
conditions. Gardening manuals of the 18th
and 19th centuries devoted a great deal of
attention to the planting and care of broccoli and cauliflower (Randolph 1826; Lan-
gley 1728; Webb-Prentis Papers). Both were
vegetables whose use were most likely restricted largely to the wealthy, who could
afford the labor it took for the intensive cultivation of these plants.
In addition to their value in dietary reconstruction, pollen and seeds also provide
information on landscape reconstruction.
Pollen from aboreal species, like the pime
(Pinus sp.), oak (Quercus sp), cottonwood
(Populus), and sweet gum (Liquidambar sp.)
found in the privy, could have been carried
by the wind for miles, and thus can be used
to assist in reconstructing landscape on a regional, rather than a site-specific level. Lowgrowing weedy plants, whose pollen movement is somewhat more restricted, can be
used to reconstitute the environment at a
more local level. Weed species, such as ragweed (low spine Asteraceae), goosefoot
(Chenopodiaceae) and pigweed (Amaranth),
which grow predominately in disturbed
soils, indicate the presence of plowing or garden activity on or near the brush site.
61
Another form of evidence, although indirect, for the landscape of the Brush property was provided, surprisingly enough, by
the parasite remains discussed earlier. Both
whipworm and roundworm are transmitted through contact with feces-contaminated soil, which could be expected from
eating poorly-washed vegetables grown in
a garden that had been fertilized with
nightsoil or from poor sanitation practices.
Each of the two species of parasitic worms
from the privy requires different environmental conditions, with the roundworm
flourishing in sunny garden soils, while the
whipworm eggs need moist, shady soils for
incubation (Reinhard, Mrozowski and
Orloski 1986). The much higher numbers of
whipworm discovered in the privy suggest
that the brush property was shaded by trees
in the 1720s.
Two types of seeds recovered from the
privy may offer another path of inquiry, although the evidence remains slender at this
stage. Five seeds from black nightshade
(Solanum nigrum), a weed indigenous to Virginia, were recovered. Although black
nightshade and its close relative, deadly
nightshade (Atropa belladonna) are poisonous to cattle, black nightshade is listed as
having medicinal qualities in “Culpepper’s
Herbal”, dating to the 1670’s. The seeds,
when mixed with horehound and wine, are
listed as a cure for dropsy in another dispensatory. Since the nightshade, like most
fruits and vegetables, is an insect-pollinated
plant, it most likely entered the privy
through being ingested by a human. Seeds
from thyme, another plant with medicinal
qualities, were also present. Thyme is one
of the oldest and most widely used of medicinal herbs, appearing in herbals as early
as the third millennium B.C. (Hess 1981).
Eighteenth-century sources list it, among
other uses, as a pain reliever for decayed
teeth. Sage and mint, other ingredients in
toothache cures, were also present in the
privy. This type of inquiry may shed interesting light into the use of medicinal herbs
in the colonial period. Many cookbooks and
household guides contained recipes and
cures for various ailments, and Gervase
Markham, in “The English Housewife”
(1615), contained among his attributes of the
complete 17th-century woman a knowledge
of physical healing and how to administer
medicine. This line of inquiry may present
an answer for why a middling artisan like
Brush had spices and herbs incorporated
into his diet. They may not have been used
for seasoning his food at all, but for medicinal reasons. Other topics of study suggested
by the results of poolen and seed analysis
are examining the relationships between diet
and health, and how the knowledge of medicinal herbs is transferred through time.
As can be seen from the brief glimpses
provided by this analysis, the study of
ecofacts from archaeological contexts holds
promise for aiding in site interpretation. Although use of pollen from yard or living surface layers can be problematic (see Kelso and
Fisher 1989), and even though pollen and
seeds do not always survive in the soil
(Reinhard 1986), features such as trash pits,
garden beds, and wells have great potential
for this type of analysis. Questions which
before could not be addressed through archaeology, such as those concerning the full
range of dietary and landscape reconstruction on local and regional levels, can be studied using this interdisciplinary scientific approach to analysis.
62
Chapter 8.
The Cary/Russell and Dering Period (1727-1749)
Thomas Barbar and
Elizabeth Russell Cary
cupation that the kitchen now standing on
the lot was constructed in its original form
as a 17 x 20 foot frame building on a brick
foundation (Savedge 1969). The south end
of the kitchen, containing the hearth, was
constructed entirely of brick, as a precaution against fire. A bake oven was also built
on the eastern side of the hearth. Noël
Hume’s 1967 excavations revealed that the
original kitchen’s walls, fireplace and ceiling were plastered (Frank 1967).
Perhaps it was also during Russell’s occupation that the post-supported structure
located during the 1989 archaeological excavations on Lot 166 was constructed (Fig.
49). Measuring 15 feet east to west by at
least 15 feet north to south, and standing
60 feet north of the kitchen, the building predated the currently reconstructed laundry.
Yorktown-type pottery fragments found
within the fill of the postholes indicate that
the building was constructed after 1720
(Barka 1985), and soil layers sealing the
postholes contained ceramics which date the
construction before the mid-eighteenth century. It is postulated that this building may
have been a stable or a slave house, or both.
No evidence of a hearth was discovered, but
the entire building was not excavated (Fig.
50).
Between 1729 and 1742 Elizabeth
Russell married wealthy landholder Henry
Cary II. A clause in Henry Cary’s will states
that the executor of Cary’s will was to pay
Elizabeth Cary £220 “in consideration for
the like Sum by me heretofore received for
the sale of her house in the City of Williamsburg” (Chesterfield County Will Book 1:3642). Henry Cary II lived in Williamsburg during the 1720s, and evidence shows that he
V
ery little is known about the owners
of Lot 165 and 166 during the years
immediately following the death of
John Brush. In his will, Brush divided the
Palace Green lots equally between his unmarried daughter, Elizabeth Brush, and his
son-in-law, Thomas Barbar, husband of
Susannah Brush (OW 16:424). By indenture
dated February 2, 1727, several months after Brush’s death, Elizabeth Brush conveyed
her portion of the property to her brotherin-law for the payment of £80 of Virginia
currency (DAB 3:440). Barbar, a carpenter,
died in May of 1727, leaving his wife
Susannah as the executor of his will. She
probably continued to live on the property
until she sold it, in November of 1728, to
Elizabeth Russell, widow, of York County
(DAB 3:496-497).
The York County records contain very
little information about Elizabeth Russell, but
it appears that she was the former Elizabeth
Brush, married and widowed within the
space of approximately two years. Plans for
marriage may have been the reason she initially sold her share of the house to her
brother-in-law Barbar. It is probable that
Russell continued to reside on the Palace
Street lots at least through May 1729, when
a slave belonging to neighbor Archibald
Blair was accused of having broken into
Russell’s home and stolen some linens (OW
16:592).
The property was retained directly or indirectly by Elizabeth Russell throughout the
1730s, until its sale to William Dering in
1742. It was probably during Russell’s oc63
Figure 49. Brush-Everard property as it is believed to have appeared around 1745.
Figure 50. Archaeological evidence of possible stable or slave quarter at Brush-Everard.
64
and John Brush were at least acquainted.
In 1723, records show the two of them being paid for work they did at the Governor’s
Palace. Cary, like his father, was a contractor and builder, and was responsible for
work on the Powder Magazine, the
President’s House, and the College Chapel,
as well as the Palace. Since his work in Williamsburg continued as late as 1732, it is probable that Cary was residing in town during
this period.
Architectural investigations suggest that
most of the present woodwork inside the
Brush-Everard House was installed during
the Cary/Russell tenure (Wenger 1994).
New trim included “cornices, chairboards,
bases, doors in front rooms, a buffet in the
dining room, and virtually all existing woodwork in the passage, including the stair”
(Wenger 1994:6). At the same time paint
analysis shows that virtually of this trim was
painted a medium reddish brown known
at the time as “Spanish brown.”
By 1742, the same year that William
Dering purchased Lots 165 and 166 from
Henry Cary and his wife Elizabeth (DAB
5:102-105), Cary is listed as residing in
Henrico County. It is possible that Dering
was a friend of Cary prior to the land sale,
since William Byrd’s diary mentions Dering
socializing with a Mr. Cary in 1740 and 1741
(Woodfin and Tinling 1942). Another entry
for 1741 mentions that Dering visited Byrd
at Westover after having come from Mr.
Cary’s house, and later, visiting Mr. Cary’s
with William Byrd.
with his wife Sarah and their four-year-old
son William. There is no documentary or archaeological evidence that he made any
changes to the property when he moved
there. Paint analysis of the interior of the
house, in fact, suggests that by this time the
walls had acquired a thick coat of grime
(Wenger 1994).
In 1735 and 1736, according to the
Pennsylvania Gazette, Dering instructed students in dancing, reading, and needlework
in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania Gazette). He
lived in Gloucester County, on the north side
of the James, prior to moving to Williamsburg (OW 18:549).
Dering was considered a “Gentleman”
by his eighteenth-century peers and was
friends with William Byrd of Westover.
Byrd’s diaries of 1740 and 1741 mention
Dering visiting him numerous times on his
Charles City County plantation (Woodfin
and Tinling 1942). In the company of William Byrd, Dering socialized, played the
French horn, and discussed art prints.
Dering held no public offices during the time
he lived in Williamsburg, but he arranged
and held balls and assemblies at the Capitol
during Court Days in 1745 and 1746.
Perhaps Williamsburg at mid-century
was still not ready for the caprices of entertainment. Like Levingston some twenty
years before, Dering began to have financial difficulties almost immediately after
purchasing Lots 165 and 166. The York
County records indicate that he was being
sued for debt by numerous people during
the early 1740s (WI: 125, 370). He owed William Prentis, merchant of Williamsburg, a
debt of £400, and in 1739, Prentis, George
Gilmer and others brought an action of debt
against him. In May of 1744, Dering was
forced to mortgage his two lots, plus some
slaves and personal property to Bernard
Moore, Gentleman of King William County,
and Peter Hay, Physician, of Williamsburg
The William Dering Household
William Dering, an artist and dancing
teacher, announced the opening of a dancing school at the College in the November
25, 1737 edition of the Virginia Gazette. After purchasing Lots 165 and 166 in 1742,
Dering moved into the John Brush house
65
in order to pay his debt to Prentis (DAB
5:102-105). Dering was to retain use of the
property until default on his mortgage.
A schedule of Dering’s mortgaged
goods, prepared in 1744, show the extravagant lifestyle led by Dering and his family.
Among Dering’s household goods were five
beds, each with assorted bed clothing, numerous chairs, a desk, couch, table, and
chest of drawers. Also included were two
tea tables, each with their furniture, numerous pictures in gilt frames, china (or porcelain) plates, dishes and bowls, plus kitchen
equipment, including pewter dishes, brass
candlesticks, and specialized items, such as
two coffee mills, one fish kettle and a copper coffee pot. Dering also owned one male
and two female adult slaves, plus one slave
child. Four horses, plus a chariot, a chaise,
and a chair without a carriage listed in the
schedule indicate that a stable on the property was virtually a necessity. Perhaps the
post structure located in the 1989 excavations on Lot 165 and 166 is the remains of
such a stable.
Dering was a man living well beyond
his financial means. Although paying off the
1744 debt, he was again forced to mortgage
the property in 1745 to Philip Lightfoot of
Yorktown, with a default date set for May
11, 1746. At this time, another schedule of
Dering’s property was prepared. It seems
that being in debt did not deter him from
spending, since this schedule is more extensive than that prepared just one year previously. Added to the list were a silver watch
and spoons, porcelain dishes, table linen and
table glass in the specialized forms of jelly
glasses and decanters (DAB 5:136-139).
Dering never paid off the 1745 debt to Philip
Lightfoot, since at Lightfoot’s death in September of 1749, his son William Lightfoot
assumed the mortgage. Dering still owned
a £200 balance of the principal still due, plus
£35 for two years unpaid interest, and £35
for an additional advance (Deeds 5:343345).
By December 1749, advertisements in
the South Carolina Gazette show that Dering
had moved to Charleston, obviously defaulting on his loan. The Palace Green property
was sold at a public outcry on or before February 14, 1751 (Tyler 1899:136). Although
Dering continued to advertise in Charleston in November of 1750, there are indirect
indications that his wife Sarah may have still
occupied the Williamsburg property. For example, the sheriff of York County left a copy
of a summons at “the House of the Defendant” on January 21, 1751 (JO I:394). In
addition, John Mercer mentions lodging at
the Dering house during his visits to
Williamsburg in 1749 and 1750.The sale of
the property at the outcry recorded in Blair’s
diary also suggests that Sarah Dering but
not her husband was present at the outcry.
In any event, William Dering died in early
1751.
Like Levingston before him, Dering encountered financial difficulties trying to
make a living in Williamsburg in the arts of
entertainment and refined behavior.
Williamsburg, although the colony’s leading
urban center, was still very much a provincial town. The small population it sustained
throughout most of the year may not have
been able to provide enough patronage to
support Dering and his family. Only during
Public Times, held four times yearly, did the
population of Williamsburg swell to a total
of five to six thousand people and provide a
market for amusements, such as Dering’s
balls.
Dering’s mortgage schedule shows that
he was very much trying to emulate his betters through the acquisition of luxury items
like table glass, silver, and horse drawn carriages. Compared with other York County
citizens whose estates were valued between
£296 and £490, Dering owned more luxury
66
items. Whether the purchase of these items
played a part in his financial downfall is not
known. Unfortunately, no artifact assemblages which could be definitely linked to
the Dering household have been recovered
from excavations on the property thus far.
There was one excavated soil layer which
dated to the second quarter of the 18th-century, which could have been created by any
or all of the families living on the property
at the time. This layer will be discussed below. Sheet Refuse; Layer 26, a layer of
mottled dark grey/brown (10YR4/3) and
light tan sandy loam was excavated along
the southern edge of Lot 165 and the northern perimeter of Lot 164. It is believed that
this layer accumulated as a result of trash
disposal and daily activities on these properties during the second quarter of the 18thcentury, a period when Lot 164 was owned
by George Gilmer and Lot 165 was under
the ownership of the several families just discussed. At that time, the boundary line between these two properties was maintained
by a fence line. There were no crossmends
between the artifacts found on Lots 164 and
165, strongly suggesting that they were pro-
duced as the result of trash disposal on different sides of the fence. The archaeological
remains recovered from Layer 26 on Lot 164
will be discussed in Chapter 9; the following discussion will pertain only to those archaeological findings from Lot 165.
Layer 26 was located consistently
throughout the area excavated south of the
Brush-Everard House in 1988 (Fig. 51). A total of 970 artifacts, including at least 29 ceramic and glass vessels (Table 8), were recovered from the 75 square feet that comprised this layer on Lot 165. The nature of
this assemblage, with its larger quantities of
faunal bone, ceramics, wine bottle glass,
and table glass suggest that this layer was
built up as a result of household activities.
The proximity of the kitchen, located directly
to the northeast, helps explain the composition of this assemblage (Fig. 52). The ceramics from this layer include a wide range of
decorated delftwares, Chinese porcelains,
Westerwald stonewares, English white salt
glazed stoneware, and Fulham and
Nottingham stonewares. These ceramic
types are commonly found on sites from the
second quarter of the 18th century. The pres-
Table 8.
Minimum Ceramic Vessel Count for Layer 26 on Lot 165
Type
Form
No. of Vessels
Delftware
Plate
Bowl
Saucer
Drug jar
Chamberpot
Tile
Flatware
Chamberpot
Storage jar
Saucer
Plate
% of Total
Wine bottle
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
15
10.3
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
6.9
3.4
51.7
Total
29
100.0
North Midlands slipped earthenware
Westerwald stoneware
Chinese porcelain
67
Ceramics/Table
Glass
9.9%
Bottle Glass
35.9%
Window Glass
23.4%
Nails
9.5%
1.0%
Other Architectural
Animal Bone
18.0%
Tobacco Pipes
1.4%
Gunsmith/Forge
0.5%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Number of Artifacts
(Total=970)
Figure 51. Location of excavated portions of Layer 26.
Figure 52. Artifact distribution in Layer 26, Lot 165.
ence of white salt glazed stoneware dates
the deposition of the layer as sometime after 1720 (Noël Hume 1969:114).
A large proportion (over 23%) of the artifact assemblage was window glass. Eighty
four percent of this glass and sixty four percent of the nails recovered from Layer 26
were found directly north of the reconstructed garden shed. This may suggest that
this building was originally constructed
during the second quarter of the 18th-century.
Several other pieces of evidence support
the conclusion that this layer was created
after the death of John Brush. Layer 26
sealed the privy pit and robbed foundation
trench of the privy, thus postdating the John
Brush ownership of the property.
Additionallly, less than one percent of the
artifacts (1 gunflint, 3 pieces of coal), recovered from this layer could even remotely be
tied with gunsmithing. This compares with
the one to five percent ranges associated
with Brush period features discussed in the
previous chapter.
68
Chapter 9.
The Dr. George Gilmer Household (1735-1757)
Lot 164
E
xcavation conducted in 1988 on the
southern end of the Brush-Everard
property revealed features and soil
layers which can be linked to the George
Gilmer ownership of the lots to the south.
Reviewing the 1967 archaeological report
and artifacts recovered from this excavation
showed that five trash pits excavated by
Noël Hume were also created by the Gilmer
household.
Because the currently reconstructed
fenceline between the Brush-Everard and
First Theatre properties appears to have
been built approximately twenty feet south
of the true eighteenth-century property
boundary, excavation south of the garden
shed extended into the northern limits of Lot
164, an area not formerly included with the
Brush-Everard property. During the tenure
of John Brush, this property (Lots 163, 164,
and 169) was owned by ordinary-keeper
William Levingston and later mortgaged to
Archibald Blair. These lots were purchased
by George Gilmer of Williamsburg in 1735,
for a sum of £155, and were described in
the deed as site of William Levingston’s
house and kitchen, the house called the Playhouse, and site of the former bowling green
(DAB 5:153-155).
Gilmer, an apothecary and surgeon, was
born in Edinburgh in 1700 (Anonymous
1907:225). Educated, like his neighbor
Archibald Blair, at the University of
Edinburgh, Gilmer moved to London and
set up practice there. Following the death
of his first wife, Gilmer arrived in
Williamsburg in 1731, remaining until his
death in 1757. Although there are no docu-
ments which indicate that he made any alterations to the Palace Green house immediately after his 1735 purchase, it is known
that he opened an apothecary shop in town
by November 5, 1736 (Virginia Gazette). It is
believed that Gilmer constructed this shop
on the corner of Palace and Nicholson
Streets, since his apothecary shop was described in a May 27, 1737 Virginia Gazette
advertisement as “near the Governor’s” and
later, more specifically as “Nigh the Courthouse, the Corner of Palace-Street,
Williamsburg” (Virginia Gazette, Sept 5,
1751). Although the Frenchman’s Map
shows a small structure standing on this corner in 1781 (Fig. 53), archaeological crosstrenching done there in the early 1930s revealed no traces of this shop.
In addition to his practice as an apothecary and surgeon, Gilmer held a variety of
Shop?
Figure 53. Detail of the "Frenchman's" map showing
possible location of Gilmer's Apothecary shop.
69
Archaeological Results
public offices. He was a Justice of the Peace
from 1738 to 1756, and served a term as the
Sheriff of York County beginning in 1743.
He was also the Mayor of Williamsburg in
1746, and again in 1754/5. Toward the end
of his life, he became involved in additional
business ventures, purchasing the Raleigh
Tavern with partner John Chiswell (DAB
5:493). Three and a half years later Gilmer
advertised the tavern for lease (Virginia Gazette, Dec 19, 1755). At his death, he still
owned his share in the venture.
Gilmer’s first marriage, to the daughter
of his business partner, Dr. Ridgway, produced no known children. Soon after his
marriage, business took Gilmer to the colonies, and upon returning, he found that his
wife had died (Gilmer 1855). Leaving London again for the colonies, Gilmer arrived
in Williamsburg in 1731. His second marriage to Mary Peachy, lasted from 1732 until her death in 1745 (Virginia Gazette, Oct
10, 1745) and produced two sons, Peachy,
born in 1737/8, and George Jr., born in 1743
(Gilmer 1855). He married his third wife,
Harrison Blair in 1745 and produced four
children, two daughters and two sons. Only
one child of this union, John, lived past
childhood (Brock Notebook).
In 1747/8 an epidemic of smallpox
swept Williamsburg. A list of those contracting the disease, compiled at the time, shows
thirteen people in Gilmer’s household had
been stricken but had recovered, while one
of Gilmer’s daughters died. At least seven
of those survivors were slaves living on the
property.
Between the years 1747 and 1753,
Gilmer had ten slaves baptized, at least three
of whom were adults. Listed in his will were
four adult slaves and an unspecified number of slave children (WI 20:423).
Archaeological excavation on the northern
limits of the Gilmer property during 1967
and 1988 revealed extensive features and
soil layers dating to the Gilmer occupation
of the property. Noël Hume’s archaeological investigations along the northern portion of Lot 164 revealed five trash pits which
were associated with Dr. Gilmer’s house and
shop. Portions of some of these trash pits,
left unexcavated in 1967, were re-examined
and dug in 1988. A sixth trash pit was also
discovered and excavated at this time. The
large quantities of delft drug jars, salve pots,
and pharmaceutical bottles contained
within the pits constitute the finest assemblage of mid-eighteenth century apothecaryrelated items ever recovered in a
Williamsburg excavation. These features will
be described in detail below.
Gilmer Sheet Refuse
(Layers 26, 55/56)
During the twenty-odd years that Gilmer
owned Lot 164, several soil layers accumulated in the northern portion of the lot as
the result of trash disposal in this area. These
layers, designated and excavated as Layers
26, 55, and 56, were combined for analysis
based on the similar composition and artifact dates. The layers were composed of a
mottled dark grey/brown (10YR4/3) and
light tan sandy loam with inclusions of shell,
brick, mortar and charcoal. Over 12,000
artifacts were recovered from these layers,
with a large percentage of these artifacts
consisting of fragments of pharmaceutical
containers, such as delft drug jars and glass
bottles. Table 9 shows a minimum ceramic
and glass vessel count for this layer.
70
Table 9.
Gilmer Sheet Refuse & Trash Disposal Layers—Lot 164 (Layers 26, 55, 56)
Type
No. of Vessels
Glass wine bottles
Chinese porcelain saucer
Nottingham bowl
Delftware plate
Glass pharmaceutical bottle
Fulham storage jar
White salt glazed plate
Chinese porcelain plate
Delftware ointment/drug pot
Delftware tile
Westerwald chamberpot
Colono bowl
Buckley bowl
White salt glazed mug
Coarseware bowl
Red sandy milk pan
Yorktown milk pan
Total
From the sheer numbers and relatively
large fragment size of the artifacts recovered
from Layers 26/55/56 (suggesting little
trampling), it would appear that Gilmer was
allowing garbage to accumulate quite
heavily at the extreme northern end of his
property. In addition to several pits which
had been dug specifically for garbage disposal, all indications are that trash was being allowed to accumulate on the ground
surface and perhaps even against the fence
which separated the Gilmer property from
that of Brush-Everard to the north. Since
there were no ceramic and glass crossmends
in Layer 26 between the Gilmer and BrushEverard properties, this suggests that the
fence which separated the two lots kept
Gilmer’s garbage from spilling over into the
property to the north. Even the best fence,
however, would have failed to keep away
the smell of decaying garbage that would
have been created by the animal bone and
% of Total
7
3
1
1
2
1
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
22.6
9.7
3.2
3.2
6.5
3.2
3.2
9.7
12.9
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
31
100.0
oyster shell in the pits. Of course, one must
remember that the occupants at BrushEverard were discarding their garbage in
much the same fashion along the northern
perimeter of their own property.
The Gilmer Trash Pits
A total of six trash pits relating to the George
Gilmer occupation of Lot 64 were excavated
during the 1967and 1988 excavations (Fig.
54). These are discussed in detail below.
Trash Pit A
The largest of Gilmer’s trash pits was partially excavated in 1967, with the remainder taken out during the 1988 project. The
feature, which had been cut to a depth of
two feet into the surrounding clay subsoil,
was square in shape and measured 11 feet
north-south and 15 feet east-west. Three soil
layers were found. The uppermost layer
71
Figure 54. Plan map of Gilmer trash pits.
(ER1268L) consisted of a light brown loam
containing numerous artifacts. Sealed beneath this layer was a brown loam
(ER1268N, 29G-414, -415) with concentrations of oyster shell. The final layer (29G501, -503), which contained virtually no
artifacts, was an orange silty clay loam. This
largest of Gilmer’s trash pits was also the
most artifact-laden, with over 11,000 artifacts, comprising 375 individual ceramic
and glass vessels, recovered from its fill (Table
10).
The high percentage of pharmaceutical
vessels, such as drug jars and medicine
bottles, suggests Gilmer’s shop as the origin
of some of this debris, while the fine porcelain table and teawares and food remains
such as bone and oyster shell were almost
certainly from Gilmer’s home.
ture appeared to have been rectangular in
shape. The shallow pit was filled with a hard
packed brown loam. Since it was cut by a
later pit (ER1265E/F), it may have been one
of the earlier trash deposits on the lot.
Trash Pit C
This round trash pit (ER1268M), excavated in 1967 and measuring 4 x 4 feet, contained a fill of light brown loam and oyster
shell. This feature was also cut and partially
destroyed by a later trash pit (ER1265E/F).
Trash Pit D
A fourth trash pit (ER1268P, 29G-422-431)
was partially excavated in 1967; further excavations in this area took place in 1988.
The southern limit of the pit, which extended
beyond the bounds of either excavation, was
not determined. The excavated portion of
this trash pit measured 3.0 feet north-south
by 10.0 feet east-west. Filled with mixed tan
and brown sandy loam, this feature was intruded on the north and south by modern
utility trenches.
Trash Pit B
This feature (ER1268Q), excavated in 1967,
measured 6 feet north-south by at least 2.4
feet east-west. Although impossible to definitively trace since the pit had been cut by
a modern utility trench to the west, the fea72
Trash Pit E
1988 excavation. Measuring 3.0 feet eastwest by 1.9 feet north-south and only 1.0
feet deep, this feature was the only one of
the six trash pits which had not been initially discovered in 1967. This feature contained two soil layers. The uppermost was
a brown sandy loam with brick fragments,
while the bottom layer consisted of a mixture of grey and tan sandy loam. This feature had been cut by a later posthole/
postmold complex.
A fifth trash pit (ER1265E and F), round in
shape, was excavated in 1967. Measuring
10.0 feet east-west by 6.0 feet north-south,
this feature contained a fill of dark grey
loam. The 1967 archaeological report describes the top layer of the trash pit
(ER1265E), a gray loam, as having been disturbed and containing some ceramics and
glass which dated to the late eighteenth and
early nineteenth centuries. For the purposes
of this report, these sherds were eliminated
from the feature analysis. The second layer
consisted of a dark gray undisturbed loam,
containing numerous drug jars and pharmaceutical bottles.
Discussion
Table 10 lists all the vessels excavated from
these six trash pits. While many of the vessels originated in Gilmer’s shop, the presence of substantial numbers of Chinese porcelain, delft, and white salt glazed stoneware table and teawares (Table 11) attest to
the fact that Gilmer’s household garbage
found its way into the trash pits as well.
Trash Pit F
A small trash pit (29G-448, -661) was uncovered at the very northern edge of the
Table 10.
Vessels from Trash Pits A-F
Type
Form
No. of Vessels
% of Total
Trash Pit A
Delftware
Fulham stoneware
English stoneware
American stoneware
Red sandy earthenware
Yorktown earthenware
Black glazed redware
Coarse earthenware
Iberian earthenware
North Devon earthenware
Chinese porcelain
Drug jar
Ointment pot
Chamberpot
Tile
Can
Plate
Bowl
Storage jar
Bowl
Storage jar
Bellarmine bottle
Storage jar
Storage jar
Milk pan
Milk pan
Storage jar
Bowl
Flowerpot
Storage jar
Milk pan
Plate
Cup
73
114
26
5
2
1
5
2
2
1
19
1
1
1
6
7
2
1
2
4
6
9
5
30.4
6.9
1.3
0.5
0.3
1.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
5.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.9
0.5
0.3
0.5
1.1
1.6
2.4
1.3
Table 10 (cont'd).
Vessels from Trash Pits A-F
Type
Form
No. of Vessels
% of Total
Trash Pit A (cont'd)
Chinese porcelain
White salt glaze stoneware
Astbury stoneware
Glass
Saucer
Punch bowl
Dish
Punch bowl
Bowl
Mug
Plate
Pitcher
Teapot
Handle
Patty pan
Teapot
Wine bottle
Pyrmont water bottle
Case bottle
Carboy
Preserve jar
Bell jar
Pharmaceutical bottle
Tumbler
Decanter
Mug
Patty pan
Wine stem
Total
8
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
73
16
3
1
1
1
19
7
3
2
1
3
2.1
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.3
19.5
4.3
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.3
5.1
1.9
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.8
375
100.0
1
1
1
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
4
100.0
10
4
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
2
30.3
12.1
3.0
3.0
9.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
15.1
3.0
3.0
6.1
33
100.0
Trash Pit B
Delftware
Chinese porcelain
Fulham stoneware
Glass
Tile
Cup
Bellarmine bottle
Wine bottle
Total
Trash Pit C
Delftware
Fulham stoneware
Yorktown earthenware
Chinese porcelain
White salt glaze stoneware
Coarse earthenware
Glass
Drug jar
Ointment pot
Plate
Tile
Storage jar
Milk pan
Plate
Footed bowl
Cup
Roofing tile
Wine bottle
Snuff bottle
Case bottle
Pharmaceutical bottle
Total
74
Table 10 (cont'd).
Vessels from Trash Pits A-F
Type
Form
No. of Vessels
% of Total
Trash Pit D
Delftware
White salt glaze stoneware
Fulham stoneware
White sandy earthenware
Red sandy earthenware
Iberian earthenware
Ceramic fireclay
Glass
Drug jar
Ointment pot
Bowl
Plate
Plate
Hollow
Storage jar
Storage jar
Milk pan
Storage jar
Storage jar
Crucible
Wine bottle
Pharmaceutical bottle
Total
15
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
11
3
35.7
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
4.8
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
26.2
7.1
42
100.0
10
7
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
7
9
1
1
1
1
17.2
12.1
1.7
3.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
3.4
1.7
1.7
3.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
3.4
12.1
15.5
1. 7
1.7
1.7
1.7
58
100.0
1
1
1
1
8
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
66.7
12
100.0
Trash Pit E
Delftware
Fulham stoneware
Red sandy earthenware
Yorktown earthenware
Colonoware
Chinese porcelain
Glass
Drug jar
Ointment pot
Lid
Storage jar
Bottle
Milk pan
Storage jar
Milk pan
Storage jar
Bowl
Cup
Dish
Saucer
Bowl
Tumbler
Stemmed glass
Wine bottle
Pharmaceutical bottle
Bottle
Case bottle
Carboy
Preserve jar
Total
Trash Pit F
Delft
Red sandy earthenware
Fulham stoneware
Westerwald stoneware
Glass
Cup
Milk pan
Storage jar
Storage jar
Wine bottle
Total
75
Table 11.
Vessels Recovered from Gilmer Trash Pits
Organized by Function
Type
Form
No. of Vessels
North Devon
Colono-Indian
Iberian
White sandy ware
Red sandy ware
Yorktown-type
Black-glazed redware
Delftware
Storage
Storage
Storage
Storage
Storage
Storage
Storage
Tableware
Teaware
Pharmacy
Toilet
Other
Storage
Storage
Storage
Storage
Tableware
Teaware
Tableware
Tableware
Teaware
% of Total
Table glass
Other glass
6
3
5
1
11
13
1
11
2
187
5
6
1
1
1
31
10
5
1
15
18
4
122
33
21
8
1.1
0.6
1.0
0.2
2.1
2.5
0.2
2.1
0.4
35.8
1.0
1.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
5.9
1.9
1.0
0.2
2.9
3.4
0.8
23.4
6.3
4.0
1.5
Total
522
100.0
Westerwald stoneware
English stoneware
American stoneware
Fulham stoneware
White salt glazed stoneware
Astbury
Chinese porcelain
Other ceramics
Glass
Wine bottle
Pharmaceutical bottle
Gilmer’s Apothecary Shop
George Pitt (1744-1768). Despite his competition, however, Gilmer was apparently
very successful.
Although never located archaeologically,
Gilmer’s shop was probably very similar to
other documented eighteenth-century examples. Most shops contained several
rooms: one for the display and sales of merchandise, one for consultation, and another
for a laboratory. Large quantities of drugs
and medicines were typically imported several times a year from England (Gill 1972).
In addition to selling medicine, Gilmer also
carried a large stock of groceries and spices,
which he advertised regularly in the Virginia
Gazette. His stock included anchovies, pis-
Apothecary shops, primarily concerned
with the preparation and sale of drugs, were
beginning to be established in larger towns
throughout the American colonies by the beginning of the eighteenth century (Gill
1972:30). Williamsburg, as the capital of the
colony, was apparently able to support several apothecaries at any given time. Gilmer,
a surgeon as well as an apothecary, was
among the first to operate a shop in town.
During Gilmer’s ownership of the shop on
Palace Green, other apothecaries were being run by Thomas Wharton (ca. 17351746), Dr. Peter Hay (1744-1766), and Dr.
76
tachio nuts, mushrooms, vermicelli, coffee,
cinnamon, cloves, tooth powder, prunes,
currants, and sugar, along with other spices,
fruits, and teas.
Many of the ceramic and glass vessels
recovered from the trash pits and soil layers
originated in Gilmer’s apothecary shop. The
most prevalent ceramic forms, delft drug
jars and ointment pots (Fig. 55), were cylindrical vessels for powders, pills, salves and
confections (Garner and Archer 1972:14).
Undecorated examples, which were inexpensive to produce, outweighed the decorated jars and pots three to one. In fact, some
of the undecorated examples had been discarded unbroken, suggesting that they were
perceived as disposable items in the eighteenth century. This did not appear to the
be case with the decorated drug jars, represented by examples painted in blue with
combinations of linear, cross and chain patterns. These were invariably found broken,
suggesting that the decorated examples,
more expensive to produce, were recycled
in Gilmer’s shop until they were no longer
of any use. Analysis of the painted drug jars
revealed that they were old at the time of
discard, perhaps even having been brought
to the colonies by Gilmer in 1731 (Beck and
Pittman 1992).
Fragments of two undecorated delftware pill tiles and two cylindrical delftware
storage jars were among the pharmaceutical materials recovered. Pill tiles, sometimes
marked with a graduated scale, were used
to roll and cut medicines into individual pills
(Griffenhagen 1957:14). Not present in the
archaeological assemblage were any of the
large elaborately decorated spherical drug
jars more commonly depicted in contemporary prints of apothecaries. These ornate vessels were used primarily for decoration (Gill
1972:67) and would not have endured the
daily handling that contributed to the higher
Figure 55. Examples of drug jars and salve pots from
Gilmer's trash pits.
breakage rate of the smaller, less decorative
drug jars and ointment pots.
In the June 20, 1745 edition of the Virginia Gazette, Gilmer advertised Hungary
Water, Spaw Water and Pyrmont Water.
Fragments of sixteen Pyrmont water bottles
were recovered from Trash Pit A. These
bottles, which had contained mineral water from Germany, were marked with a distinctive seal, molded with a crowned shield
of arms.
Trash Pit E contained a human lower
mandible identified as that of an elderly African-American female (Frank 1967:36). It
is suspected that this mandible was part of
a skeleton used by Gilmer for study, but how
and where Gilmer obtained it is unknown.
The Gilmer Household
After purchasing the Palace Green lots,
Gilmer almost certainly moved into the house
constructed between 1716 and 1718 by William Levingston. Although excavations of
the house in which he resided showed no
evidence that Gilmer enlarged the house in
any way, documents show that he renovated
the interior in the early 1750s. The interior
appearance of Gilmer’s house is suggested
by the letter he wrote to merchant Walter
King in August 1752, in which he states:
77
Mrs. Gilmer is perfectly satisfied with your
conduct about her China.... I have just finished a closet for her to put it in as agreed
on before you left us. I am wainscoting my
dining room, which with a handsome
marble chimney piece &c with glass over
it, will make it a tolerable room for an
Apothecary (Brock Notebook).
Gilmer refers in detail to the interior renovation of his house. One of the recorded
items was the installation of a marble chimney piece. Perhaps this stone replaced a fireplace surround of delft fireplace tiles, of
which two decorated examples were found
in trash pits dating to his occupation.
The results of Gilmer’s renovation may
be evident today in the parlor of the TuckerColeman house, whose core was formed by
moving the Levingston/Gilmer house to Lot
169 in the late eighteenth century. The parlor contains eighteenth-century wainscoting, carved chair rails, cornices, and
baseboards. The original corner cupboard
in what is today the parlor of the Tucker
Coleman House may represent Mrs.
Gilmer’s china cupboard. The Brock Notebooks also reveal that the interior of Gilmer’s
house was furnished with mirrors, status
ceramics, and a desk. Additionally, he purchased two paintings from the estate of John
Collett in 1751 (OW 20:215-217) with which
to decorate his home.
In the previously-quoted letter to merchant King, Gilmer mentioned the set of
china that was being sent to Mrs. Gilmer,
and the closet constructed to hold the porcelain (Brock Notebook). Thirty-three porcelain vessels, including two matching blue
and white Chinese porcelain plates, were
recovered from the trash pits (Fig. 56). This
porcelain, which contains an unusual central motif and detailed painting, is a high
quality ware, whose shape and painting
style place its production in the first quarter
of the eighteenth century. Due to their ear-
Figure 56. Chinese porcelain plate from one of Gilmer's
trash pits.
lier manufacture date, it is doubtful that
these were the plates ordered by Gilmer in
1752. It is more likely that fragments of overglaze porcelain decorated in red and black
also recovered from the trash pits represented this order. The Gilmer family also
owned Chinese porcelain teawares in the
forms of cups, saucers, tea bowls, and slop
bowls. Tableware forms included ten plates,
a platter, and three punch bowls, with Chinese porcelain making up twenty-three percent of the Gilmer household ceramics. Seventy-six percent of the porcelain recovered
was contained within the latest of the five
trash pits, perhaps suggesting that Gilmer’s
expenditures on ceramics and other household goods rose towards the end of his life.
In addition to the porcelain, numerous
ceramics of English manufacture were
78
found in the trash pits. Two molded white
salt glazed stoneware plates, first manufactured after 1740 (Noël Hume 1969:115),
were recovered. Teaware forms were also
found in white salt glazed stonewares and
decorated English delftwares. While delft
tablewares were distributed evenly throughout all of the five pits, the only delft teaware
vessel found was contained within an early
trash pit. Although delft was used in the
eighteenth century as a low cost substitute
for Chinese porcelain, it was not particularly effective as a teaware. The fragility of
the glaze could not withstand repeated contact with hot liquids without cracking and
breaking (Garner and Archer 1972:22). The
scarcity of delft teawares and its position
within the earliest trash pit indicates that
Gilmer quickly replaced his delft teawares
with more durable and more costly English
white salt glaze stoneware and Chinese
porcelain.
Analysis of the Gilmer ceramics indicates
that the family was eating from blue and
white painted delft tablewares during their
first years of lot ownership, replacing these
with molded white salt glaze plates and
other tablewares sometime after 1740.
Governor at his home upon several occasions
(Tyler 1899:148). He also maintained a close
friendship with other gentry, including John
Blair, entertaining him, corresponding with
him, and eventually marrying his sister,
Harrison Blair, in 1745.
This concern for outward appearances
surely played a part in Gilmer’s decision to
purchase expensive Chinese porcelain
tablewares, and to build a special cupboard
for their display in one of the more public
rooms of his house. Even at mid-century,
Chinese porcelain was still a luxury, with
only 50% of all households in the highest
wealth category owning specialized drinking and dining equipment such as porcelain
(Carson and Walsh 1981). In addition, evidence from the trash pits indicates that some
of Gilmer’s porcelain was part of a matched
set of excellent quality. Sets of ceramics did
not become common until the nineteenth
century, another testament to Gilmer’s concern with ownership of status items. Some
76% of Gilmer’s porcelains (19 vessels), in
both table and teaware forms, were blue underglaze handpainted in floral and
Chinoiserie designs. Six vessels decorated in
overglaze handpainted designs, in forms
equally divided between tea and tableware,
were found in the uppermost layer of the
latest trash pit. This seems to indicate that
this porcelain, which represented the most
costly ceramic items found in the trash pits,
was among the latest of Gilmer’s ceramic
acquisitions. These overglaze porcelain
pieces, which show designs common to the
second half of the eighteenth century (Noël
Hume 1969:259), may have been part of the
china ordered in 1752. Additionally, over
three-quarters of the porcelain found in the
Gilmer assemblage was from the latest trash
pit, indicating that the bulk of his porcelain
acquisition occurred during the latter portion of his occupancy. Only eight porcelain
vessels were recovered from the four earlier
Summary
The documentary and archaeological evidence portray Gilmer as a man of middle
age, successful both in business and public
service. Part of this success is evident in his
entrepreneurial activities, which consisted
largely of purchasing rental property, such
as his joint venture in the Raleigh Tavern
(DAB 5:495-497). Gilmer accumulated
enough capital to send his son to Europe to
study medicine (Gill 1972:55). His letter to
King shows that he was not only concerned
with outward appearances of wealth, but
that he felt he was successful. John Blair’s
diary records that Gilmer entertained the
79
trash pits, and these forms were decorated
using the less expensive technique of blue
underglaze handpainting.
Gilmer continued to live on the property
until his death in January of 1757, leaving
the property to his son, Peachy Gilmer (WI
20:423).
80
Chapter 10.
The Thomas Everard Household (1752/6-1781)
Lots 165 and 166
I
t is not clear what became of Lots 165
and 166 after William Dering defaulted
on his loan with his former property sold
at a public outcry in 1751. The next documented owner, Thomas Everard, cannot be
definitely placed on these lots until 1779, although it is believed that he may have purchased the lots at the 1751 outcry and first
occupied them sometime between 1752 and
1756. It was in August of the latter year that
planter Thomas Everard and his wife,
Diana, sold their Nicholson Street residence
to Anthony Hay (Deeds 6: 65-67) and it is
possible that he purchased the Palace Street
property then.
There is clear archaeological evidence to
suggest that Everard occupied the Palace
Street lots long before 1779. Fragments of a
decorated delftware plate found in the 1967
excavations on Lot 165, from a context dating between 1745 and 1760, match those
found in Everard period contexts at his earlier home on Nicholson Street (Frank
1967:24). Since ceramic fragments bearing
this design have not been found on any other
Williamsburg property, the likelihood is that
both plates belonged to Everard.
Everard, two-time mayor of Williamsburg (terms beginning in 1766 and 1771) and
Clerk of York County for thirty-six years, did
not begin life at an advantage. Born in England around 1719, he was listed as an orphan in London in 1734. That same year,
he was bound as an apprentice to
Williamsburg merchant Matthew Kempe for
a period of seven years. In this apprenticeship, he served in the Secretary’s Office in
Williamsburg (Gibbs 1984). Between 1742
and 1745, he was the clerk of Elizabeth City
County, a position for he was prepared
through his training with Kempe. This post
was the first in a career of public offices.
In 1745, Everard became the Clerk of
York County, a post he was to hold for almost four decades. Later that same year, he
purchased lots on Nicholson Street, where
he and his wife Diana lived in a frame
house. Archaeological excavations conducted between 1959 and 1960 by Colonial
Williamsburg revealed that Everard’s house
had a plastered interior, and contained delft
tiles around the interior fireplace (Noël
Hume 1961).
In addition to his duties as clerk and
mayor, Everard was also a planter. He was
taxed for 600 acres of land in James City
County in 1768, possibly the property near
Archers Hope Creek that he tried to sell in
1774 (Virginia Gazette, Oct 6, 1774). As early
as 1768, he also owned 1136 acres in
Brunswick County to the west (EJC Vol.
VI:296).
Everard’s political power began to increase throughout the years as he rose from
minor local offices into county- and colonylevel offices throughout the third quarter of
the eighteenth century. The official positions
which he held were among the colony’s most
important; in addition to providing him with
political power, they were financially rewarding as well. His yearly salary as clerk
was 1248 pounds of tobacco (JO 1:145, JO
1:509) with additional tobacco allotted each
year for extra services.
Everard’s move from Nicholson Street to
Palace Green was an indicator of this up81
ward mobility. Although both properties
were only one acre in size, this move took
him off of a back street to the neighborhood
dominated by the Governor of the Virginia
colony. Palace Green at the beginning of the
third quarter of the eighteenth century
boasted a number of fine homes, such as the
stately brick Wythe house, residence of lawyer and Burgess George Wythe, and the recently constructed home of Robert Carter
Nicholas, leader of the House of Burgesses
and Treasurer of the Colony. The house
Everard purchased on Lot 165 (Fig. 57) was
somewhat larger than the one he sold on
Nicholson Street—the Nicholson Street
house contained 1280 square feet (Noël
Hume 1961), while the Palace Street house
contained 1760 square feet—but more than
the size of his home had changed.
In March of 1770, Everard purchased
Lots 175, 176, and 177, directly east of the
Palace, from Peyton Randolph for the sum
of £13.10 (Deeds 8:38-39). Three years later,
in September of 1773, Everard traded these
lots, totaling 1½ acres, to John Blair, Esquire
for a half-acre lot (Lot 172) adjoining his own
property to the east (Deeds 8:373-374). Archaeological investigations conducted on
Lot 172 in 1947 revealed that an artificial
pond had been created on this lot sometime
in the eighteenth century (Knight 1947c).
Tracing the silt lines of this pond established
its size, depth, and irregular shape. The irregularity of the pond suggests that it was
not a component of a formal garden
(Brinkley, personal communication), and it
is possible that this area served as a pasture
and pond for livestock. Several times during the 1770s, Everard advertised for horses
and cattle (Virginia Gazette, Aug 16, 1770,
Sept 27, 1776, Nov 23, 1769) missing from
his in-town property.
Everard owned numerous slaves, many
of whom lived at his Williamsburg property.
The kitchen addition and the laundry may
have been used as housing space for the
seven to fifteen slaves that documentary evidence suggests that Everard owned during
the early 1770s (Gibbs 1984). He advertised
a skilled carpenter for sale in 1773 (Virginia
Figure 57. Floor plan of the Brush-Everard house (from Whiffen 1960:214).
82
Gazette, Dec 23, 1773), and records indicate
that Governor Botetourt hired one of
Everard’s male slaves to serve as a Palace
footman in 1770 (Dayly Acct. of Expenses).
Everard had four liveried slaves working in
his home (Norton Papers), including two
postilions who rode on his carriage, further
indications of his prestige within the community.
temporary with that of the north wing, this
addition could just as easily have been built
by one of the property’s later residents:
Elizabeth Russell, Henry Cary, or William
Dering. It is interesting to note that Henry
Cary’s circa 1732 design of Ampthill in
Chesterfield County was constructed with
the same floor plan as that of the BrushEverard House (Kocher and Dearstyne
1950), suggesting that the Williamsburg
house had achieved this floor plan before
or during Cary’s tenure there in the 1730s.
The methods of the 1947 archaeological
trenching also make it impossible to determine the construction dates for the reconstructed laundry, office and original
smokehouse. Fortunately, better dating information exists for the kitchen. Ivor Noël
Hume’s 1967 excavation of this building revealed that it was constructed in three
phases. Originally built after 1730 as a frame
structure with a packed clay floor, the
kitchen (Fig. 58) was altered to become a
brick structure in the mid-eighteenth century (Frank 1967). A layer of destruction
debris associated with this renovation
showed that the first period kitchen contained plastered walls and ceiling (Frank
1967:23). A fragment of delftware plate
matching one found at Everard’s earlier
Nicholson Street home was found within the
renovation debris, indicating that Thomas
Everard was responsible for converting the
kitchen to a brick building. The northern
addition to the kitchen was probably constructed around the mid-eighteenth century,
possibly as late as 1790 (Frank 1967:18).
When this addition was built, three dormer
windows were added along the west roof,
increasing the light and livability of the space
above the first floor (Savedge 1969). This
renovation may be related to Everard’s need
to house the increasing numbers of slaves
residing on the property by the 1770s. The
laundry building, directly north of the
Renovations During Everard’s
Tenure
Documents and archaeological evidence
suggest that by the early 1770s Thomas
Everard performed extensive renovations to
structures on the property. Everard’s initial
work on the house in the first decade of his
tenure seems to have consisted of applying
its first coat of white paint (Wenger 1994).
But between 1769 and 1773 Everard began
purchasing large quantities of nails, glass,
and paint. He appears to have installed the
first-floor chimneypieces and wainscoting,
the wallpaper, and the mantelpiece and
paneling over the door in the south wing
(Wenger 1994). Scaffolding holes were
found on the east side of the north wing
during the 1994 waterproofing excavation
(Pickett 1994), indicating the some exterior
repairs on this portion of the house were
undertaken at this time as well.
It was once believed by Colonial Williamsburg researchers that Everard added the
two eastern wings to the house. Recent dendrochronology, however, shows that the
north wing at the very least was constructed
soon after 1720 (Heikkenen 1984) by original property owner John Brush. Unfortunately, the nature of the 1947 archaeological excavations and the subsequent rebuilding of the south wing make dating its construction impossible. Although it is possible
the construction of the south wing was con83
Figure 58. Periods of kitchen development at Brush-Everard.
kitchen, and its mirror image, may have been
constructed by Everard when he converted
the kitchen to brick. In addition to its primary function as a laundry, this building
could have also served as slave housing.
Combining archaeological and documentary evidence suggests that Everard’s
renovation of the property did not begin
until the late 1760s. Between 1769 and 1773,
Everard ordered 40,000 nails, 100 feet of
window glass and 100 pounds of white lead
paint from John Norton, his merchant in England (Norton Papers). Window glass, ceramic paving tile, mortar and plaster fragments, delft tiles, leaded window cames, and
iron door brackets (as well as countless
wrought iron nails) found in both trash deposits from the Everard period also attest to
this period of renovation and/or new construction. While archaeological evidence
suggests that dependencies around the
house were built or renovated, some of these
changes apparently took place within the
dwelling. It is likely that Everard was responsible for adding a new staircase to the
front hall of the house, whose elaborate flo-
ral carving is reminiscent of that at Carter’s
Grove and Tuckahoe plantations. The
curved gooseneck rail end on the stair and
the fine panelling in the stair hall are also
atypical of houses of the size and construction of Brush-Everard.
When architectural restoration took
place in 1949, it was found that the downstairs rooms in the original 1718/19 house
were fairly plain and undecorated. Later additions, probably by Henry Cary, of carved
chair rails, fireplace surrounds, baseboards,
panelling, and six panelled doors converted
the downstairs rooms of the house into more
elaborate spaces for entertaining guests or
clients (Wenger, personal communication,
1996). Other documentary evidence indicates the elaborate nature of Everard’s
downstairs, or public, rooms. The wallpaper found in the library during restoration
possibly dates from the mid- to late eighteenth century (Pritchard 1985). Orders to
merchant John Norton reveal that Everard’s
home contained upholstered furniture
(Norton Papers) and he is also known to
have owned a chess set and a backgammon
84
table, purchased from the estate of Governor Fauquier in 1772 (WI 22:83-89). These
elaborate furnishings and architectural detailing would befit a man of Everard’s status and position in the Williamsburg community.
The differences between the public and
the private spaces within the household are
very evident in the different architectural
treatments of the rooms. The second story
rooms, which were used as sleeping areas
during Everard’s occupation, contained no
cornices, chair rails or mantels, and only
simple, undecorated baseboards. It was
probably during Everard’s occupation, at
the same time the stairway was added, that
dormer windows were cut through the roof,
allowing the second floor of the house to become a lighted, useable space.
Everard’s household deposited a great deal
of garbage, mainly in the form of kitchen
and food-related debris, into the natural
ravine at the north end of the property. Two
large deposits of ashy soil comprised the
predominant assemblages dating to
Everard’s tenure. Several additional soil layers, also in the ravine area, were formed
during the third quarter of the eighteenth
century (Fig. 59). Because of later disturbances, no soil layers dating to the Everard
period were evident around the house or in
the pasture area of Lot 166, although at least
one deposit of renovation debris was present
around the colonial kitchen (Frank 1967).
Following will be descriptions of each soil
layer and feature associated with the BrushEverard property.
Main Ash Ravine Layer
(29F-69, -73, -82, -112)
Everard Ravine Deposits
The most artifact-laden layer on the site
(Table 12) was a deposit of dark reddish
brown (5YR2.5/2) sandy loam in the ravine
at the northern end of the property (Fig. 60).
This deposit of ashy soil, ranging from 0.2-
The 1987/88 archaeological excavations on
Colonial Lot 166 revealed that Everard continued the pattern of garbage disposal established earlier on the lot by Brush.
Figure 59. Profile through ravine at north end of Lot 166.
85
Table 12.
Ceramic and Glass Vessels from Main Ash Layer
Type
Form
Delftware
Plate
Dish
Soup plate
Bowl
Punch bowl
Basin
Drug jar/ointment pot
Chamberpot
Tile
Hollow
Chamberpot
Jug
Mug
Bowl
Patty pan
Teapot
Saucer
Can/mug
Tankard
Chamberpot
Soup plate
Cup
Lid
Cream jug
Tankard
Bowl
Plate
Saucer
Cup/can/tea bowl
Bowl
Dish
Bowl
Bowl
Plate
Teapot
Teapot
Mug
Bowl
Mug
Flatware/plate
Storage jar
Tankard/can
Pipkin
Jug
Mug/tankard
Bowl
Patty pan
Pitcher
Hollow
Storage jar
Bowl
Pipkin
Westerwald stoneware
White salt glaze stoneware
Dipped white salt glaze stoneware
Chinese porcelain
English porcelain
Creamware
Agateware
Astbury
Wedgwood
North Midlands slipware
Fulham stoneware
Nottingham stoneware
American stoneware
Colonoware
No. of Vessels
86
19
6
2
4
12
2
24
6
10
1
9
2
1
3
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
7
24
22
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
14
2
1
1
9
3
1
1
1
1
12
1
% of Total
7.0
2.2
0.7
1.5
4.4
0.7
8.9
2.2
3.7
0.4
3.3
0.7
0.4
1.1
0.4
0.7
0.4
1.1
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
1.1
0.4
2.6
8.9
8.1
1.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
5.2
0.7
0.4
0.4
3.3
1.1
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
4.4
0.4
Table 12 (cont'd).
Ceramic and Glass Vessels from Main Ash Layer
Type
Form
Colonoware
Yorktown-type earthenware
Hollow
Milkpan
Bowl
Bird bottle
Pipkin
Chamberpot
Storage jar
Butterpot
Storage jar
Milkpan
Bowl
Milkpan
Storage jar
Stemmed glass
Decanter
Tray/salver
Jelly glass
Tumbler
Pitcher
Handle
Buckley earthenware
White sandy earthenware
Unspecified coarseware
North Devon earthenware
Iberian earthenware
Colorless leaded glass
Colorless leaded glass
No. of Vessels
Total
1
8
1
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
12
8
2
1
1
1
1
1
0.4
3.0
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.4
1.1
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.4
4.4
3.0
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
271
100.0
Figure 60. Wine bottle glass and coarse eathenware in situ in Everard main ash layer.
87
% of Total
0.55 feet in thickness, sealed the brick and
mortar renovation layer of the John Brush
period. Based on artifact dating, the deposition of this layer occurred between the beginning of Everard’s tenure in the 1750s and
about 1770. While not completely excavated, this deposit was tested extensively.
Some 480 square feet of soil from this deposit were excavated, with a total of 18,660
artifacts and 271 ceramic and table glass vessels recovered. Since it was noted, as excavation proceeded, that preservation of animal bone and other food remains appeared
to be excellent, the standard sampling procedure for faunal and other food remains
was altered. All soil from this layer was
passed through one-quarter-inch mesh
screen into an one-eighth-inch mesh screen.
Any soil which did not pass readily through
the smaller screen was bagged for later flotation and waterscreening through window
mesh screen. This facilitated the recovery of
many small, otherwise easily missed fragments such as eggshell, seeds, crab claws and
bones from birds, small mammals and fish.
With this sampling strategy, a more complete
picture of the Everard household diet can
emerge. In addition to the microfaunal remains, many smaller artifacts which usually pass unnoticed through one-quarterinch screen, such as straight pins and glass
beads, were recovered.
Like that from the main ash, this soil was
also passed through one-quarter and oneeighth-inch screen and collected for the recovery of microfauna.
Clay Layer
(29F-83)
Sandwiched between the main and secondary ash deposits was a layer of redeposited
brownish yellow (10YR6/6) sandy clay
loam. Ranging in thickness from 0.4 to 1.5
feet, the layer contained inclusions of oyster shell, brick, mortar, charcoal and marl.
A total of 246 artifacts and five ceramic vessels were recovered (Table 14).
Coal Layer
(29F-88)
A 0.1-0.3 foot thick layer of crushed black
(10YR3/2) coal was discovered at the very
northern end of the property. The full extent of this layer was not traced, but it appeared to extend to the north and east, towards the reconstructed stable. A terminus
post quem of 1762 for the deposition of this
layer was provided by fragments of
creamware. A total of 772 artifacts and
twenty ceramic vessels were recovered (see
Table 14).
Shell Spread
(29F-90)
Secondary Ash Ravine Layer
A spread of oyster shell was evident south
of and abutting the coal. A total of 373 artifacts were recovered from this deposit of
shell, which shared numerous crossmends
with the coal layer and the two Everardperiod ravine layers (see Table 14).
(29F-103/137)
A smaller deposit of domestic debris, dating
to the 1770s, was also present in the ravine
area. This layer consisted of a dark reddish
brown (5YR2.5/2) sandy clay loam, ranging from 0.25 to 1.1 feet thick and containing inclusions of oyster shell, brick fragments
and charcoal. Almost 3,500 artifacts and 66
individual ceramic and table glass vessels
were recovered from this deposit (Table 13).
Renovation/Destruction Debris
(ER1255Y)
During his 1967 excavation around the
kitchen, Ivor Noël Hume discovered a layer
88
Table 13.
Ceramic and Glass Vessels from Secondary Ash Layer
Type
Form
Delftware
Plate
Punch bowl
Soup plate
Saucer
Chamberpot
Bowl
Chamberpot
Hollow
Plate
Plate
Tankard
Mug/cup
Patty pan
Plate
Saucer
Tea caddy
Bowl
Milkpan
Bowl
Milkpan
Storage jar
Milkpan
Storage jar
Mug
Jug
Mug
Jug
Hollow
Chamberpot
Bowl
Storage jar
Jug
Storage jar
Stemmed glass
Cruet
White salt glaze stoneware
Creamware
Chinese porcelain
Cauliflower earthenware
North Devon coarseware
Yorktown coarseware
Buckley coarseware
Fulham stoneware
North Midland slipware
Westerwald stoneware
Coarse earthenware
Colonoware
Iberian earthenware
Black glazed red earthenware
American stoneware
Leaded glass
Leaded glass
No. of Vessels
Total
of brick rubble, mortar and plaster extending north of the kitchen. This layer was interpreted as resulting from the destruction
of the original frame kitchen and its replacement by the currently standing brick building sometime during Everard’s ownership
(Frank 1967:23). Artifacts from this layer
suggest a deposition date in the mid-eighteenth century. Fragments of a cast iron
cooking pot and a possible reflecting oven
% of Total
7
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
3
1
7
1
1
7
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
10.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.0
6.0
1.5
1.5
4.5
1.5
10.6
1.5
1.5
10.6
1.5
3.0
3.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
7.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.0
1.5
66
100.0
contained within the debris indicate that
this structure served as a kitchen prior to
Everard’s renovation.
Discussion
There were a number of direct crossmends
and related non-contiguous ceramics between the ravine layers just described, indicating that they were deposited by the same
89
Table 14.
Ceramic Vessels from the Clay Layer, Coal Layer, and Shell Spread
Type
Form
No. of Vessels
% of Total
Clay Layer
Delftware
Chinese porcelain
White salt glaze stoneware
Plate
Punch bowl
Saucer
Chamberpot
Total
1
1
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
40.0
5
100.0
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
25.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
20
100.0
1
1
2
25.0
25.0
50.0
4
100.0
Coal Layer
Delftware
White salt glaze stoneware
Chinese porcelain
Creamware
Black basalt
Dry bodied stoneware
Fulham stoneware
Buckley earthenware
Philadelphia slipware
Black glazed red earthenware
Plate
Ointment pot
Punch bowl
Saucer
Dish
Saucer
Cup
Plate
Plate
Hollow
Sugar
Storage jar
Hollow
Milkpan
Bowl
Bowl
Total
Shell Spread
Delftware
Fulham stoneware
Plate
Ointment pot
Storage jar
Total
household. Additionally, the vessel profiles
for the main ash layer (1751/6-1770) and
the upper ash (deposited from circa 1770 to
1780) are very similar (Table 15). The primary differences seen are those which can
be accounted for by the introduction of new,
fashionable ceramic types (for example,
creamware, introduced circa 1762) and the
waning popularity of others, such as white
salt glazed stoneware. Therefore, it is reasonable to attribute all these layers as origi-
nating in the same household. Archaeologists date the deposition of archaeological
assemblages by examining the known beginning manufacture dates of ceramics and
glass contained within the assemblage. The
two ravine deposits were attributed to
Everard’s household based not only on the
types of ceramics they contained, but also
on the absence of a particular key ceramic
type. There were no fragments of pearlware,
a ceramic type which began production in
90
Table 15.
Ceramic Composition of Main and Upper Ash Deposits, Thomas Everard Period
Tablewares and Teawares*
Ceramic Type
Delft tablewares
White salt glaze tablewares
Chinese porcelain tablewares
Creamware tablewares
Total
White salt glaze teawares
Delft teawares
Chinese porcelain teawares
Creamware teawares
Total
Main Ash
(Pct.)
Upper Ash
(Pct.)
61.4
17.1
17.1
4.3
50.0
16.6
16.6
16.6
100.0
100.0
13.0
0.0
87.0
0.0
0.0
6.6
86.7
6.6
100.0
100.0
*Based on minimum vessel counts
1779 (Noël Hume 1969:128) in any of these
deposits. Since Everard died in 1781, soon
after the introduction of this ceramic type,
and before there would have been much opportunity for pearlware to have made it into
the ground as broken vessels, it is reasonable to attribute these deposits to his household. Examining the progression of Everard
period soil layers filling the ravine offers
some insight into how the property was
used during the third quarter of the century.
During the 1750s and 1760s, the northern end of the property served as the primary garbage disposal area for the house.
In the absence of standardized trash removal in eighteenth-century Williamsburg,
debris from the house, kitchen, slave living
areas and other work buildings, as well as
renovation materials found their way into
this ravine. Food remains, such as animal
bone, crab claws, oyster shell and fruit and
vegetable seeds, as well as numerous broken chamberpots (and presumably their contents at the time of their disposal) found in
the ravine debris suggest that this portion
of Everard’s property was a smelly and un-
sanitary place. Bones of rats and mice recovered from this area suggest that, like
modern garbage dumps, Everard’s ravine
was rodent infested. An open garbage dump,
particularly one lying directly across from
the Governor ’s Palace, would surely be
found offensive today. Without little knowledge of the potential health hazards, or perhaps with few real alternatives, however,
this practice of indiscriminate garbage disposal appears to have been quite common
in colonial America.
Sometime around 1770, it appears that
Everard, possibly during the course of other
alterations on his property, decided to fill the
ravine, making the formerly unusable north
end of his property level with the rest of the
lot. Using yellow subsoil clay, perhaps generated from the digging of a cellar, he filled
the low-lying portions of his property. Only
1% of the total vessel population in the garbage layers below the yellow clay was
creamware, a ceramic type which became
widespread in Virginia after 1769, while it
accounted for 6% of the vessel population
in the layers directly above it, suggesting the
91
Figure 61. Frenchman's map detail.
Ceramics and Glass
circa 1770s date for the ravine landscaping.
This date also fits well with the orders to
Norton for building supplies. It is likely that
renovations on the property were the source
of the yellow clay fill. On the Frenchman’s
Map of 1781, the ravine ends north of the
property, across Palace Lane, supplying additional documentary evidence that the ravine was filled by that date (Fig. 61).
After the filling of the ravine, a driveway of crushed coal was constructed leading toward the building shown at the northern limits of the property on the Frenchman’s
Map. This building is believed to have been
a stable or coach house, based on references
in Everard’s personal papers to his owning
horses, cattle, and two vehicles. Everard’s
1773 purchase from John Blair of Lot 172,
directly east of the stable/coach house, may
have provided his livestock with water from
the artificial pond that existed there in the
eighteenth century. (Fig. 62) shows the
Everard property as it is believed, based on
historical and archaeological evidence, to
have appeared around the mid-1770s.
Members of the Everard household discarded a large variety of ceramic and glass
vessels during their residence on Palace
Green. Comparing the ceramics and glass
from the earlier (c. 1750s-1770) assemblage
with that from the later years of Everard’s
tenure (c. 1770-c. 1780) provides information on the changing focus and composition
of Everard’s household through time.
During the 1750s and 1760s, delft was
the primary ceramic in the household, comprising 32% of the total ceramic and glass
vessels. Present in nine vessel forms, delft
was an all-purpose ceramic, found at the
dinner table, in the sickroom and in the
kitchen. Delft tablewares, handpainted in
blue and polychrome designs, were present
as plates, dishes, soup plates and serving
bowls. Archaeological evidence suggests
that Everard owned at least three sets of
British delft tablewares, each painted in blue
with very dissimilar motifs. One set of plates
and soup plates featured a Chinese land92
Scotland Street
Ravine
Pond
Stable (?)
Spotswood Street
N
Well
Known Locations of Buildings
Probable Location of
Buildings Standing in 1775
House
Laundry
0
0
Smokehouse
80 FT
20M
Kitchen
Office
Figure 62. Brush-Everard property as it is believed to have appeared around 1775.
scape design with bamboo and flowers.
Another had a highly stylized scroll motif,
while a third contained a simple floral design. In addition to its function in the dining room, delft also served a variety of other
roles. Everard and his guests consumed
punch from delft bowls, while basins and
chamberpots of delft were used in the performing of toilet activities (Fig. 63), medicines were stored in plain and decorated
delft ointment pots, and delft tiles surrounded fireplace openings. This profusion
of delftwares can be contrasted with the
later archaeological deposit, which contained only five delft vessel forms comprising a much-reduced 16.6% of the total vessel assemblage. By this period, delft had
largely been relegated to the serving of food,
present primarily as plates.
Much the same situation appears to exist for white salt glaze stoneware, a type of
ceramic introduced in the 1720s and appearing archaeologically to be the tableware
of choice for typical colonial households
until the introduction of creamware in the
1760s (Noël Hume 1969:115). Everard’s
early assemblage showed this English stoneware present in a number of vessel forms
(bowls, teapots, cans, patty pans), primarily those used in the serving and consump-
Figure 63. Scottish delftware shaving bowl from the
Everard ravine fill.
93
tion of tea. Individualized tablewares such
as plates and soup plates were absent, suggesting that while Everard used this refined
stoneware to serve tea, he chose other ceramics (or pewter) for dining. By the later
assemblage, the number of white salt glazed
stoneware vessels not only declined in number, but 50% of them were chamberpots,
showing that the popularity of this ceramic
had substantially declined, as it made its
way from the dignified surroundings of the
tea table to a rather inglorious function in
the chamber. This decline was not unexpected, since it was during this period that
white salt glazed stonewares were being replaced in popularity as tea- and tablewares
by creamware (Mountford 1972:214).
By the beginning of the last quarter of
the eighteenth century, ceramics associated
with the preparation and serving of tea in
Everard’s household were varied. Everard
stored his tea leaves in a fashionable molded
“cauliflower” tea caddy and poured from
Astbury and agateware teapots into Chinese porcelain teabowls. Gold gilded Chinese porcelain slop bowls placed nearby
would have received the hot water used to
rinse tea bowls of their leftover tea and
leaves. Chinese porcelain teabowls and saucers were predominant, painted both in blue
and the more expensive overglaze colors of
red and black. While Everard set his table
with matched delft plates, bowls and soup
plates, there was apparently no attempt at
having a ceramic tea set with matching teapot, slop bowls and milk jugs. Even the porcelain cups and saucers were painted with
different floral and landscape designs. This
mismatched array of tea and tablewares
appears typical of most eighteenth-century
archaeological assemblages and is graphically illustrated in an early nineteenth-century oil painting entitled “The Quilting
Party” (Fig. 64).
Figure 64. “The Quilting Party,” by John Lewis
Krimmel, 1813 (from Carson 1990).
However, Everard and his family were
using sets of British delft as tablewares.
Many of the delft tablewares were decorated
in patterns identical, or very similar, to those
found in Everard’s deposits at his earlier
house on Nicholson Street, suggesting that
some of these vessels were in use in the
1740s. Other Everard ceramics from the
third quarter of the century included
Nottingham stoneware bowls and numerous Chinese porcelain plates decorated in
blue handpainted underglaze designs, as
well as more costly overglaze decorations.
These ceramics were probably supplemented with pewter plates, a common tableware in the eighteenth century. Due both to
its resale value and instability once buried
in the soil, pewter is rarely encountered in
archaeological assemblages and thus runs
the risk of being neglected by archaeologists
in its role as an important colonial tableware
(Martin 1989a). Since Everard left no will
94
or inventory of his possessions, his ownership of pewter plates can only be surmised
based on what documents suggest was typical for the time.
Ceramic tablewares from the later ash
layer included molded spearhead and
feather edged creamware plates, indicating
that Everard had begun participating in the
purchase of this fashionable ceramic tableware at the beginning of the fourth quarter
of the century (Martin 1989b). Pewter
tablewares, prevalent in local stores in this
period, were probably still in use at the
house. Proportions of Chinese porcelain tea
and tablewares remained fairly consistent
with those of the earlier period (4:1), decorated largely with blue handpainted designs.
In addition to setting his table with fine
ceramics, Everard also owned fashionable
table glass: wine glasses, tumblers, decanters, pitchers, jelly glasses and even a salver,
similar to one illustrated in G. Bernard
Hughes’s English, Scottish, and Irish Table
Glass (Fig. 65). Salvers, or pedestaled glass
trays, could have been placed on the table,
where colorful desserts in leaded glass containers such as jelly glasses were displayed,
or handed around by liveried slaves to serve
wine (Hughes 1956:273, 290). Several salvers could be stacked, one upon another, as
described by Hannah Glasse in The Compleat
Confectioner (1760) to form a pyramid of
sweetmeats and jellies (Hughes 1956:273).
Many of Everard’s ceramics were types
which would have been used in the kitchen
for the preparation and storage of food.
Large jars, used to hold water and foodstuffs
such as flour and corn, were predominantly
of Fulham stoneware or unglazed Iberian
earthenware. Milkpans, large shallow bowls
used in the storage and processing of milk
products, were found primarily in what is
classified as Yorktown-type ware, a coarse
lead glazed earthenware believed to have
Figure 65. Stemmed salver (from Hughes 1956: 307).
been produced at William Rogers’ Yorktown
pottery. Fragments of two Yorktown-type
bird bottles were also recovered from
Everard’s ravine assemblage.
The continuing high percentages of delft
plates in the later trash deposit, during a period when they were beginning to be replaced by refined earthenwares and
stonewares in many households, is puzzling.
The presence of these vessels could be related to the large number of slaves who resided on the property at the beginning of
the fourth quarter of the eighteenth century.
These delft tablewares may have been vessels which were passed down to Everard’s
slaves as more fashionable ceramics were
purchased for the household, or they could
have been bought directly for, or by, the
slaves. Since some of these plates matched
the delft sets found in the earlier assemblage,
it more is likely that these vessels were
handed down to the slaves rather than purchased separately.
95
While the use by Everard’s slaves of delft
and other English and European manufactured tablewares remains hypothetical, there
is a much greater likelihood that another
type of ceramic found on the Everard property was actually used for food consumption. Colonoware, a low-fired, unglazed
earthenware commonly found on eighteenth-century sites in Virginia, is believed
to have been used and, perhaps in some instances, manufactured by slaves (Ferguson
1980, 1992). A dozen colonoware bowls and
a pipkin were recovered from the earlier
trash deposit. Based on their size, these shallow bowls, which ranged from 5.75 to 9.5
inches in diameter, probably would have
been used largely for eating and drinking
rather than in food preparation.
It is very unlikely that Everard or his
family members would have eaten or been
served from these colonoware bowls. Memoirs of former slaves suggest that bowls like
these were used in slave meals to hold vegetable relishes prepared as side dishes to a
starch-based main dish (Ferguson 1992:97).
Cooking pots are another common
colonoware form on eighteenth-century
slave sites but, with the exception of the
pipkin, none of the vessels found in the
Everard assemblage would have been used
for cooking food. This lack of cooking vessels can probably be explained largely as a
result of the urban character of the BrushEverard site. The slaves residing there most
likely would have had their meals prepared
for them in the property’s kitchen by
Everard’s cook. With access to a kitchen
stocked with ample iron pots, spits, and
other cooking implements, the use of earthen
cooking pots would not have been necessary, except as a matter of personal preference. Some accounts suggest that some
foods, such as okra, tasted better when prepared in an earthen pot.
The percentage of colonoware vessels
decreases between the earlier and the later
Everard assemblages, from 5.2% to 1.5% of
the total vessel population. Although there
is no evidence that the number of slaves on
the lots declined during this period, the decrease could be the result of several other
factors. Archaeological evidence from other
Virginia sites suggests that colonoware production, or at least use, had begun to wane
in the late eighteenth century (Yentsch
1990:41). There may have also been changes
in cooking and eating styles or in the way
Everard’s slaves acquired ceramics for their
use. For example, the slaves may have replaced colonoware bowls with delft plates
by the latter years of Everard’s tenure.
Everard and His
Contemporaries
Comparing Everard’s ceramic assemblage
with those of some of his Williamsburg contemporaries suggests that his table and
teaware was fairly typical for the time period and cut across social and economic levels. Everard was compared with fellow
gentryman Peyton Randolph (assemblage
dating 1755-1765), John Draper, a middling
blacksmith (1769-1780 deposit), and the upand-coming tailor and merchant Robert
Nicolson (deposit dated 1751-1797)
(Edwards et al. 1988:36; Brown et al.
1990:238-239; Samford 1986:45). Despite the
introduction and subsequent popularity of
refined earthenwares and stonewares during the second and third quarters of the eighteenth century, delft tablewares continued
to play an important role in all four assemblages, particularly as decorated plates and
punchbowls. Molded white salt glaze stoneware plates, beginning manufacture around
1740, were also prevalent in the other three
assemblages, as were porcelain table and
96
teawares, both in underglaze and overglaze
decoration. Even middling artisan John
Draper owned table and teawares in porcelain, one of the most expensive ceramics
available during the eighteenth century.
Overall, there seemed to be little difference
between the four households in terms of
types of ceramics owned.
Recent work has focused on the beginnings of courtly traditions of cooking and
serving food (Yentsch 1990) and the burgeoning interest in individualization as the
eighteenth century progressed (Deetz 1977).
This new tradition took the form of specialized food preparation and serving items. As
for ceramic tablewares, plates for serving individuals became much more common as
the use of communal bowls, cups and dishes
began to disappear. With this emphasis on
each diner receiving his own plate and cup,
the use of other individual utensils also increased. While forks were still uncommon
in Virginia stores in 1745, by 1770 both forks
and knives were readily available in a variety of prices and materials (Martin 1987).
Recently, archaeologists have sought economic patterning in the types of ceramic
wares owned by households of different
wealth categories (Adams and Boling 1989;
Miller 1974; Otto 1984). While it does appear that certain wares were restricted to
wealthier households in the seventeenth and
early eighteenth centuries, the Williamsburg
results outlined above suggest, perhaps, that
ownership of certain types of ceramics was
less relevant than other factors. Wealth may
have been expressed instead by either the
sheer numbers of vessels owned or in the
types of vessel forms purchased.
The ownership of specialized vessel
forms, which went along with the preparation and presentation of fashionable food,
may be a better indicator of wealth and social standing. The proliferation of cooking
and serving equipment which became avail-
able during the eighteenth century reflects
the development of a more elaborate cuisine,
one that was focused on numerous food
courses served on individual place settings
at cloth-covered tables. Ceramic and glass
vessels found in Everard’s garbage, as well
as documentary references indicate that the
mayor was participating in high-style dining and entertaining, using the mealtime display as an indicator of his position within
the social hierarchy of Williamsburg (Yentsch
1990). His order of a venison pasty pan from
his London merchant in 1773 (Norton Papers) and fragments of an iron reflecting
oven found around the kitchen indicate that
he was preparing elaborate game pies as
well as roasted meats. Everard’s ability to
keep his tea in a cauliflower-shaped caddy
instead of a plain wooden box, and the glass
salver adorned with jelly or wine glasses,
are more symbols of wealth and social standing than they are items necessary for the
daily operation of a household. The appearance of these specialized vessels on Everard’s
table would have communicated to his
guests that their host was conversant in the
language of fine dining, at a time when, as
Lorena Walsh has stated, “eating was ... as
much a social event as a means of satisfying
hunger.” Everard’s assemblages contained
a profusion of evidence that he was able to
entertain in high style, certainly a necessity
for someone of his political and social station. Guests could be served from plates on
a table adorned with glass and ceramic vessels in expensive, specialized forms. Doubtless this table would have been covered with
a tablecloth and each guest would have received a cloth napkin to protect their clothing. Knives, forks and spoons found in the
ravine garbage show that Everard’s guests
would not have been required to eat with
their fingers.
Archaeological evidence reveals not only
the utensils and tablewares from which
97
Everard and guests were eating, but also the
types of food served. Everard’s meat diet was
quite diverse, with a broad range of both
domestic and wild animals. Typical of most
archaeological assemblages from eighteenth-century Virginia were large domesticated mammals, such as cow, pig and
sheep, which made up the largest percentage of the animal bone assemblage. The diet
was supplemented, however, by a variety
of fresh and salt water fish (sturgeon, Atlantic cod, striped bass, black drum, catfish,
sheepshead and white perch), wild game
(deer, quail, Canada goose, various species
of duck) and domestic fowl (chicken, goose,
and turkey). Water-screening and flotation
revealed the skeletal remains of smaller animals, such as blue crab, as well as eggshell.
Everard, with his numerous resources,
could have obtained food for his table in a
number of ways. By this period, there was
an established market system in Williamsburg, where meat and produce could be secured at least twice a week, and probably
daily. Some food was evidently supplied directly from the Palace Green lots: Everard
advertised cattle missing from his
Williamsburg property in the late 1760s.
Since Everard was keeping cattle at his
home, he almost certainly was also raising
domestic fowl—chickens and geese. The discovery of an iron hoe from soil layers around
the kitchen suggests a kitchen garden supplying fruits, vegetables and herbs.
Although evidently a widower throughout most of his stay on Palace Green, Everard
did have two daughters, Frances and
Martha, living with him at various times.
While documentary references to his daughters were rare, there is little doubt that they
would have exerted influence in the household. The tasks of instructing slaves, entertaining guests and planning meals were just
a few of the tasks which fell to women in
colonial households. Everard’s daughters, in
the probable absence of a mother, would
doubtlessly have assumed many of these
roles while they lived with their father. Their
influence in choosing household furnishings
such as ceramics and furniture, or in deciding what foods the family and guests would
eat, is unknown.
Frances Everard apparently suffered
from chronic ill health. After being widowed, she lived with her father during the
last year of her life, finally dying in 1773 at
the age of twenty six (Gibbs 1984). It is believed that the number of drug jars, ointment pots, and glass medicine bottles found
in Everard’s garbage assemblages may be
related to Frances Everard’s illnesses.
Summary
Although Everard continued as the clerk of
York County until his death in 1781, he began to give up public service positions as
early as 1776. In that year he resigned from
the Court of Admiralty, and in 1780 he gave
up his position as auditor (VCP/VSL). Thomas Everard died between January 31 and
February 19, 1781. No will or inventory of
his estate has been located.
Documentary and archaeological evidence indicates that Thomas Everard rose
in power and wealth during the years he
lived on Palace Green. His move to Lots 165
and 166, adjacent to the Governor’s Palace,
were indicative of his upward mobility, providing his family with a more prestigious
location in town, as well as a larger house.
As his political power increased from official positions at the local level to colony-wide
offices in the years preceding the Revolution, Everard’s economic wealth also rose.
Some of this wealth was expended on property renovations and personal possessions
which served as signals to others of his position in Williamsburg and Virginia society.
The carved staircase of the front entrance
98
hall, rivalling that of the Carter’s Grove entrance hall, was a bold statement about
Everard and his position as a Gentleman in
Virginia society. Another social statement
would have been made when visitors to
Everard’s house were greeted by liveried
slaves.
99
100
Chapter 11.
Polly Valentine Household
Lot 164
A
rchaeologists working over the past
several decades have tackled ques
tions about the lives of AfricanAmericans, both slave and free, during the
colonial period and beyond. While a large
part of this research has focused on living
conditions for slaves working on rural plantations in South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia, there has been, with a few notable exceptions, little investigation of slaves living
in urban areas. This has been due in large
part to difficulties associated with the division and use of physical space within cities
and towns. Since slaves on rural plantations
and farms were usually segregated in quarters separate from the main dwelling house,
it is generally simple to isolate housing and
artifact assemblages generated by slaves. In
urban areas, slaves lived and worked in
close physical proximity to their white masters, often sleeping in outbuildings constructed primarily for other purposes. There
it becomes much more difficult if not impossible to separate slave-related artifacts from
those of the owners living on the property.
In rare instances, archaeologists are able
to isolate African-American residences in
urban areas. At Brush-Everard, one of those
unusual investigations was possible—of a
house constructed for a slave and her family in the middle of the nineteenth century.
a structure. Sealed beneath a thin layer of
topsoil were a brick hearth base bonded
with lime mortar, as well as two associated
brick piers. A fragment of pearlware with a
beginning manufacture date of around 1800
was discovered in the soil layer underlying
the brick hearth, indicating that this building had been constructed some time after
that date. In the archaeological report on
these excavations, it was concluded that
these structural remains represented a piersupported structure built during the nineteenth century (Frank 1967). The full extent
of this building was not traced at this time.
During preparation of a documentary
and archaeological summary of the BrushEverard property prior to beginning the
1987 excavation, an early twentieth-century
map of the adjacent Tucker-Coleman property was examined (Williamsburg Restoration 1928). Depicted at the northern end of
the Tucker-Coleman property, abutting the
Brush-Everard lot, was a schematic representation of a structure labeled “Building
stood here in 1800 - Home of Colored
Mammy and her Husband.” Overlaying a
scaled version of this map with the structural remains located during the 1967 archaeological project strongly suggested that
the archaeological and map data represented the same building. Since it had been
established during the 1967 project that the
actual boundary between the Brush-Everard
and Tucker-Coleman properties was approximately 20 feet north of the presently
reconstructed fenceline, this land in fact
belonged to the Tucker family when the pier
structure was standing. Additionally, the
1967 Findings and Preliminary
Documentary Research
During the 1967 archaeological project at
Brush-Everard, excavation south of the reconstructed garden shed revealed traces of
101
Polly Valentine
memoirs of John Charles, recalling Williamsburg on the eve of the Civil War, stated that
there “was the old frame house which stood
on the western line of the `Tucker’ lot with
side to the street. This was used as sevants’
quarters” (Charles 1933). Because the documentary evidence seemed to indicate that
this building could be a slave house, the Department of Archaeological Research leapt
at the opportunity to excavate an urban
slave house, albeit one that dated to a slightly
later time period than that which Colonial
Williamsburg normally studies.
The documentary record, in this case, is
quite good. The 1928 map was drawn by
George P. Coleman, grandson of Nathaniel
Tucker (Tucker 1942:19), and shows every
indication of being accurate. Additionally,
the Tucker-Coleman papers, housed at the
College of William and Mary, contain a
wealth of information about the Tucker family slaves, which was seen as a potential
source for information about this structure
and its inhabitants.
Documentary research, primarily in the
Tucker family papers, showed that the most
likely resident of the structure at the north
end of the Tucker property was a woman
named Polly Valentine. Her owner,
Nathaniel Beverley Tucker, had received
Polly from his half-brother, John Randolph
of Roanoke, as part of a larger group of
slaves. Polly Valentine served for many years
as a nanny to the Tucker children, and family records indicate that she was a favored
family slave.
Today’s researchers are fortunate
enough to have been left a relative wealth
of information about Polly Valentine and her
family. Most of this information comes from
reminiscences of Cynthia Beverley Tucker
(1832-1908), daughter of Nathaniel and
Lucy Tucker, recalling life in Williamsburg
in the early 1840s. Tucker decribed
“Mammy Polly” as “a tall well-made
woman” whose head was “not covered
with the conventional turban, but combed
and bound with yards and yards of narrow
black braid” (Coleman 1934:55). Polly was
married first to Robert Christian, a
neighbor’s slave. At night, Christian would
stay with his wife in her “house,” decribed
as “a neat comfortable room” in the laundry, where the other family slaves also resided (Coleman 1934:54). According to
Cynthia Tucker, her mammy’s first husband
had a drinking problem and was often cruel.
Upon Polly’s urging, Nathaniel Beverley
Tucker sold Christian in order to release her
from this marriage. In time, she married Jim
Valentine, in a service held in the vestry room
of Bruton Parish Church and attended by
Cynthia Tucker and her siblings. After their
marriage, Valentine “came to live at her
[Polly’s] home and, as children grew up
around them a house was fixed up for them
apart from the other servants” (Coleman
The Tucker Family
St. George Tucker, professor of law at the
College of William and Mary and federal
judge in the Virginia district court, built his
home along Nicholson Street in the late eighteenth century. One of his sons, Nathaniel
Beverley Tucker (1784-1851), also studied
law, practicing in Charlotte Court House
and Roanoke, Virginia during the early years
of the nineteenth century (Sturzenberger
1979:28). In 1815, Nathaniel moved with his
first wife and family to Missouri, where he
served as a circuit judge until the 1830s. In
1833, he accepted a law professorship at William and Mary, bringing with him his third
wife, Lucy Anne Smith, and the beginnings
of their new family. They moved into his
father’s former home, where direct descendants of the family still continue to live.
102
1934:56). It is believed that the house excavated in 1988 by Colonial Williamsburg archaeologists represents the home Nathaniel
Beverley Tucker had constructed for the Valentine family. At present, this is the only
known excavated structure built expressly
to house slaves in Williamsburg during the
eighteenth or nineteenth centuries.
1967 investigation to allow the excavation
of several trash pits underlying the brickwork, the two previously-discovered brick
piers remained intact. Three additional brick
and stone piers were also uncovered, although modern disturbances, such as utility trenches, had cut through areas believed
to have once held additional house piers.
Excavation revealed the remains of a 15 x
25 foot wood frame structure resting on
brick and stone piers, and containing a substantial brick fireplace at its eastern end (Fig.
66).
The archaeological remains uncovered
at the Valentine site are consistent with prescribed slave housing of the mid-nineteenth
century (McKee 1989; Singleton 1988; see
Table 16). Larry McKee’s research has
shown that antebellum writers championing orderly slave life in southern agricultural
journals recommended that slave housing
be constructed to fit specific requirements.
It was thought that by living in permanent,
comfortable, single family homes, slaves
Archaeological Results
One of the goals of the excavation at BrushEverard during the summer of 1988 was to
uncover any further remains of the house
believed to have been occupied by Polly Valentine and her family. Excavation encompassed the area which Noël Hume’s crew
had explored around the slave house in
1967, as well as extending to the west, north,
and south. Consistent with the results of the
earlier excavation, the structural remains for
the house were encountered underneath a
thin layer of topsoil. Although the building’s
hearth base had been removed during the
Figure 66. Archaeological remains of the Polly Valentine house.
103
Table 16.
Comparison of Antebellum Slave Unit Dimensions
Plantation and Household
Kingsley
Cannon's Point
Sinclair
Polly Valentine
Wilcox
Family Unit
Width
(Ft.)
Length
(Ft.)
12.0
17.0
11.2
15.0
16.0
16.1
20.0
21.0
25.0
20.0
one
one
one
one
one
Reference
Fairbanks 1974
Otto 1975
Moore 1981
—————
McKee 1989
*Adapted from Singleton 1988:357.
would be more content, productive, and
more easily managed. Specifications for
ideal housing included raising the house two
to three feet off the ground on piers, the construction of a brick fireplace and chimney,
wooden floors, glass paned windows and
recommended minimum dimensions of 16
x 18 feet. Raising the building off the ground
was thought to promote a healthy circulation of air under the house, as well as helping to prevent an accumulation of garbage
under the slave dwelling (McKee 1989). The
Valentine house appeared to meet all or
most of these requirements, containing the
requisite large chimney, raised wooden floor,
and recommended square footage. Window
glass found in the soil layers surrounding
the house suggest that the building also contained glass paned windows, as specified.
Cynthia Tucker described “Mammy’s children ... asleep in a trundle bed in the corner
of the big room,” suggesting that the house
contained at least two rooms.
Archaeologically, it appears that the Valentine house was destroyed sometime
around the Civil War, or shortly thereafter.
Documentary references to the Union occupation of Williamsburg indicate that many
wooden outbuildings in town were demolished by Federal troops and used for firewood (Charles 1933). Since Union soldiers
inhabited the Tucker house during the oc-
cupation of the town, perhaps this fate befell the Valentine house. Cynthia Tucker’s
memoirs indicate that most of the Tucker
family slaves relocated to Boston and other
areas after the close of the Civil War. Polly
Valentine, who apparently never left the
state of Virginia, later returned to Williamsburg to nurse Lucy Ann Tucker through the
illness that eventually resulted in her death.
Discussion
Excavation of soil layers under and around
the house provided an assemblage of artifacts which are believed to have been associated with the Valentine family (Table 17
[from Edwards 1990:Table 1]). A recent
study of the Polly Valentine site examined
material possessions as an indicator of master-slave relations on the Tucker property in
the mid-nineteenth century (Edwards 1990).
Edwards hypothesized that the slaves were
given what the Tucker family considered
good treatment (prescribed housing, more
than adequate material possessions and
food) in exchange for not granting the slaves
freedom. The “fit” of the Valentine house
was compared with the prescribed standards, as well as an analysis of the ceramic
vessels excavated from soil layers around
the house.
104
Table 17.
Ceramic Vessels from the Polly Valentine Household
Type
Form
Creamware, lined brown
Creamware, undecorated
Creamware, dipped rouletted rim
Creamware, undecorated
Creamware, undecorated
Pearlware, willow printed
Pearlware, enamel lined
Pearlware, rococo shell edged green
Pearlware, transfer printed
Pearlware, printed blue
Pearlware, scalloped shell edge green
Pearlware, shell edge blue
Pearlware, scalloped shell edge blue
Pearlware, lined, blue
Pearlware, shell edge impressed blue
Pearlware, shell edge blue
Pearlware, painted blue
Pearlware, printed blue
Pearlware, painted polychrome
Pearlware, printed blue
Pearlware, painted blue
Pearlware, printed blue
Whiteware, undecorated
Whiteware, printed blue
Whiteware, printed flow blue
Whiteware, shell edge impressed blue
Whiteware, molded
Whiteware, undecorated
Whiteware, undecorated
Whiteware, printed purple
Whiteware, painted polychrome
Whiteware, undecorated
Whiteware, annular
Whiteware, rolled rim
Whiteware, printed blue
Whiteware, undecorated
Whiteware, printed blue
Whiteware, undecorated
Whiteware, molded
White granite, undecorated
White granite, undecorated
White granite, molded
Bone china, molded
Bone china, undecorated
Bone china, undecorated
Cantonese porcelain, printed blue
French porcelain, undecorated
French porcelain, undecorated
Porcellaneous, undecorated
Porcellaneous, undecorated
Plate
Plate
Bowl
Bowl
Chamber pot
Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate
Platter
Cup
Saucer
Saucer
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate/platter
Cup
Cup/bowl
Cup/bowl
Saucer
Saucer
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Basin
Jug
Chamber pot
Chamber pot
Plate
Cup
Chamber pot
Cup
Cup
Saucer
Plate
Saucer
Bowl
Plate
Platter
Total
105
No. of Vessels
% of Total
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
2
5
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
6
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1.3
3.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
3.8
1.3
3.8
1.3
2.5
6.3
2.5
3.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
7.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
3.8
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.5
1.3
2.5
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
3.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
79
100.0
Several generations of the Tucker family owned African-American slaves who
lived and worked on the lots overlooking
Market Square. While dependent on these
slaves for the smooth operation of his
family’s daily lives, as well as the status they
helped confer on the family, St. George
Tucker had mixed feelings about the institution of slavery. In his Dissertation on Slavery (1796), Tucker advocated granting
slaves freedom. Unlike his father, Nathaniel
Beverley Tucker, author of numerous
proslavery writings, was a full supporter of
slavery. Typical of many antebellum slave
holders, he saw slaves as childlike and dependent upon the care of their white owners. This paternalistic attitude was very evident in his treatment of the slaves (always
referred to as servants), which he owned
both in Williamsburg and on his other properties. Family letters often included fond
greetings to the slaves and news about their
family members on other plantations. One
telling example of Tucker’s paternalistic behavior was his willingness to sell Polly
Valentine’s first husband in order to free her
from an unhappy marriage.
Interpersonal relationships between
owners and slaves varied by situation, but
were particularly intense for slaves working directly in the homes of, or under the
direct supervision of, their owners. Contact
was frequent, and in the best interest of the
owner, at least, was hopefully placid. In return for duties and obligations performed,
masters often reciprocated with incentives
or rewards. In some cases, slaves may have
even come to expect such gratuities or
“kindnesses.” For example, Usa Payton, one
of Nathaniel Tucker’s slaves living in Missouri, wrote in 1851 to her master, updating Tucker on her family and reminding him
that he had “all ways [sic] treated me well
& I shall forever like you for it....” (Coleman
1934:46). She continued by asking him to
send her a present of money, since hard times
had fallen on the St. Louis household, requiring her to take in outside washing.
Whether Payton’s request was granted is
unknown, but the fact that she felt she could
make this request is telling. Several other
Missouri slaves petitioned Nathaniel Tucker
not to separate them from their families by
sending them to Texas (Coleman 1934:39).
A list, prepared several years later, of slaves
on the Texas plantation does not list the
names of either woman, so it appears likely
that the women’s request was granted.
Historical documentation suggests that
slaves in urban places were distributed in
various locations on in-town properties,
both inside the owner’s homes and in various outbuildings. In 1835, many of the outbuildings on the Tucker property, including
slave housing, caught fire and burned to the
ground (Tucker-Coleman Uncat. Folder
337). Descriptions of this fire mention a
strong wind blowing from the southwest
and that the Brush-Everard house was at
great risk of being destroyed, suggesting that
the burned outbuildings had been arranged
on the northern portion of the Tucker lot.
Although the buildings had been insured,
the Tucker slaves were left temporarily
homeless, and possibly without possessions.
Despite Nathaniel Tucker’s assessment that
“nothing was lost,” this would have surely
been a gross overstatement to the slaves who
probably lost what material possessions they
did own. Perhaps it was at this time the
slaves began to be housed in the laundry,
where Valentine resided with her first husband. Martha Vandegrift, interviewed in
1932, recalled Williamsburg slaves and their
housing around the beginning of the Civil
War and, more specifically, the Tucker family slaves: “They lived out in yards. All the
kitchens were outside.... Mrs. Tucker’s servants had nice comfortable homes. They
were well lodged. They lived on the place.
106
They were excellent servants.” (Vandegrift
1932). Vandegrift’s statements seem to imply that, while most slaves lived in kitchens, the Tucker family slaves had houses
separate from other outbuildings on the
property. This may have been one result of
Tucker’s paternalistic attitude towards the
slaves who attended to the family’s daily
needs.
Certainly Polly Valentine was one of the
more favored of the family slaves, entrusted
with the responsibility to caring for the
Tucker children. Valentine was certainly
spoken of with love and affection by Cynthia
Tucker, and actions taken on her behalf by
Nathaniel and Lucy Ann Tucker indicate
their strong, positive feelings as well. Her
housing would have been considered more
than adequate for the time period and its
location at the extreme northern end of the
property guaranteed some degree of privacy
from the Tucker family.
107
108
Chapter 12.
Thomas Jefferson’s Toothbrush
A
lthough single artifacts excavated
on a site rarely warrant individu
alized attention, occasionally a discovery is made that requires specific notice.
Just such an artifact was recovered at the
Brush-Everard site in 1988 during the excavation of a disturbed soil stratum (Layer 34)
believed to have been associated with the
1930/31 archaeological excavation of the
Governor’s Palace. While digging directly to
the east of the reconstructed Brush-Everard
dairy, a student excavator uncovered the
polished bone handle of what appeared to
be a toothbrush (Fig. 67). While finding bone
handles for cutlery or toothbrushes is not
unusual on Williamsburg sites, these objects
are often fragile and need special care. While
wrapping and packing the handle so that it
could be taken to the lab for immediate attention, the excavator noticed that it bore
the inscription “THOS JEFFERSON.” Initially skeptical that this item actually had
once belonged to the third president of the
United States, it was instead believed that
this was some type of commemorative or
souvenir item dating to a later period. Research, however, suggests that the handle
in fact was Jefferson’s own.
Thomas Jefferson, in his capacity as the
second governor of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, lived in the Governor’s Palace between 1779 and 1780, and it is probable that
this item was broken and discarded on the
Palace property when Jefferson was in Williamsburg. There it remained buried, until,
during the process of excavating the Palace
property in 1930, the soil containing the
handle was moved as fill dirt to the BrushEverard property next door.
A search of the local records did reveal
two other York County residents by the
name of Thomas Jefferson, both of whom
died before the future president was born.
There is, however, no conclusive evidence
that either of these two men actually lived
in Williamsburg. Although it is possible that
this handle belonged to one of these other
Thomas Jeffersons or even to someone else,
its appearance in a layer believed to have
been associated with the Governor’s Palace
makes this possibility unlikely.
But, just as the true ownership of the
handle is likely to always remain somewhat
inconclusive, so too may the actual identification of the object. When excavated, the
handle was incomplete. The initial identifi-
Figure 67. Bone handle (left) and line drawing showing the inscribed characters.
109
cation as belonging to a toothbrush has
come under dispute, since the handle has
more of a curve than toothbrushes dating
to this time period usually exhibit. The staff
of Colonial Williamsburg’s Department of
Collections has suggested that the handle
was actually more likely to have been the
handle of a comb, small brush or some other
item from a man’s toilet kit. The personalized engraving, consisting of one-quarterinch triangular block letters, appears to have
been done by a jeweler and not by Jefferson
himself .
While study of this object has only just
begun, we may suggest that it was part of
Thomas Jefferson’s toilet kit, a personalized
toothbrush or related implement of personal
grooming that was used by him during the
time he resided in the Governor’s Palace.
Discarded there before he left when the
capital was transferred to Richmond in
1780, the bone handle ultimately found its
way into a layer of fill deposited behind the
Brush-Everard House.
Establishing how and when this could
have occurred leads us to the fate of the
Governor’s Palace after Jefferson left. Following his departure to Richmond, the Palace stood empty until 1781, when it was
taken over by the Continental Army for use
as a hospital. On December 22, 1781, the
Palace caught fire and burned to the ground
within a few hours. In 1782, the Commonwealth had the site cleared, and the property was conveyed to the College of William
and Mary. Most likely, it was during the
cleanup of the property that the bone handle
made its way to the Brush-Everard site, perhaps contained in a load of fill brought over
to level a low-lying area of the property.
We may never know for certain how
Thomas Jefferson’s toothbrush wound up in
the buried soil behind the Brush-Everard
House. Still, its discovery more than 200
years later remains us all of archaeology’s
power as a vehicle for directly touching the
things and, by extension, the people of the
past.
110
Bibliography
Adams, William H. and Sarah Jane Boling
1989 Status and Ceramics for Planters and Slaves on Three George Coastal Plantations.
Historical Archaeology 23(1):69-96.
Alexandrowicz, Steve
1985 Archaeological Monitoring of Phase V of the Gas Line Project: The Brush-Everard
Site and the Palace Green Locus. Report on file, Department of Archaeological
Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Anonymous
1907 Letters to Thomas Walker Gilmer. William and Mary Quarterly 15(s.1):225-234.
1922 Historical and Genealogical Notes. Tyler’s Quarterly Magazine 3:298-302.
1930 Speeches of Students of the College of William and May Delivered May 1, 1699.
William and Mary Quarterly 10(s.2):323-337. Manuscript in the Archives of the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, Fulham Palace, London.
Baker, Eliza
1933 Memoirs of Williamsburg, Virginia. Report taken by Elizabeth Hayes of a conversation between Eliza Baker and W. A. R. Goodwin. Report on file, Department of
Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Barka, Norman F., Edward Ayres, and Christine Sheridan
1985 The Poor Potter of Yorktown: A Study of a Colonial Pottery Factory. 3 vols. Prepared
under U.S. National Park Service Contract No. CK-2000-0-0005. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver.
Baugher, Sherene and Robert W. Venables
1987 Ceramics as Indicators of Status and Class in Eighteenth-Century New York. In
Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, edited by Susan Spencer-Wood, pp. 3153. Plenum Press, New York.
Beaudry, Mary C.
1984 Archaeology and the Historical Household. Man in the Northeast 28:27-37.
Beaudry, Mary, and Stephen Mrozowski (editors)
1989 Interdisciplinary Investigations of the Boott Mills Lowell, Massachusetts. Volume III:
The Boardinghouse System as a Way of Life. Report prepared for the National Park
Service by the Center for Archaeological Studies, Boston University.
Beck, Cheryl, and William Pittman
1992 Dr. George Gilmer’s Pharmaceutical Wares; An Examination of Some Pharmaceutical Wares of a Williamsburg Dispensing Physician. Report on file, Department of
Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
111
Bradshaw, J. Michael
1990 Archaeological Project 40BA (BW40) Bassett Hall Woods Site Oyster Shell Analysis. Report on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation.
Brinkley, Kent
1990 Personal communication.
Brock Notebook
—— Manuscript volume in the Collection of the Virginia Historical Society, Richmond,
Virginia.
Brown, Gregory J., Thomas F. Higgins III, David F. Muraca, S. Kathleen Pepper, and Roni
H. Polk
1990 Archaeological Investigation of the Shields Tavern Site, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Report on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation.
Brush
1977 Letter to Lou Powers concerning John Brush. Letter on file, Department of Historical Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Carr, Lois G., and Lorena S. Walsh
1994 Changing Lifestyles and Consumer Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake. In Of
Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, edited by Cary
Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert, pp. 59-166. University Press of
Virginia, Charlottesville.
Carson, Barbara G.
1990 Ambitious Appetites; Dining, Behavior and Patterns of Consumption in Federal Washington. American Institute of Architects Press, Washington.
Carson, Cary, and Lorena S. Walsh
1981 The Material Life of the Early American Housewife. Paper presented at Conference on Women in Early America,Williamsburg.
Charles, John S.
1933 Unpublished transcript on file. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg.
Charlton
Account Book of Edward Charlton 1769-1779. Special Collections, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation Library, Williamsburg.
Chowning, Larry S.
1990 Harvesting the Chesapeake: Tools and Traditions. Tidewater Publishers, Centreville,
Maryland.
Coleman, Mary Haldane
1934 Virginia Silhouettes: Contemporary Letters Concerning Negro Slavery in the State of
Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.
112
Cressey, Pamela J.
1983 Sharing the Ivory Tower. In Approaches to Preserving a City’s Past, pp. 3-19.
Preservation Planning Series. Alexandria Urban Archaeology Program, Alexandria.
Crumley, Carole L.
1974 Celtic Social Structure: The Generation of Archaeologically Testable Hypotheses
from Literary Evidence. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan No. 54. Ann Arbor.
Deeds and Bonds
—— Dayly Account of Expenses.
Deetz, James
1977 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American Life. Anchor Books,
Garden City.
Demos, John
1970 A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Dyson, Stephen L.
1982 Material Culture, Social Structure, and Changing Cultural Values: The Ceramics
of Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Middletown, Connecticut. In Archaeology
of Urban America: The Search for Pattern and Process, edited by Roy S. Dickens, pp.
361-380. Academic Press, New York.
Edwards, Andrew
1987 Archaeology at Port Anne. A Report on Site CL7, An Early 17th Century Colonial
Site. Report on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg.
Edwards, Andrew, William Pittman, Gregory J. Brown, Mary Ellen Hodges, Marley R.
Brown III, and Eric Voigt
1989 Hampton University Archaeological Project: A Report on the Findings. Report on
file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Edwards, Andrew C., Linda K. Derry and Roy A. Jackson
1988 A View from the Top: Archaeological Investigations of Peyton Randolph’s Urban
Plantation. Report on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation.
Edwards, Ywone D.
1990 Master-Slave Relations: A Williamsburg Perspective. M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, College of William and Mary.
Felton, David L., and Peter D. Schulz
1983 The Diaz Collection: Material Culture and Social Change in Mid-Nineteenth Century
Monterey. California Archaeological Reports No. 23, California Department of
Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
113
Ferguson, Leland
1980 Looking for the “Afro” in Colono-Indian Pottery. In Archaeological Perspectives on
Ethnicity in America, edited by Robert Schuyler, pp. 14-28. Baywood Publishing
Company, Farmingdale.
1992 Uncommon Ground; Archaeology and Early African America, 1650-1800.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Ford, Richard
1979 Paleoethnobotany in American Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method
and Theory, Volume 2, edited by Michael Schiffer, pp. 286-336. Academic Press,
New York.
Frank, Neil
1967 Brush-Everard House Kitchen and Surrounding Area; Block 29, Area E. Colonial
Lots 164 and 165. Report on 1967 Archaeological Excavations. Report on file,
Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Frenchman’s Map
1782 Plan de la ville et environs de Williamsburg en Virginie, 1782. Original map on
file, Swem Library, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg.
Galtsoff, Paul S.
1964 The American Oyster: Crassostrea Virginica Gmelin. United States Government
Printing Office, Washington.
Garner, F. H., and Michael Archer
1972 English Delftware. Faber and Faber, London.
Gibbs, Patricia
1984 Memo to Graham Hood on Known Facts and Possible Assumptions about the
Brush-Everard Family about 1770. Memo on file, Foundation Library, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation.
Gill, Harold B., Jr.
1972 The Apothecary in Colonial Virginia. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Gilmer, George Rockingham
1855 Sketches of Some of the First Settlers of Upper Georgia, of the Cherokees, and the
Author. D. Appleton & Co., New York.
Glasse, Hannah
1760 The Art of Cookery, made plain and easy. A. Miller, London.
Goldschmidt, Walter and Evelyn J. Kunkel
1971 The Structure of the Peasant Family. American Anthropologist 73:1058-1076.
Greven, Philip J. Jr.
1966 Family Structure in Seventeenth-Century Andover, Massachusetts. William and
Mary Quarterly 23(s.3):234-256.
114
Grieve, M.
1971 A Modern Herbal. Dover Publications, New York.
Griffenhagen, George
1957 Tools of the Apothecary. American Pharmaceutical Association, Washington.
Harris, Edward
1979 Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. Academic Press, New York.
Heikkenen, Jack
1984 The Years of Construction for Eight Historical Structures in Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, as Derived by the Key-Year Dendrochronology Technique. American Institute of Dendrochronology, Inc.
Hellier, Cathleene
1987 Williamsburg at Mid-century: A Population Profile. The Colonial Williamsburg
Interpreter 8(5):1-2.
1989 Private Land Development in Williamsburg, 1699-1748. M.A. thesis, Department
of American Studies, College of William and Mary.
Henretta, James A.
1978 Families and Farms: Mentalite in Pre-Industrial America. Willam and Mary Quarterly 35(s.3):1:3-32.
Herman, Bernard
1984 Multiple Materials, Multiple Meanings: The Fortunes of Thomas Mendenhall.
Winterthur Portfolio 19(1):67-86.
Hess, Karen (editor)
1981 Martha Washington’s Booke of Cookery. Columbia University Press, New York.
1984 Virginia House-wife, by Mary Randolph. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia. Facsimile of 1824 edition.
Hill, James N.
1970 Prehistoric Social Organization in the American Southwest: Theory and Method.
In Reconstructing Prehistoric Pueblo Societies, edited by William Longacre, pp. 1158. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Horne, Jonathan
1989 English Tin-Glazed Tiles. Grillford Ltd, London.
Horne, Lee
1982 The Household in Space; Dispersed Holdings in an Iranian Village. American
Behavioral Scientist 25(6):677-685.
Hughes, G. Bernard
1956 English, Scottish and Irish Table Glass. Bramhall House, New York.
Jackson, Donald Dale
1988 The Oyster’s Smile is Fading, to the Horror of Gourmets. Smithsonian 1:60-71.
115
Keeler, Robert W.
1978 The Homelot on the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake Tidewater Frontier. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon.
Kelso, Gerald and William F. Fisher
1989 Palynology, Land Use, and Site Formation Processes in Urban Archeology: The
Boott Mills Boardinghouse Backlots, Lowell, Massachusetts. In Interdisciplinary
Investigations of the Boott Mills Lowell, Massachusetts. Volume III: The Boardinghouse
System as a Way of Life, edited by Mary C. Beaudry and Stephen A Mrozowski.
Report prepared for the National Park Service by the Center for Archaeological
Studies, Boston University.
Kelso, William
1984 Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800; Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia.
Academic Press, New York.
Kent, Brett
1988 Making Dead Oysters Talk. Report on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
King, Julia A., and Henry M. Miller
1987 The View from the Midden: An Analysis of Midden Distribution and Composition
at the van Sweringen Site, St. Mary’s City, Maryland. Historical Archaeology
21(2):37-59.
Knight, James M.
1947a Archaeological Report, Block 29, Area E. Brush House and Outbuildings. Report
on file, Architectural Archives, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library.
1947b Archaeological Survey of Foundations on Brush Lot - (part of Colonial Lots 165 &
166) Williamsburg, Va. Block 29, Area E. Original map on file, Architectural
Archives, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library.
1947c Archaeological Survey of Foundations of Brick Dam or Retaining Wall and
Outbuilding on Col. Lot No. 172. Williamsburg, Va. Block 29 Area F. Original
map on file, Architectural Archives, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library.
1984 Personal communication.
Kocher and Dearstyne
1950 Architectural Report The Brush-Everard House (Restored). Block 29, Colonial
Lots 165 and 166. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg.
Kramer, Carol
1982 Ethnographic Households and Archaeological Interpretation. American Behavioral
Scientist 25:663-675.
Langley, Batty
1728 New Principles of Gardening. A. Betteswoth and J. Batley, London.
Laslett, P.
1972 Household and Family in Past Time. Cambridge University Press, New York.
116
Lemon, James T.
1972 The Best Poor Man’s Country: A Geographical Study of Early Southeastern Pennsylvania. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
1980 Comments on James A. Henretta’s ‘Families and Farms: Mentalite in Pre-Industrial America’. William and Mary Quarterly 37(s.3):688-696.
Leone, Mark, and Constance Crosby
1987 Epilogue: Middle Range Theory. In Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology,
edited by Suzanne Spencer-Wood, pp. 397-410. Plenum Press, New York.
Limbrey, Susan
1975 Soil Science and Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Longacre, William A. (editor)
1970 Reconstructing Prehistoric Pueblo Societies. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Luccketti, Nicholas
1988 Untitled Paper. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Archeological
Society of Virginia, Hampton, October 1, 1988.
McBride, W. Stephen, and Kim A. McBride
1987 Socioeconomic Variation in a Late Antebellum Southern Town; The View from
Archaeological and Documentary Sources. In Consumer Choice in Historical
Archaeology, edited by Susan Spencer-Wood, pp. 143-161. Plenum Press, New
York.
Macfarlane, Alan
1977 Reconstructing Historical Communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
McKee, Larry
1989 Virginia Slave Cabins; Documented Intentions Versus Archaeological Reality.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology,
Baltimore, Maryland.
Markham, Gervase
1615 The English Housewife. Edited by Michael Best, 1986. McGill-Queen’s University
Press, Kingston.
Martin, Ann Smart
1987 “Dish it up and Send it To the Table:” Foodways at the Local Store. Paper presented at the Jamestown Conference on Foodways, Charlottesville, Virginia, May
21, 1987.
1988 “To Supply the Real and Imaginary Necessities”: The Retail Trade in Table and
Teawares, Virginia and Maryland, c. 1750-1810. Report submitted to the National
Endowment for the Humanities. Report on file, Department of Archaeological
Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
117
Martin, Ann Smart (cont’d)
1989a The Role of Pewter as Missing Artifact: Consumer Attitudes Towards Tablewares
in Late Eighteenth-Century Virginia. Historical Archaeology 2:1-27.
1989b “Fashionable Sugar Dishes, Latest Fashion Ware”: The Retail Trade in Eighteenth
Centurty Tea and Tableware. Paper presented at the First Archaeological Congress/Society for Historical Archaeology Annural Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland.
Miller, George
1974 A Tenant Farmer’s Tableware: Nineteenth Century Ceramics from Tabb’s Purchase. Maryland Historical Magazine 69(2):197-210.
1992 Personal communication.
Moran, G. P., E. F. Zimmer and A. E. Yentsch
1982 Archaeological Investigations at the Narbonne House, Salem Maritime National Historic Site, Massachusetts. Cultural Resource Management Study 6. Division of
Cultural Resources, North American Regional Office, National Park Service,
Boston.
Mountford, Arnold R.
1972 Staffordshire Salt-Glazed Stoneware. Ceramics in America, edited by Ian M. G.
Quimby, pp. 197-215. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Mrozowski, Stephen A.
1981 Archaeological Investigations in Queen Anne Square; Newport Rhode Island: A
Study in Urban Archaeology. M.A. thesis, Brown University, Providence.
1984 Prospects and Perspectives on an Archaeology of the Household. Man in the
Northeast 27:31-49.
1991 A Preliminary Report of the Archaeobotanical Analysis of Context 29G-The
Brush-Everard Site, Williamsburg, Virginia. Manuscript on file, Department of
Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
1991b Personal communication.
1996 Personal communication.
Munsell
1975 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth/Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore.
Muraca, David and Cathleene Hellier
1992 Archaeological Testing at Bruton Heights. Report on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Netting, Robert
1982 Some Home Truths on Household Size and Wealth. American Behavioral Scientist
25(6):641-662.
118
Noël Hume, Ivor
1961 The Anthony Hay Site, Block 28, Area D. Colonial Lots 263 and 264. Report on
Archaeological Excavations of 1959-1960, Volumes I-III. Report on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
1978 Material Culture with the Dirt on It: A Virginia Perspective. In Material Culture
and the Study of American Life, edited by Ian M. G. Quimby, pp. 21-40. W. W.
Norton and Company, Inc. New York.
1979 First Look at a Lost Virginia Settlement. National Geographic 155(6):735-767.
Norton Papers
John Norton and Sons Papers. Manuscripts on file, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library.
Otto, John Solomon
1984 Cannon’s Point Plantation, 1794-1860; Living Conditions and Status Patterns in the
Old South. Academic Press, New York.
Pearsall, Deborah M.
1989 Paleoethnobotany; A Handbook of Procedures. Academic Press, New York.
Perry, Shaw and Hepburn
1932 Archaeological and Research Key Map of Restoration Area, Williamsburg, Virginia. Map on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation.
Pickett, Dwayne
1994 Archaeological Excavations in Advance of Waterproofing Activities at the BrushEverard House. Report on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg.
Pogue, Dennis J.
1988 Anthrosols and the Analysis of Archaeological Sites in a Plowed Context. Northeast Historical Archaeology 17:1-15.
1990 King’s Reach and 17th-Century Plantation Life. Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum Studies in Archaeology Number 1. Maryland Historical and Cultural Publication, Annapolis.
Pogue, Dennis J., and Esther White
1991 Summary Report on the “House for Families” Slave Quarter Site (44Fx762/4047), Mount Vernon Plantation, Mount Vernon, Virginia. Quarterly Bulletin of the
Archaeoloogical Society of Virginia 46(4):189-206
Pritchard, Margaret
1985 Memo to Barbara Beaman on wallpaper at the Brush-Everard House. Contained
in Brush-Everard House, Block 29, Building 10 Curatorial Report. Memo on file,
Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
119
Randolph, John, Jr.
1826 A Treatise on Gardening by a Citizen of Virginia. Edited by M. F. Warner. Reprinted
from The American Gardener of John Gardiner and David Hepburn. 3rd edition.
Appeals Press, Richmond, 1924.
Randolph, Mary
1824 The Virginia Housewife. Facsimile of 1824 edition, edited by Karen Hess.
Reid, J. Jefferson and Stephanie Whittlesey
1982 Households at Grasshopper Pueblo. American Behavioral Analysis 25(6):687-703.
Reinhard, Karl
1986 Palynological and Parasitological Investigations of Soils from Tazewell Hall,
Williamsburg, Virginia. In Archaeological Excavations on the Tazewell Hall Property,
by Patricia Samford, Gregory Brown and Ann Smart. Report on file, Department
of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
1989 Analysis of Latrine Soils from the Brush-Everard Site, Colonial Williamsburg,
Virginia. Report on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation.
1991 Parasitological Analysis of the Brush-Everard Site, Williamsburg, Virginia. Report
on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
1991 Personal communication.
1996 Personal communication.
Reinhard, Karl, Stephen A. Mrozowski, and K. A. Orloski
1986 Privies, Pollen, Parasites and Seeds: A Biological Nexus in Historic Archaeology.
MASCA Journal 4(1):31-36.
Roth, Rodris
1961 Tea Drinking in 18th-Century America: Its Etiquette and Equipage. United States
National Museum Bulletin 225. Smithsonian Institution.
Samford, Patricia
1983 Block 29, Building 13B, Palace Power Plant. Report on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
1986a Brush-Everard Communication Cable Installation. Report on file, Department of
Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
1986b Communication Cable Installation. Report on file, Department of Archaeological
Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
1986c Nicolson House report. Report on file, Department of Archaeological Research,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Samford, Patricia, Gregory Brown, and Ann M. Smart
1986 Archaeological Excavations on the Tazewell Hall Property. Report on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
120
Savedge, Catherine
1969 The Brush-Everard Kitchen. Original Block 29, Building 9 Colonial Lot 165.
Summary Architectural Report. Report on file, Foundation Library, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Shepard, Steven J.
1987 Status Variation in Antebellum Alexandria; An Archaeological Study of Ceramic
Tableware. In Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, edited by Suzanne Spencer-Wood, pp. 163-198. Plenum Press, New York.
Singleton, Theresa
1988 The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life. Academic Press, New York.
Spencer-Wood, Suzanne M.
1987 Introduction. In Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology, edited by Suzanne
Spencer-Wood. Plenum Press, New York.
Stachiw, Myron O.
1989 Piecing Together an Economic Neighborhood: Barre Four Corners in the Early
19th Century. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Historical
Archaeology, Baltimore, Maryland.
Stephenson, Mary
1956 Brush-Everard House, Block 29, Colonial Lots 165, 166, 172. Report on file,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library.
Stiverson, Gregory A., and Patrick H. Butler (editors)
1977 Virginia in 1732: The Travels of William Hugh Grove. Virginia Magazine of History
and Biography 85(1):18-44.
Sturzenberger, Doris
1979 The Southern Lady Ideal in the Life of Cynthia Beverley Tucker 1840-1870. M.A.
thesis, Department of History, College of William and Mary.
Tucker, Beverley Randolph
1942 Tales of the Tuckers; Descendants of the Male Line of St. George Tucker of Bermuda and
Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.
Tucker, St. George
1970 Dissertation on Slavery, with a Proposal for the Gradual Abolition of It in the State of
Virginia. Negro Universities Press, Westport, Connecticut. Originally published for
M. Carey, Philadelphia, 1796.
Tucker-Coleman Papers
—— Tucker-Coleman Papers. Uncatalogued Folder 337. Swem Library, College of
William and Mary.
121
Tyler, Lyon G.
1907 Williamsburg, The Old Colonial Capital. Whittlet and Shepperson, Richmond.
Upton, Dell
1979 Early Vernacular Architecture in Southeastern Virginia. Ph.D. dissertation, Brown
University, Providence. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Vandegrift, Martha
1932 Interview with Mrs. Martha Vandegrift, TR 00/23 Apr/1932. Special Collections,
John D. Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Walker, Iain C.
1977 Clay Tobacco-Pipes, with Particular Reference to the Bristol Industry. 4 volumes. Parks
Canada.
Walsh, Lorena S.
1983 Urban Amenities and Rural Sufficiency: Living Standards and Consumer Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1643-1777. Journal of Economic History 43(1):109117.
1989 Plantation Management in the Chesapeake, 1620-1820. Journal of Economic History 49(2):393-406.
Webb-Prentis Papers
Webb-Prentis Papers. Alderman Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Wenger, Mark R.
1986 The Central Passage in Virginia: Evolution of an Eighteenth-Century Living
Space. In Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, II, edited by Camille Wells, pp.
137-149. University of Missouri Press, Columbia.
1994 Investigations at the Brush-Everard House. The Colonial Williamsburg Interpreter
15(1):5-9.
1996 Personal communication.
Wharton, James
1957 The Bounty of the Chesapeake: Fishing in Colonial Virginia. Virginia 350th Anniversary Historical Booklets No. 13. Virginia 350th Anniversary Celebration,
Williamsburg.
Whiffen, Marcus
1960 The Eighteenth-Century Houses of Williamsburg: A Study of the Architecture and
Building in the Colonial Capital of Virginia. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg.
Williamsburg Restoration
1928 St. George Tucker House, Existing Conditions. Block XXIX, Bldg. 2. Map L-1,
revised June 24, 1930, December 16, 1930, and January 27, 1931. Map on file,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library, Williamsburg.
122
Woodfin, Maude H., and Marion Tinling (editors)
1942 Another Secret Diary of William Byrd of Westover, for the Years 1739-1741. Dietz
Press, Richmond.
Yentsch, Anne
1990 Minimum Vessel Lists as Evidence of Change in Folk and Country Traditions of
Food Use. Historical Archaeology 24(3):128-130.
123
124
Appendix 1.
John Brush Probate Inventory
York County Orders, Wills, Etc.
#16, 1720-1729, p. 438
Inventory & Appraisement. of the Estate of Mr. John Brush deced.
1 Vice 45lb. at 6d. £1. 2. 6 One Do. 54lb. £2. 10. - One Do. 26lb. £1. 6. - .................................................... £ 4.18. 6
23lb. Steel at 10d. £-. 19. 2 172lb. old brass at 9d. £6. 9. - 48lb. old Iron 4/ ................................................ 7.12. 2
45lb. Copper £2. 5. - 2 old Candlesticks 2/ One old pestle & mortar 2/ .................................................... 2. 9 1 Smoothing Iron 2/ & 2 brass pans 5/ three Gridirons 14lb. at 7½ d. 9/4½ ............................................... –.16. ½
4
1 brass pot 1 Skillet, 1 frying pan £1. three Wedges 15½lb. at 6d. 7/9. 20lb. pewter 7½ d. 12/6 ............. 2. -. 3
12lb. New Cast brass at 9d. 9/ One Saw and frame 2/ two old crosscut saws 5/– ................................. –.16. –
4 Small bagg-o-mats 8/ One saddle & bridle 20/. One Silver Watch £4. two horse logs [?] 5/ ............. 5.13. –
1 Clock £36. One old Desk 10/ One looking Glass £1.10 One tea table & Chest drawers £4 ............... 12. –. –
2 bedsteds £1. A pcell. pictures 10/ One old corner cupboard 3/ One cloath brush 1/3 ....................... 1.14. 6
2 old feather beds £2. One flock bed 10/ three pr. old blanketts 2 Rugs £1. 5. – 15lb. feathers 15/. .... 4.10. –
1 trussall 10/ One Small Curtain rod & tester 7/6. One Oval table 10/ ...................................................... 1. 7. 6
1 pr. Dogs & 2 trevits £1. three rake heads 10/ three Gun barrils 1 Stock 10/ ........................................ 2. –. –
1 Gun 10/ One closestool pan 2/6. 13lb. wrought Iron 6/6. One horse £5. .............................................. 5.19. –
6 Screw plates & pr. clams £3. 8. two tumbler tools, 2 pan borers pr. Cyphering tongs hand Vice ........ 4.18. –
10 Smooth files 10/ A pcell. old files punches shairs & ca. £1. 5. 2 twenty Seven new files 11/6. ........... 2. 6. 8
1 tinder box & powder trier 9/9. two long shank bills 1 Drawvore 7/6 ................................................... –.17. 3
1 hold fast 1 horse & 2 hammers 5/ A pcell. old Gouges & formers 3/4 ................................................... –. 8. 4
A pcell. plains 1 Spoke Shave 6/10. A pcell. Small iron brass & other Rubbish 10/ .................................. –.16.10
1 Spit & old Jack 4/ One old Chest & box 3/ One old Vice Wt. 50lb. £1. 5. – ............................................. 1.12. –
7 pr. Smiths tongs 14/ One poker 1 ladle 1 Slice 3/9 One ladle flesh fork & Skimmer 6/ ..................... 1. 3. 9
1 Shovall & tongs 4/. four Bolesters 6 Cole Chiswells 5/ two hamers. & 1 Sledge 10/ ......................... –.19. –
1 half bushell 4/ twenty Nine melting pots 4/10 One Smiths bellows & nose peice 27/6 ....................... 1.16. 4
1 large Wheel for Razor grinding, 2 Stones for Do. Spindles & .................................................................... 1. 5. –
1 Grindstone & frame, 1 large D0. £1. One Anvill wt. 113 grains 13dwt £2. 1. 3. 1 beak Iron 15/ ......... 3.16. 3
A pcell. of Smiths files 5/ four Curtain Rods £1. 7. – One Chain & Castor 10/ ......................................... 2. 2. –
A pcell. Small Iron 10/ One pail & 4 old tubs 5/ five old Chairs 5/ three bags 9/ .................................. 1. 9. –
1 Jarr 1 Earthen & 2 Stone pots 10/ One Dripping pan 5/ two Narro. Axes 1/3 ...................................... –.16. 3
13lb. wrought Iron 8/1½ To a ladle & parcell Rubbish 5/ two bushls. hair 2/ ............................................ –.15. ½
1
1 Stone Jug & 4 Candle Moulds 3/ A pcell. of Fodder 2/6 A pcell. rubbish Iron 5/ ................................. –.10. 6
2 Glew pots 2/ A pestle & wooden mortar 7/6. One pr. Garders Sheers 3/ ............................................. –.12. 6
1 Dung fork 5/ twenty one oz. old Silver 5/ £5. 5– One pr. old money Scales 7/6 ................................. 5.17. 6
112 bushlls. Seal Coal at 12d. £5. 12. – One hand Saw 2/ One fender & tongs 7/6 ................................... 6. 1. 6
£ 90. –. 1
[£ 91.10. 1]
Thomas Barbar
Eliza. Brush
}
Exrs.
Janry. 14th. 1726/7 In obedience to an order of York County Court dated Decr. 19th. 1726 Wee the Subscribers
have appraised all the Estate of John Brush deced. amounting to Ninety Pounds & One penny Currtt. money
Samuel Cobbs, Richard King, James Shields
At a Court held for York County Febry. 20th. 1726/7 This Inventory & Appraisemt. of the Estate of John Brush
deced. was presented in Court and admitted to record.
Test. Phi: Lightfoot Cl. Cur.
125
126
Appendix 2.
The Gunsmithing Activities of
John Brush, 1717-1726
A Report by Michael Jarvis
T
his section explores the range of met
alworking activities that John Brush
engaged in, with particular emphasis on gunsmithing. Both the documentary
record and artifactual analysis were used
to compose a more complete picture of
Brush’s pursuits. As mutually exclusive data
sources, they inform us about site layout and
the apparent and actual activities performed
on the site. The documentary and archaeological records will each be examined separately, with a conclusion drawn reconciling
the two sources into a more complete understanding of John Brush and his work.
of Henry Bowcocke of Williamsburg. He left
“1 bird piece made by Brush” to his son
Henry, valued at two pounds, ten shillings.3
In 1723, however, Brush was “blown up
and hurt” while firing off a cannon salute
for the King’s birthday. The injury was serious enough to warrant a petition to the
House of Burgesses from Brush for “some
Allowance,” since apparently he could not
carry on his trade.4 The petition was rejected
and it is unknown whether he ever recovered his full health. Brush died three years
later, in November or December of 1726. He
was survived by a wife and four children.5
Brush’s forge and workshop were most
likely located on one of his two lots on the
Palace Green (#165 and #166). A probate inventory made shortly after his death reveals
that Brush was occupied in a wide range of
activities. The presence of an anvil, a set of
bellows, seven pair of smith’s tongs, a pair
of metal shears, 112 bushels of seal coal and
a number of hammers, sledges, punches, and
chisels indicate that he was involved with
actually forging guns and gun parts instead
of merely repairing or assembling them from
pieces imported from England.6 The shop
also held 23 pounds of steel and over 60
pounds of wrought iron which served as the
raw materials for his work. Tools specific to
gunsmithing listed in the inventory include
six screw plates, six pairs of clamps, two
tumbler tools, one “powder trier,” a
drawbore for boring holes in musket barrels, two pan borers and a “Cypharington
hand vice.”7 At the time of Brush’s death,
The Documentary Record
John Brush was one of Williamburg’s earliest gunsmiths, arriving some time before July
of 1717. He had received his training in London, where he had been a member of the
gunsmith’s guild. Brush was probably
brought over by Lieutenant Governor
Alexander Spotswood to fill the colony’s
desperate need for skilled metalworkers.1
Between 1717 and 1723, he apparently
made and serviced guns for both the Governor and for private citizens. Spotswood
established the Magazine at Williamsburg
in 1715 and relied on Brush to maintain and
repair guns belonging to the colonial government. These arms supplemented the Virginia militia. He also apparently made pistols and pieces for the general public when
not occupied with governmental service.2
One of his weapons is mentioned in the will
127
the shop contained three gun barrels, two
long shank bills, three rake heads, and a finished gun, all of which were probably either commissioned work or objects awaiting repair.8
Brush was also casting both brass and
pewter objects at his shop. The inventory
records twenty-nine melting pots, 172
pounds of “old brass,” 45 pounds of copper, 35 pounds of pewter and 12 “new cast
brass.”9 The tools in Brush’s shop also included four vices of varying sizes, two grindstones, a large wheel “for razor grinding,”
and at least 37 files for finishing forged or
cast pieces and for sharpening swords and
other bladed weapons.10 The space needed
for operating some of these tools, particularly the drawbore mentioned above and the
grinding stones, indicates that his workshop
must have been fairly large.
In addition to forging the barrel and lock
plate, Brush seems to have fashioned the
wooden stocks for his guns. He owned a
number of gougers, formers, and planes, as
well as a spoke shave which he used in forming musket and pistol stocks. One finished
wooden stock was found in his shop at the
time of his death, perhaps awaiting assembly.11
Brush’s will and probate both indicate
that he had neither slaves nor formal apprentices working for him, since they would
have been listed as assets of the estate. He
might have been aided in his work by his
son, Anthony, or perhaps by his son-in-law,
Thomas Barber. Neither of them carried on
the gunsmithing trade after Brush’s death,
and Williamsburg was to go without a skilled
gunsmith until the arrival of James Geddy
in 1737.12
study were excavated in 1987 and 1988 by
Colonial Williamsburg archaeologists. Although other archaeology has been done on
this site, suitable records were not kept. Artifactual evidence in the form of tools, gun
parts, and metalworking by-products both
confirms activities hinted at in the scant
documentary record pertaining to Brush
and reveals practices that are not mentioned.
The material culture associated with
Brush’s metalworking activities falls into
five categories: tools associated with
smithing, gun parts, gun accoutrements,
non-gun forge work, and forging by-products. For the purposes of artifactual analysis, the objects examined were recovered
from firmly dated stratigraphic contexts
dating from 1720-1740 unless otherwise
stated.
It is unfortunate that the shop itself has
not been located. Features associated with
Brush’s shop either remain to be found or
have been obliterated by earlier excavations.
This makes definitive statements about shop
layout impossible, but information can still
be gleaned from the artifacts which have
been recovered. The presence of coal, clinker, and slag in features on the property dating to Brush’s period indicate that his shop
was located here rather than elsewhere in
Williamsburg.13 His workshop was perhaps
dismantled by one of the property’s later
owners, spreading the associated artifacts
across the site.
What is immediately striking when viewing the Brush gunsmithing assemblage is the
relatively small size of the sample. Only a
handful of gun parts were recovered when
compared to the large assemblage associated
with the James Geddy shop and foundry
which opened by 1737 and was operated
by Geddy and his sons into the 1750s. 14
There are several explanations for the discrepancy in gun part representation, however. The Brush site potentially has a large
The Archaeological Record
The artifacts relating to John Brush’s metalworking activities that were used in this
128
number of gun parts yet to be recovered if
the forge is located, perhaps putting the
Brush assemblage on a par with that of the
Geddy site. Also, the scale of operation between the two craftsmen differed greatly;
Brush worked alone or perhaps with his son
or son-in-law, while Geddy employed himself, at least two of his four sons (William
and David), a white indentured servant
named William Beadle and probably a slave
boy named Jack.15 The Geddy shop was also
in operation for a longer period and saw a
greater volume of business than Brush’s operation. Geddy also benefitted from a predominantly civilian clientele while Brush’s
primary commitment was to the Virginia
colonial government.
The best artifactual sources for reconstructing Brush’s activities are gun parts,
stock furniture, and accoutrements, since
they represent the majority of non-architectural metal artifacts. As defined in this study,
gun parts are those mechanisms which are
necessary for the firing of pistols and muskets. These include barrels, lock plates and
pans, cocks, frizzens and pan covers,
springs, sears, tumblers, and triggers. Stock
furniture are defined as gun elements not
essential for firing, such as thumb and stock
plates, fragmentary and complete trigger
guards and terminals, thimbles and worms.
Gun accoutrements consist of the flints and
shot needed to complete the firing process.
Two lock plates were found on the site.
A musket or pistol side plate was found in a
ca. 1745 context, with its pan and sear still
attached. The shape of the plate, with its
sharp downward curve and its drawn-out,
pointed tail combine with the plate’s convex face to suggest a late seventeenth-century manufacture date.16 The arms of the
attached sear form an angle of approximately 135 degrees, which was a characteristic of the dog locks of the late seventeenth century. The sear, however, merely
suggests a dog lock; firm evidence from the
missing cock or tumbler would be needed
to establish this plate as belonging to a dog
lock. Apparently, Brush was engaged to
“upgrade” this gun from a dog lock to a flint
lock. After stripping all of the reusable parts
from this sideplate (the springs, the tumbler,
the frizzen, the dog and the cock), he discarded the plate.
Another partially forged lock plate was
found in a 1720-1727 context. This piece was
cut into the shape of a lock plate, but was
broken or burnt at both ends. No holes were
punched in the plate, indicating it was discarded before it was finished.
Three gun cocks were recovered, all of
which were from or for flintlocks. One cock,
probably from a pistol, was discarded after
it had broken; the vise holding the flint could
no longer function. A partially forged cock
was found in a 1720s context. The cock had
been rough-forged into the approximate
shape, but had not been filed or finished for
some unknown reason. It is interesting to
note that although the base of the vise had
been formed and the hole for the screw
drilled and tapped, the square-shanked hole
for attaching the cock to the lockplate had
not been punched. A third possible cock base
had a cock’s characteristic square-shanked
hole, but is missing the entire vise portion of
the cock. The convex outer face has also been
flattened, presumably by hammering. Per-
Gun Parts
Gun parts fall into two categories: those
pieces which were stripped off weapons being repaired because of wear, breakage or
obsolescence and those pieces which were
forged or partially forged from scratch in
the shop. The assemblage contains items
from both categories, providing us with information about the types of guns which
Brush serviced as well as the forging process which was used to create various parts.
129
haps Brush was recycling this old, discarded
cock by forging it into another form to serve
some unknown purpose.
Two frizzens and a snaphaunce pan
cover were recovered. One frizzen , probably belonging to a pistol or fowling piece,
seems to have been discarded because of
excessive wear along its face. A lack of steel
on the face of the frizzen would prevent
proper ignition, since the striking flint would
not produce a sufficient spark to light the
powder in the pan. Its base, which is often
found to be broken on discarded specimens,
was found intact. This raises the possibility
that Brush might have intended to weld
another piece of steel onto this frizzen but
either lost it or never got around to the job.
A second frizzen belonging to a musket was
probably from Brush’s shop but was found
in an early nineteenth-century context.
Perhaps the single most unusual object
found at the Brush site is a snaphaunce pan
cover. Snaphaunces were early forms of flintlocks, produced and in use in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. It is
thought that snaphaunces were supplanted
by dog-locks in England and the colonies by
the 1750s. The pan cover, a predecessor of
the frizzen, was found in a firmly dated
post-1720 context, dismissing the possibility that it was deposited during the Middle
Plantation period of Williamsburg’s habitation. Brush was probably engaged in converting older forms of guns into flintlocks
and disposed of the pan cover as obsolete.
James Geddy offered to make similar conversions in the Virginia Gazette in 1738.17 The
presence of matchlock plates and other antiquated parts confirm this.18
The presence of gun parts that were decades or even centuries out of date by contemporary eighteenth-century standards at
both Brush’s and Geddy’s shop establish
that guns in Virginia had a remarkably long
life-span. One reason for this is the Virginia
militia laws had required heads of households to be “provided with...well fixt, cleane
and fitt firelocks.”19 Although by the early
eighteenth century, this law was not well
enforced beyond the frontier, there were still
a good number of older weapons retained,
often mentioned in probate inventories as
“unfixt,” to satisfy the conditions, if not the
spirit, of the law. Also, guns were highly
valued due to their scarcity. Since there were
few gunsmiths in Virginia producing guns,
almost all of them had to be imported from
England at a great expense and with a significant time delay.
Two springs, two triggers and a tumbler were also found. The springs were from
pistols and were identified as an external
frizzen spring and an internal mainspring.
The two triggers cannot be diagnostically
linked to any particular type of weapon and
are therefore of little value. The tumbler has
notches for both half- and fully-cocked positions, which indicate that it was designed
to be used in a flintlock. The tumbler’s large
size suggests that it belonged to a musket,
rather than a pistol.
Stock Furniture
Stock furniture found at Brush’s shop include both iron and copper alloy (probably
brass) pieces. The copper alloy pieces, which
include two musket ramrod thimbles, a musket thumb plate , and two trigger guards
were possibly cast in Brush’s shop. The presence of brass, lead, and pewter casting spatters and mold trimmings in a large number
of contexts confirm that Brush was casting
objects here.20
The two ramrod thimbles were intended for or came from muskets. One of
these, however, has been identified as the
type commonly found on trade guns, rather
than a heavier military musket. During this
period, equipment was stored in the Magazine for the Indian Trade Company for use
130
are bifacial.22 Conventional wisdom has held
that English flints are grey in color and are
normally bifacial in shape, while French
flints tend to be spall flakes and are amber
or honey colored.
The findings at this site reveal that the
color of the stone does not seem to be useful
in determining the origins of gunflints. Fourteen flints were amber (French) and eleven
were grey (English). The technique that was
used to produce these flints remained consistent during this period, regardless of the
flint’s source. The flints were almost certainly French, since the shape is consistent
with the technology attributed to them and
since French gunsmiths dominated the market from ca. 1720-ca. 1780. The flints were
produced in France by a tightly controlled
industry which had a monopoly on both
flint sources and technique. They were then
exported to England and the colonies.23
Eighteen of theses flints were worn or
chipped and had outlived their usefulness.
These flints were either disposed of when
the gun was being serviced or perhaps were
used in the powder trier mentioned in
Brush’s probate inventory and then discarded. Curiously, at least five of the remaining flints were new and had never been used
before. Only eleven gunflints were musketsized; the remaining fourteen belonged to
pistols or rifles.
Brush also cast shot on site. Two lead
musket balls were found in contexts 29F-108
and 29F-705, measuring .538 and .625 caliber, respectively. Discarded lead casting
sprues, the by-products of round shot
manufacture, were found in over a dozen
contexts dated to the eighteenth century.24
in trade with the Indians on the frontier. The
thimble might have come from one of these
guns; perhaps Brush was also employed by
this company to maintain and repair their
weapons as well.
In addition to two copper-alloy trigger
guards, three iron trigger guards were also
recovered. Brass trigger guards were standard on all models of British infantry muskets throughout the eighteenth century. The
iron trigger guards might have come from
or were intended for trade guns, since the
iron would be more durable in a frontier environment. Although all of these guards
came from muskets or rifles, they are not
diagnostic of any particular type of gun
mechanism technology.
Several gun accessories were also found.
An iron worm for cleaning muskets or rifles
measuring .735 caliber was recovered from
a nineteenth-century context, but almost certainly is related to Brush’s operation. Bayonet parts including a base collar , a fusil bayonet tip and a copper-alloy bayonet scabbard
chape .
Gun Accoutrements
Prior to the invention of the percussion cap
in 1814,21 gunflints were absolutely necessary for the successful firing of firearms.
Since the brittle flint would chip and wear
down after fifteen to twenty firings, most
historic sites yield a small number of these
disposed gunflints. Brush’s site is no exception. What is exceptional, however, is that
all of the 25 gunflints found were spall-type
flints.
There are basically two types of
gunflints: spall flints, which are struck off a
flint nodule individually, and blade flints,
which are formed by removing a long prismatic flake off a prepared core and then
breaking it up into two to five flakes. Spall
flakes are wedge-shaped in appearance,
with a rounded “heel,” while blade flints
Conclusion
John Brush, as one of the few gunsmiths in
Virginia and the only gunsmith in
Williamsburg at this time, was involved in
131
both repairing old guns and manufacturing
new ones for private citizens, the colonial
government and perhaps even the Indian
Trading Company. He was converting older
guns into flintlocks. He apparently cast shot
for the militia and more decorative gun elements for privately-owned guns at his shop
out of lead and brass. He was a consumer
of French gunflints, which seem to dominate this period. His shop, located on this
site, was fairly large despite the fact that he
probably worked alone or with, at most, only
one or two assistants. An accident in 1723
apparently resulted in a decline in his work
due to injury, or perhaps to a shift towards
working on privately-owned weapons.
Brush’s tenure in Williamsburg, while
not long, gives us a glimpse of a craftsman
employed in a wide variety of activities. Although he was a gunsmithing specialist,
Brush nevertheless produced the whole
range of parts and accessories necessary to
manufacture a musket or pistol. He dabbled
in woodworking, casting, and cutlery in addition to his main occupation, forging.
Greater specialization would come later
in the century with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, but during this period the
lone craftsman was sovereign.
5
Mary Goodwin, Gunsmiths in Virginia in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century (Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, 1951), p. 6.
6
York County Records, Orders, Wills, Book XVI,
p. 438, quoted in Goodwin, Gunsmiths, pp. 7-9.
7
Ibid., p. 8.
8
Ibid., p. 8.
9
Ibid., p. 8.
10
Ibid., pp. 8-9.
11
Ibid., p. 8.
12
Goodwin, Gunsmiths, pp. 7, 10.
13
Coal and clinker were found in the following
contexts: 29G-262, -306, -352, -357, -358, -364, 368, -371, -387, -415, -441, -442, -474, -475, -482,
-483, -510, -523, -525, -569, and -594. Slag from
forging and casting was found in contexts 29G475, -478, -479, -488, -582, -591, -1227, -1265,
and -1268, including a semi-spherical solidified mass of slag from the bottom of a crucible
(29G-1268e). It is important to note that Brush
was using coal rather than charcoal, probably
due to the extensive deforestation of the Peninsula by the eighteenth century.
14
Goodwin, Gunsmiths, pp. 10-11.
15
Ibid., pp. 11, 13.
16
Harold Peterson in Arms and Armor in Colonial
America, 1526-1783, dates this plate to ca. 16901740 based on museum pieces (pp. 34, 36), but
more recent research done by Jan Piet Puype, in
Dutch and Other Flintlocks From Seventeenth Century Iroquois Sites, arrives at a 1655-1675 date
based on artifacts recovered from archaeological contexts (pp. 62-63).
17
Virginia Gazette, Oct 7, 1738, p. 6.
18
Geddy’s early gun parts included two early dog
locks (E.R. 1374.19.B.078 and E.R.1346.19.B.
085) as well as a matchlock slideplate
(E.R.1368n. 19.B.420a.). For more on James
Geddy’s gunsmithing activities, please see Ivor
Noël Hume’s James Geddy and Sons: Colonial
Craftsmen (Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. 5, 1967).
19
William Hening, The Statutes at Large: Being a
Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, vol. 3, pp. 1314, quoted in Goodwin, Gunsmiths, p. 4.
Endnotes
1
Tyler’s Quarterly Historical Magazine, vol. 3, p.
299.
2
Although it is clear that Brush was manufacturing guns for non-military use, it is uncertain
whether this work was done prior to his accident in 1723.
3
York County Records, Orders, Wills, Book XVII,
p. 43.
4
Journal of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 17121726, p. 387.
132
20
21
Copper alloy spatter and mold trimmings were
found in the following contexts: 29G-296, -475,
-492, -506, -566, -573, -575, -587, -594, -641, and
a heavy concentration in 29G-1269. Lead spatter, probably associated with bullet-casting, was
found in contexts 29G-387, -415, -550, -582, 619, and -631. Pewter and/or silver pieces were
found in contexts 29G-617, -654, and -1268a-e.
Herschel Logan, Cartridges: A Pictorial Digest of
Small Arms Ammunition(New York: Bonanza
Books, 1959), p. 3.
133
22
Alaric and Gretchen Faulkner, TheFrench at
Pentagoet 1635-1674: An Archaeological Portrait
of the Acadian Frontier (Special Publication of the
New Brunswick Museum, 1987), pp. 151-154.
23
Lee Hanson Jr., “Gunflints from the Macon Plateau,” in Historical Archaeology, vol. 4 (1970), pp.
51-58.
24
Sprues were found in the following contexts:
29F-010, -023, -034, -047, -071, -082, -103, -112,
-128, -166, -294, -364, -370, and -371.
134
Appendix 3.
Analysis of Faunal Remains
by Gregory J. Brown, Stephen C. Atkins, and Joanne Bowen
T
he faunal remains from the Brush
privy were analyzed by several mem
bers of Colonial Williamsburg’s
Zooarchaeology Laboratory in the early
1990s. This report will provide a detailed description of the assemblage, along with some
tentative interpretations.
The assemblage was composed of 2337
specimens, 864 (37%) of them identifiable.
The vast majority of the bones, as is usual
with colonial Chesapeake sites, came from
the major domesticated mammals, particularly cattle and swine. While not atypical of
contemporary faunal assemblages, however, the Brush privy remains did reveal a
fair variety of fish, birds, and wild mammals
that were almost certainly consumed by the
family.
Methods and techniques used in the
analysis will be described below, followed
by a description of the identifiable taxa and
a general interpretation.
and examined for evidence of burning,
butchering or other types of modification.
This data was then entered into a customdesigned microcomputer program developed by Gregory Brown and Joanne Bowen
for Colonial Williamsburg’s Department of
Archaeological Research.
Each of the identifiable bones was assigned a “unique bone number” which was
affixed to the bone with an acid-free label
along with the site and feature number. If
the bones were too small to be labeled, they
were placed into plastic bags along with an
acid-free label. By working with a comparative skeletal collection created and maintained by Joanne Bowen of Colonial
Williamsburg’s Zooarchaeology Lab, the
“identifiable” bone fragments were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.
The taxon, bone element, symmetry (side),
location, weight, fusion state, tooth type
and wear, relative age, butchering techniques, and evidence of burning, weathering, and chewing were recorded and entered into the computer program. Once the
data were entered, they were manipulated
to provide calculations and percentages concerning bone size, bone frequency, and killoff patterns of the faunal assemblage.
Once the identification was completed,
the bones were laid out for minimum number of individuals (MNI) determination. MNI
figures (see below) were calculated by pairing comparable rights and lefts, taking into
account size, fusion state, tooth eruption,
and general morphology. Before the bones
were putaway, osteological measurements
of the major domesticates (pig, cow, and
Laboratory Methods
The initial processing phase included sorting the faunal fragments into “identifiable”
and “unidentifiable” categories. The unidentifiable bone—that which could not be
taken to at least the taxonomic level of Order—was then further sorted into broad
taxon groupings such as bird, fish, small
mammal, medium mammal, and large
mammal. Finally, within their taxon groupings, the bones were sorted into broad element categories such as long bones, teeth,
ribs, and skull fragments. All of the unidentifiable bones were then counted, weighed,
135
sheep/goat) were made using the standards
defined in von den Dreisch (1976).
ber of animals by examining the most common element for each taxon. It provides a
conservative approach to estimating the
smallest number of animals that are represented in the recovered faunal assemblage.
The MNI calculations can be made even
more effective by carefully matching rights
and lefts and by using age and sex indicators as well.
There are some other considerations
such as the thoroughness of the analyst, the
units of aggregation, and the sample size
which can affect the interpretation of a faunal sample when using the MNI approach.
Often, the least common species on a site
will be overemphasized in small samples
when using the MNI approach. This can
provide a skewed picture of the relative dietary importance, as well as the fact that
the MNI method regards large and small
taxa has being of equal importance. For example, one pig and one cow are seen as
equally important in dietary terms, despite
the differences in pounds of meat. They provide an estimate of the relative importance
of individuals, not meat, and they therefore
do not necessarily reflect the dietary importance of different taxa (Grayson 1984).
The final technique which is quickly becoming a standard procedure in zooarchaeological analysis is known as the “biomass” or “skeletal mass allometry” method
because it arrives at a percentage of meat
weight based on the weight of the archaeological bone. Largely developed by Elizabeth
Reitz of the University of Georgia and scholars at the University of Florida, this method
is based on the basic formula for allometry,
which assumes that any two dimensions of
an animal grow at an exponential rather
than a linear rate. Body size and body weight
can then be determined from the size of a
bone element, since a specific quantity of
bone represents a predictable amount of tissue (Reitz and Cordier 1983; Reitz and
Analytic Techniques
Zooarchaeologists have devised several
methods of quantification to estimate relative dietary importance and to help adjust
for differential preservation. These methods
include the Number of Identified Specimens
(NISP), Minimum Number of Individuals
(MNI), minimum weight estimates, and biomass estimates. Individually, each method
examines the faunal assemblage on a different level, but when used together, they
help to establish a check-and-balance system to faunal interpretations of a site. Unfortunately, some zooarchaeologists have
abandoned one or more methods used to
measure the diversity of a faunal assemblage. By computing all four estimates, a
comprehensive examination of the faunal
assemblage is achieved, which has allowed
the comparison of our data with the work
of others, however limited these comparisons might be.
At the simplest level, the number of identified specimens (NISP) is used to calculate
the relative abundance of any species within
a faunal assemblage. After identification, all
the bones within each species are added together to determine the frequency of fragments for each animal. This method is still
often used, although it has several shortcomings, most notably its failure to account for
element interdependence, differential preservation, variability in the identifiability of
certain elements, and differences in collection techniques (Grayson 1984).
The most popular method for estimating category abundance is the statistic called
Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI).
While NISP attempts to calculate the maximum number of individuals on a site, MNI
most often establishes the minimum num136
Scarry 1985). This estimate , therefore, provides a balance to the NISP and MNI methods. It successfully counters the problem of
interdependence, since it accounts for the
presence/absence of partial and complete
skeletons. It does not rely on thoroughness
or assemblage composition, and fragmentation is not a problem. It does, however,
require that each bone (or set of bones) be
weighed individually.
Many analysts have also used the distribution of particular elements to suggest important conclusions regarding taphonomy
and/or butchering practices (e.g., Maltby
1979). Detailed studies of the location, orientation, and depth of butchering marks and
carnivore or rodent chewing, beyond the
scope of this analysis, are another method
of investigating food preparation and disposal.
Animal husbandry is revealed by socalled “kill-off” patterns, based on epiphyseal fusion of (mostly) mammal long bones
(Chaplin 1971; Payne 1973; Bowen 1994).
Since the time of epiphyseal fusion is generally relatively constant within a species, an
age distribution can be constructed for the
identified animals (and by extension for the
herds from which they came).
Environment is generally suggested by
the diversity and relative abundance of certain wild taxa, particularly those with narrow ranges of ecological tolerance. In many
cases seasonality can be revealed as well by
looking at the presence and abundance of
migratory species, such as waterfowl, as well
as age patterns of domestic animals.
lected. Quarter-inch screening is standard
technique on sites dug by Colonial
Williamsburg. It has been shown (Thomas
1969) that screening has an enormous positive influence on the recovery of bone and
particularly in the recovery of smaller or
more fragile species.
Description of Identified Taxa
At least eighteen taxa were identified in the
assemblage. A brief description of each identified taxon is given below.
Fish
Only 40 fish bones were recovered from the
site, over two-thirds of them unidentifiable.
Six species, however, were identified: sturgeon (Acipenser spp.), yellow perch (Perca
flavescens), striped bass (Morone saxitilis),
black drum (Pogonias cromis), red drum
(Sciaenops ocellatus), and weakfish
(Cynoscion regalis).
The sturgeon is an ancient fish that was
once plentiful in the Chesapeake Bay. It is
anadromous, ascending rivers to spawn in
fresh or brackish waters. Very long-lived, it
matures at 12-22 years of age and may live
as long as 75 years (McClane 1965:185). A
mature Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser
oxyrhynchus) may weigh in excess of 100
pounds (Miller 1984); the smaller shortnose
sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), now very
rare in the Chesapeake Bay, weighs considerably less (Lippson and Lippson 1984:197).
Both fish were common until the early twentieth century, when commercial fishing almost eradicated them (Lippson and Lippson
1984:196-197).
In the eighteenth and early nineteenth
century, sturgeon were smoked and their
black roe made into caviar. They were also
a source of isinglass, a natural gelatin made
from their air bladders (Herald n.d.:56). The
Excavation Methods
The bones upon which this analysis was
performed came from soil screened through
one-quarter-inch mesh, and it appears that
even very small and fragile bone was col-
137
two bones recovered were bony scutes,
which cover the fish from front to back in
five rows, making this fish among the most
easily identifiable archaeologically.
The yellow perch is a freshwater fish
totally acclimated to brackish water. They
spend most of the year in brackish water,
returning to fresh water in late Febrary and
March to spawn (Lippson and Lippson
1984).
The striped bass, also known as the rockfish, is also semianadromous, living largely
in brackish water but migrating upriver in
the spring for spawning (Lippson and
Lippson 1984). They prefer bays, deltas, and
estuaries (McClane 1965).
The larger black and smaller red drums
prefer deeper open waters, where they are
bottom feeders. Like the related weakfish,
or grey seatrout, they enter the Chesapeake
in spring, spawning near the Bay’s mouth
(Lippson and Lippson 1984).
support overhangs for sunning (Behler and
King 1979; Conant 1975; Ernst and Barbour
1972). During winter, after temperatures
have dropped, they hibernate by either burrowing into the bottom mud or resting on
some deep mud bottom.
Birds
Some 114 bird bones were recovered from
at least four taxa, including goose (Anser
spp.), domestic duck or mallard (Anas
platyrhynchos), turkey (Meleagris gallopavo),
and chicken (Gallus gallus).
Eleven bones were identified as geese,
with five coming from the domestic goose
(Anser anser). The domestic goose was commonly raised on plantations in eighteenthcentury Virginia. However, in the winter
months its numbers were probably dwarfed
by the wild geese, including the Canada
goose (Branta canadensis), the brant (Branta
bernicla), and the snow goose (Chen
caerulescens), travelling south along the Atlantic Flyway.
Two duck elements were found in the
assemblage. At least one seems to have come
from a domestic duck or mallard (Anas
platyrhynchos). Domestic ducks, like domestic geese, were commonly raised in eighteenth-century Virginia, probably mostly for
their meat. Its wild counterpart, the mallard,
ranges throughout much of the Northern
Hemisphere.
Land birds were represented in the assemblage by two domestic or semi-domestic species, the turkey and chicken. When
the east coast was first colonized, the wild
turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), a woodland
bird, inhabited the vast forests. As land became cleared they adapted to open fields,
savannas, and meadows as they foraged for
insects, berries, and other foods (Bent
1963:329). Wild turkeys were taken to Europe, domesticated, and reintroduced to
Reptiles and Amphibians
Six bones from a frog or toad (Order Anura)
were recovered. A variety of small amphibians inhabit the area, and although they
were sometimes consumed, it is also possible
that they were drawn to the damp privy
soils later and then perished there.
A single element came from a turtle. The
genus identified, Chrysemys spp., includes
the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), the
pond slider (Chrysemys scripta), the river
cooter (Chrysemys concinna), the cooter
(Chrysemys floridana), and the red-bellied
turtle (Chrysemys rubriventris). Typical of the
group is the red-bellied turtle, a freshwater
turtle which prefers relatively large, deep
bodies of water with basking sites. However,
they also inhabit sluggish rivers and shallow streams, marsh areas, lakes, and ponds
with aquatic vegetation. Some prefer soft
bottom sites, while others use areas which
138
North America (Powell 1990). These birds
then continued to breed with their wild progenitor. Because of this close association and
interbreeding, it is impossible to osteologically distinguish between wild and domestic turkeys.
Chicken (Gallus gallus) was by far the
commonest bird in the assemblage. It was
of course domesticated, and was reputed to
be, with beef and pork, among the most common meats of the colonial period. Almost
every household probably kept at least a few
chickens (Noël Hume 1978:22), since they
were easy to keep and furnished eggs as well
as meat. Zooarchaeological analysis, however, suggests that chickens were never really a major source of meat, at least in terms
of total contribution to the diet.
A few elements were clearly identifiable
as turkey- or chicken-like, but were too immature to be identifiable to species. These
were recorded as Family Phasianidae (fowllike bird).
son they feed on herbaceous species and
during snows on woody species such as
trees and shrubs.
Since brush piles provide instant cover
for cottontails and the clearing of forests for
tobacco fields would have increased their
natural cover, rabbit populations no doubt
grew as colonists established plantations. A
favorite among hunters, at the same time
their foraging habits make them the bane of
gardeners and agriculturalists.
The Eastern grey squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis) prefers a mature hardwood
habitat with a dense undergrowth. Together
with the fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), they
inhabit most of the eastern half of North
America. While fox squirrels occupy forests
along rivers and streams and upland forests, gray squirrels seem to prefer mature
hardwood forests, where dense undergrowth and abundant den cavities are available (Flyger and Gates 1982:215). They consume a diversity of foods including acorns,
a variety of nuts, fruits, seeds, certain tree
barks, fungi, and insects (Flyger and Gates
1982).
Like the opossum, squirrels are an important part of traditional rural Southern
cuisine. An essential ingredient in Brunswick
stew until very recent times, their importance as a food item is probably very old. A
fragment or two is found in virtually every
faunal assemblage from early American archaeological sites.
The white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), represented by only three elements, was likely the most important of the
wild mammals in the assemblage. An adaptable herbivore, deer inhabit most environmental settings and consume a diversity of
foods, selecting the most nutritional and
tasty foods available. Their activity within
a region depends on a number of factors,
including population size, season of the year,
and weather conditions (Hesselton and
Wild Mammals
Wild mammals in the assemblage, present
in very small numbers, include Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), grey squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), and white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus).
The Eastern cottontail is the most common and widely distributed of the cottontails, inhabiting diverse areas over broad
geographic provinces from southern
Canada throughout the United States and
into Mexico and beyond. Requiring escape
sites of dense, low-growing and woody perennials for protection and rich herbaceous
vegetation for food, they inhabit edges of
woodlots, along streams and waterways, at
the edges of pastures and hay fields, and
wherever weedy forbs and grasses provide
food and limited cover (Chapman,
Hockman, and Edwards 1982:101-117). In
temperate climates, during the growing sea139
Hesselton 1982). During the early colonial
period they were quite prevalent, and large
numbers of deer remains are found on the
earliest historic sites.
Beginning in the mid-seventeenth century in the coastal region of the Chesapeake,
deer populations declined, as evidenced by
the decreasing number of bones found on
archaeological sites from this time period
(Miller 1984). A combination of factors
brought the decline of the deer. As land was
developed into plantations and farms, the
deer’s habitat became more circumscribed.
Because the huge influx of settlers looked to
the deer for sustenance, and to a lesser degree, for sport, the deer population was
hunted, and greatly depleted. How quickly
deer populations declined depended greatly
on how quickly an area was built up, and
the resulting human population. Generally,
the decline was felt throughout the region
by the late eighteenth century. The diminished deer population, coupled with the increasing utilization of pig and cow, greatly
curtailed the presence of deer in the diet.
Cats were raised in the eighteenth century, largely to control the rat population.
Remains of at least one small kitten were
recovered, along with one almost complete
adult skeleton and fragments of another
adult. From its condition, it appears that at
least one of the adults was either tossed into
the privy deposit or buried very nearby.
Only one horse element, a complete main
metacarpal, was found. Though horses
were sometimes eaten in the colonial period,
this is likely not food refuse.
Domestic Mammals
Three major domestic mammals—the pig
(Sus scrofa), the cow (Bos taurus), and the
sheep or goat (Ovis aries/Capra hircus)—were
recovered. These comprise by far both the
commonest species in terms of number of
elements and the most important species in
terms of usable meat.
The domestic pig was represented by
352 elements. On most eighteenth- and early
nineteenth-century sites in the area, the domestic pig was among the most common of
the major food animals. This was in large
part because they were so easy to care for
(Reitz 1979), requiring little watchfulness
and an unspecialized diet. They were often
allowed to run free in the woods. In urban
areas, the animals were kept principally on
outlying plantations and farms, and were
sold at the town market. Because pigs
would yield 65-80% of their weight as
dressed meat, as opposed to 50-60% for
cattle and 45-55% for sheep, raising them
was a profitable commercial enterprise
(Reitz 1979:78). Virtually all local plantation
owners kept hogs, and virtually every part
of the slaughtered animal was eventually
utilized.
Pork was eaten often during the eighteenth century. The English traveler Nicholas Cresswell, in 1774, remarked that he
“had eaten Bacon or Chicken every meal
Commensals
Several animals in the assemblage were
probably not consumed; living near humans, their bones were most likely accidental depositions in the privy. Three “commensal” taxa were found: rat (Rattus spp.), domestic cat (Felis domesticus), and horse
(Equus spp.).
Most likely, the rat remains came from
the roof rat (Rattus rattus). Extraordinarily
common in settled areas that lacked good
sanitation, it was later sujpplanted by the
the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), another
Old World rat that appears to have arrived
in North America around the third quarter
of the eighteenth century (Jackson 1982).
Both species were regarded as vermin, and
were sometimes transmitters of plague and
murine typhus.
140
since I came in to the Country. If I still continue in this way shall be grown over with
Bristles or Feathers” (McVeagh 1924:20). In
fact, it has been generally claimed that pork
was the primary meat of the South (Bidwell
and Falconer 1925), though this conclusion
has been questioned on the basis of archaeological evidence suggesting that beef was
actually much more important (Miller 1984;
Bowen 1989; Noël Hume 1978). In any case,
the animals were killed during the late fall
or winter, and excess meat was ordinarily
smoked, salted, pickled, or potted.
The domestic cow (Bos taurus) was the
second commonest species in terms of NISP,
with 312 elements, and the most important
animal in terms of usable meat weight and
biomass. Cattle, who arrived with the earliest colonists, adapted quite well to the new
environment. They, like swine, flourished in
a woodland environment not unlike that
known by their wild progenitors. As early
as the mid-1600s, herds had become well
enough established that beef became the
mainstay of the colonists’ diet, a position it
held until at least the early 1800s (Bowen
1990; Miller 1984).
Some 25 elements were identified as
sheep or goat. These species, despite their
outward appearance, are usually lumped
together by faunal analysts because they are
almost skeletally indistinguishable, although
some Middle Eastern faunal analysts have
developed techniques for their skeletal differentiation. Few of the sheep/goat remains
in the assemblage, however, was suitable for
such differentiation, and it is not clear which
species was represented.
Sheep (Ovis aries) were commonly raised
in the eighteenth century, although they
never became really profitable since they
were unable to defend themselves from
predators and would not freely reproduce
(Gray 1958; Reitz 1979). Goats (Capra hircus)
were occasionally raised, though primarily
for their milk rather than their meat (Noël
Hume 1978:20).
Relative Dietary Importance
Like virtually all assemblages from the eighteenth-century Chesapeake, the assemblage
is predominated by cow (69.6% of the total
biomass). Pig is next in line (11.6%), followed
on a much smaller scale by sheep or goat
(1.7%), domestic birds (0.4%), deer (0.3%),
and fish (0.2%).
Although a relatively wide variety of
taxa were recovered, including a few wild
mammals and birds, turtles, and fish, the
diet was overwhelming based on domestic
mammals (84.2% of the total biomass). Even
the large percentage of the biomass represented by domestic mammals undoubtedly
understates the case; much, in fact probably
just about all, of the 12.0% representing
undifferentiated large and medium mammal must have come from cattle and swine,
judging by the identifiable elements. Again,
these large percentages are similar to those
from other local sites, and certainly reflects
a strong, consistent pattern that has its roots
in husbandry practices, wildlife availability,
cuisine preferences, and marketing.
Butchering Practices
No attempt was made to study changes in
butchering techniques, although it was
noted that a majority of the domestic mammal bones, particularly the long bones, had
been hacked by an axe or cleaver, resulting
in irregular fractures as well as shallow-todeep V-shaped cuts. The most dramatic
change in butchering technique—the advent
of the mechanical band saw around 1850
or so—was not noted, suggesting that there
was no serious contamination by later deposits.
141
Appendix 3, Table 1.
Faunal Remains from the John Brush Privy
Class Osteichthyes (Bony Fish)
Acipenser spp. (Sturgeon)
Perca flavescens (Yellow Perch)
cf. Morone saxatilis (Striped Bass)
Family Sciaenidae (Croaker or Drum)
Pogonias cromis (Black Drum)
Sciaenops ocellatus (Red Drum)
Cynoscion regalis (Weakfish)
Order Anura (Toad or Frog)
Chrysemys spp. (Slider or Cooter)
Class Aves (Bird)
Class Aves/Mammalia III (Bird/Small Mammal)
Anser spp. (Goose)
cf. Anser spp. (Goose)
Anser anser (Domestic Goose)
Duck spp. (Duck)
cf. Anas platyrhynchos (Domestic Duck or Mallard)
Family Phasianidae (Grouse, Partridge, Pheasant)
cf. Family Phasianidae (Grouse, Partridge, Pheasant)
Meleagris gallopavo (Turkey)
cf. Meleagris gallopavo (Turkey)
Gallus gallus (Chicken)
cf. Gallus gallus (Chicken)
Class Mammalia (Mammal)
Class Mammalia I (Large Mammal)
Class Mammalia II (Medium Mammal)
Class Mammalia III (Small Mammal)
Rabbit spp.(Rabbit)
cf. Rabbit spp. (Rabbit)
Sylvilagus floridanus (Eastern Cottontail)
Sciurus carolinensis (Eastern Gray Squirrel)
cf. Rattus spp. (Old World Rat)
Felis domesticus (Domestic Cat)
cf. Felis domesticus (Domestic Cat)
Equus spp. (Horse or Ass)
Order Artiodactyla I (Sheep, Goat, Deer or Pig)
cf. Order Artiodactyla I (Sheep, Goat, Deer or Pig)
Order Artiodactyla II (Sheep, Goat, or Deer)
cf. Order Artiodactyla II (Sheep, Goat, or Deer)
Sus scrofa (Domestic Pig)
cf. Sus scrofa (Domestic Pig)
Odocoileus virginianus (White-Tailed Deer)
Family Bovidae (Cow, Sheep, or Goat)
Bos taurus (Domestic Cow)
cf. Bos taurus (Domestic Cow)
Ovis aries/Capra hircus (Domestic Sheep or Goat)
cf. Ovis aries/Capra hircus (Domestic Sheep or Goat)
Subphylum Vertebrata (Other Vertebrate)
NISP
Pct.
MNI
27
2
1
3
3
2
1
1
6
1
46
1
5
1
5
1
1
16
2
2
1
32
1
432
504
455
8
1
1
2
1
1
58
2
1
8
1
3
3
335
17
3
2
276
36
20
5
1
1.2
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
2.0
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.7
0.1
0.1
<0.1
1.4
<0.1
18.5
21.6
19.5
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
2.5
0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
0.1
0.1
14.3
0.7
0.1
0.1
11.8
1.5
0.9
0.2
<0.1
—
1
1
1
—
1
1
1
1
1
—
—
—
—
1
—
1
—
—
1
—
3/1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
1
2/1
—
1
—
—
—
—
8/3
—
1
—
7/1
—
2/1
—
—
Pct.
——
2.2
2.2
2.2
——
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
——
——
——
——
2.2
——
2.2
——
——
2.2
——
8.9
——
——
——
——
——
——
——
2.2
2.2
2.2
6.7
——
2.2
——
——
——
——
24.4
——
2.2
——
17.8
——
6.7
——
——
Biomass
Pct.
0.16
0.1
0.09
<0.1
0.01
<0.1
0.03
<0.1
0.05
<0.1
0.04
<0.1
0.03
<0.1
0.01
<0.1
<0.01
<0.1
0.11
<0.1
0.22
0.1
0.01
<0.1
0.30
0.1
0.03
<0.1
0.24
0.1
0.01
<0.1
0.02
<0.1
0.12
0.1
0.01
<0.1
0.10
<0.1
0.02
<0.1
0.46
0.2
0.01
<0.1
2.82
1.3
20.69
9.3
6.10
2.7
0.03
<0.1
0.01
<0.1
0.02
<0.1
0.06
<0.1
0.01
<0.1
<0.01
<0.1
1.38
0.6
0.01
<0.1
3.00
1.3
0.53
0.2
0.09
<0.1
0.45
0.2
0.31
0.1
24.88
11.2
0.94
0.4
0.64
0.3
0.09
<0.1
149.69
67.1
5.60
2.5
3.31
1.5
0.34
0.2
——
——
Note: NISP= Number of identified specimens; MNI=Minimum number of individuals. “2/2” under MNI means 2 adult,
2 immature; “1” means 1 adult.
142
Appendix 3, Table 1 (cont’d).
Faunal Remains from the John Brush Privy
NISP
Pct.
MNI
Fish
Reptiles/Amphibians
Wild Birds
Wild Mammals
Domestic Birds
Domestic Mammals
Commensals
40
7
0
6
41
694
62
1.7
0.3
0.0
0.3
1.8
29.7
2.6
6
2
—
3
7
22
5
13.3
4.4
——
6.7
13.3
48.9
11.1
0.42
0.11
0.00
0.71
0.83
184.85
4.39
0.2
<0.1
0.0
0.3
0.4
82.9
2.0
Wild
Domestic
50
732
2.3
31.5
8
28
17.8
62.2
1.16
185.68
0.5
83.2
Identified
Unidentified
863
1474
37.0
63.0
45
—
100.0
——
193.04
30.03
86.5
13.5
Totals
2337
100.0
45
100.0
223.06
100.0
Those bones that were butchered most
consisted of, not surprisingly, the major
meat-bearing elements. Upper leg bones
were often broken into several pieces; vertebrae were commonly split longitudinally
through what would have been the midline
of the body. Butchering marks were noted
most often on cattle and pig bones. Little
butchering was done on birds and fish;
many were undoubtedly broken up by hand
or thrown whole into the pot.
Pct.
Biomass
Pct.
butions can sometimes reveal patterns of use
that are not shown by the relative proportions of biomass alone. As Table 2 shows,
for example, more pig remains came from
foot elements than would be expected (foot
elements making up 37.3% of a normal pig
skeleton, but comprising 50.9% of the Brush
assemblage). The presence of large numbers
of head and foot elements, relative to the
“meatier” body elements, suggests that
Brush was most likely keeping, and slaughtering, pigs on his property. The higher percentage of “body” elements for cow and
sheep or goat, on the other hand, suggests
that Brush was obtaining this meat from
elsewhere—purchasing the meaty cuts,
Element Distributions
By suggesting what parts of the animal were
predominantly being eaten, element distri-
Appendix 3, Table 2.
Element Distribution
Head
Body
Feet
N
Pig Normal
Pig
28.2
23.6
34.5
25.6
37.3
50.9
——
352
Cattle Normal
Cattle
29.7
34.9
42.2
53.5
28.1
11.5
——
312
Sheep/Goat Normal
Sheep/Goat
29.7
36.0
42.2
56.0
28.1
8.0
——
25
143
60
50
50
Rural 1700-1740
45
Urban 1700-1740
40
Rural 1700-1740
Urban 1700-1740
Brush Privy
Brush Privy
35
Pct. Killed
Pct. Killed
40
30
20
30
25
20
15
10
10
5
0
0
0–12
12–24
24–36
36–42
0–12
Over 42
12–24
24-36
36-48
Over 48
Age in Months
Age in Months
Rural 1700-1740 N=349; Urban 1700-1740 N=219; Brush Privy N=58
Rural 1700-1740 N=273; Urban 1700-1740 N-228; Brush Privy N=108
Figure 1. Kill-off pattern for domsestic swine (Sus
scrofa).
Figure 2. Kill-off pattern for domsestic cattle (Bos
taurus).
while the head and foot remains would be
left near the butchering site or, more likely,
sold to others.
Virginia diet, as reconstructed from several years of zooarchaeological research.
Cow and pig predominate, but lesser
amounts of fish, turtle, wild game, and domestic birds are present. The occupants of
this site were clearly heavily dependant on
domestic livestock, to the extent that they
failed to take advantage of an abundance
of locally-plentiful fish, birds, and wild
mammals.
Animal Husbandry
So-called “kill-off” patterns give another picture of animal husbandry. By charting the
fusion status of the epiphyses, or ends of
long bones, it is possible to determine some
of the characteristics of the slaughtered
population.
In this case it appears that the majority
of the pigs were killed when they were three
years or older (Fig. 1). This is an unusual
distribution in the Chesapeake.
There were two peaks, on the other
hand, of cattle slaughtering. About a third
were killed at before 12 months; these calves
would have been raised for veal. The remainder were killed after three years of age,
presumably after attaining their maximum
weight and being put to some other use,
perhaps as dairy cows.
References
Behler, John, and F. Wayne King (1979).
Audubon Society Field Guide to North American
Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf,
New York.
Bent, Arthur Cleveland (1963). Life Histories of
North American Gallinaceous Birds. Reprint of
1932 edition. Dover Publications, Inc., New
York.
Bidwell, Percy W., and John L. Falconer (1925).
History of Agriculture in the United States
1620-1860. Reprinted 1941, Peter Smith,
New York.
Bowen, Joanne (1989). A Comparative Analysis
of the New England and Chesapeake
Herding Systems: The Relative Dietary
Importance of Beef and Dairy Products.
Paper presented at the 22nd annual meeting
Conclusion
The bones from the Brush privy are typical
in many ways of early eighteenth-century
144
of the Society for Historical Archaeology,
Baltimore.
Chapman and G. Feldhamer, pp. 878-901. The
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Bowen, Joanne (1994). “A Comparative Analysis
of the New England and Chesapeake Herding
Systems.” In The Historic Chesapeake: Archaeological Contributions, edited by Paul A. Shackel
and Barbara J. Little, pp. 155-167.
Smithsonian Institution Museum Press,
Washington, D.C.
Jackson, William B. (1982). “Norway Rat and
Allies (Rattus norvegicus and Allies).” In Wild
Mammals of North America, edited by Joseph
Chapman and George Feldhamer, pp. 10771088. The Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore.
Lippson, Alice Jane, and Robert L. Lippson
(1984). Life in the Chesapeake Bay. The Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Chaplin, Raymond (1971). The Study of Animal
Bones from Archaeological Sites. Seminar Press,
London.
McClane, A.J., editor (1965). McClane’s Field Guide
to Freshwater Fishes of North America. Holt,
Reinhart and Winston, New York.
Chapman, Joseph, J. Gregory Hockman, and
William Edwards (1982). “Cottontails:
Sylvilagus floridanus and allies.” In Wild
Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Economics, edited by Joseph
Chapman and George Feldhamer, pp. 83-123.
The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
McVeagh, Lincoln, editor (1924). The Journal of
Nicholas Cresswell, 1774-1777. The Dial Press,
New York.
Miller, Henry M. (1984). Colonization and Subsistence Change on the 17th Century Chesapeake
Frontier. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, Lansing. University Microfilms,
Ann Arbor.
Conant, R. (1975). A Field Guide to Reptiles and
Amphibians of Eastern and Central North
America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Noël Hume, Audrey (1978). Food. Colonial
Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. 9.
The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg.
Ernst, Carl H., and Roger W. Barbour (1972).
Turtles of the United States. The University
Press of Kentucky, Lexington.
Flyger, Van, and J. Edward Gates (1982). “Fox
and Gray Squirrels (Sciurus niger, S.
carolinensis, and Allies).” In Wild Mammals of
North America: Biology, Management, and
Economics, edited by Joseph Chapman and
George Feldhamer, pp. 209-229. The Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Payne, Sebastian (1973). “Kill-Off Patterns in Sheep
and Goats: The Mandibles from Asvan Kale.”
Anatolean Studies 23:281-303.
Powell, Richard (1990). Personal communication with Joanne Bowen. Williamsburg,
Virginia.
Gray, Lewis C. (1958). History of Agriculture in the
Southern United States to 1860. Carnegie
Institution of Washington Publication No.
430. Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC.
Reitz, Elizabeth J. (1979). Spanish and British
Subsistence Strategies at St. Augustine, Florida
and Frederica, Georgia Between 1565 and 1783.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville. University Microfilms, Ann
Arbor.
Grayson, Donald K. (1984). Quantitative
Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of
Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press,
Orlando.
Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Dan Cordier (1983). Use
of Allometry in Zooarchaeological Analysis.
In Animals and Archaeology: 2. Shell Middens,
Fishes and Birds, edited by Caroline Grigson
and Julia Clutton-Brock, pp. 237-252. B.A.R.
International Series 183, London.
Herald, Earl S., editor (n.d.). Fishes of North
America. Doubleday & Company, New York.
Hesselton, W., and R. Hesselton (1982). “Whitetail Deer, Odocoileus virginianus.” In Wild
Mammals of North America, edited by J.
Reitz, Elizabeth J., and C. Margaret Scarry (1985).
Reconstructing Historic Subsistence with an
145
Example from Sixteenth-Century Spanish
Florida. Special Publication Series, Society for
Historical Archaeology No. 3. Society for
Historical Archaeology, Ann Arbor.
Brothwell and Eric Higgs, pp. 283-302.
Praeger Publishers, New York.
Thomas, David Hurst (1969). Great Basin
Hunting Patterns: A Quantitative Method for
Treating Faunal Remains. American Antiquity
34(4):393-401.
Silver, I.A. (1969). “The Ageing of Domestic
Animals.” In Science in Archaeology: A Survey
of Progress and Research, edited by Don
146
Appendix 3, Table 3.
Kill-off Data
Sus scrofa (Domestic Pig)
N=108
Age of Fusion — 0 to 12 Months
Bone and Epiphysis
Scapula
Innominate
Humerus — distal
Radius — proximal
Second phalange — proximal
Fused
Not Fused
2
12
0
0
18
1
0
1
1
0
32
91.4%
3
8.6%
Age of Fusion — 12 to 24 Months
Bone and Epiphysis
Metacarpal
First phalange — proximal
Tibia — distal
Fused
Not Fused
32
0
1
1
0
4
33
86.8%
5
13.2%
Age of Fusion — 24 to 36 Months
Bone and Epiphysis
Calcaneus
Metatarsal
Fibula — distal
Fused
Not Fused
0
10
0
1
5
0
10
62.5%
6
37.5%
Age of Fusion — 36 to 42 Months
Bone and Epiphysis
Fused
Humerus — proximal
Radius — distal
Ulna — proximal
Ulna — distal
Femur — proximal
Femur — distal
Tibia — proximal
Fibula — proximal
Source of Fusion Ages: Silver 1969; Chaplin 1970; Maltby 1979.
147
Not Fused
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
3
1
7
2
2
0
2
10.5%
17
89.5%
Appendix 3, Table 4.
Kill-off Data
Bos taurus (Domestic Cow)
N=58
Age of Fusion — 0 to 12 Months
Bone and Epiphysis
Fused
Scapula
Innominate
Not Fused
3
3
3
0
6
66.7%
3
33.3%
Age of Fusion — 12 to 24 Months
Bone and Epiphysis
Fused
Humerus — distal
Radius — proximal
First phalange — proximal
Second phalange — proximal
Not Fused
3
3
0
5
0
0
0
0
11
100.0%
0
0.0%
Fused
Not Fused
Age of Fusion — 24 to 36 Months
Bone and Epiphysis
Metacarpal
Tibia — distal
Metatarsal
Metapodial
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
75.0%
1
25.0%
Age of Fusion — 36 to 48 Months
Bone and Epiphysis
Fused
Humerus — proximal
Ulna — proximal
Ulna — distal
Radius — distal
Femur — proximal
Femur — distal
Tibia — proximal
Calcaneus
Source of Fusion Ages: Silver 1969; Chaplin 1970; Maltby 1979.
148
Not Fused
4
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
9
3
2
2
3
2
4
1
8
23.5%
26
76.5%
Appendix 4.
Ethnobotanical Results
by Stephen A. Mrozowski
T
hrough artifacts, archaeologists re
trieve much of the data with which
they make statements about past life
and processes of change. Traditionally when
one thinks of artifacts, what comes to mind
are broken sherds of pottery, glass, worked
stone, and other similar debris of daily life.
Less often characterized as artifacts, but just
as revealing, are the footprints of buildings,
fencelines, and other features which formed
the built landscape of the past.
Only within the last decade have archaeologists working on British-American
colonial sites begun to become aware of the
importance of another type of data, that
which passes unseen through ¼ inch mesh
screens and would be lost irretrievably without effective and informed soil sampling
strategies. These types of data are ecofacts:
those seeds, pollen, phytoliths, parasites and
other small plant and animal remains that
provide indicators of the diet and health of
previous cultures and the physical world in
which they lived. The field of study which
covers most of this material, known as
paleoethnobotany, is concerned with “the
analysis and interpretation of the direct interrelationships between humans and
plants...as manifested in the archaeological
record” (Ford 1979:286). The analysis of
archaeo-botanical remains such as seeds,
plant materials, and pollen is not new; the
first such study was completed on Egyptian
remains in 1826 (Pearsall 1989:3). Studies
of this type continued throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, with
the dramatic increase in recent years of
archaeobotanical research linked to archae-
ologists’ interest in agricultural origins and
man’s interaction with the environment
(Pearsall 1989:4). This section discusses the
results of such testing from the Brush privy
and some of the implications of studying this
type of information.
Ecofacts, the often microscopic remains
of the natural environment found in archaeological contexts, include insect remains, land snails, and phytoliths (opaline
plant silica), in addition to the seeds, pollen, and parasites discussed primarily in this
paper. Ecofacts contain great potential for
assisting archaeologists with many facets of
dietary and environmental reconstruction,
as well as evidence of changing human behavior. For example, analysis of ecofacts
from the Boott Mills boardinghouse site in
Lowell, Massachusetts, has been used by
Mary Beaudry and colleagues to demonstrate that changes in the backlots of the
boardinghouses resulted from and were indicative of the evolving philosophy and management of boardinghouses in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
(Beaudry and Mrozowski 1989). During the
early and middle nineteenth century, the
boardinghouses were under the control of
the Boott Mills corporation, which maintained an interest in the upkeep of its property. During this period, when the houses
were occupied predominantly by families or
mill-girls, the yards were well-kept grassy
plots with flowering trees, shrubs and vines.
After the 1890 sale of the boardinghouses
to a Boston slumlord (corresponding also
with a period marked predominantly by
male immigrant residents), the backlots were
149
allowed to deteriorate, with undergrowth
characterized largely by weedy plants.
As the Boott Mill example illustrates,
quite detailed interpretation is possible using the results of ecofact analysis. Given the
presence of what appeared to be primary
privy fill in the Brush period feature, it was
decided that it held great potential for this
type of analysis. Ten-liter soil samples were
retained from each layer of privy fill for seed,
pollen, and parasite analysis. Pollen and
parasite analysis were completed by Karl
Reinhard (1989, 1991) of the University of
Nebraska, and seed identification was done
by Steve Mrozowski (1991) of the University of Massachusetts at Boston.
One of the first tasks undertaken was to
determine if the Brush-Everard feature was
indeed a privy, as it appeared to be, and if
so, which soil layers were deposited in the
pit as a result of human waste disposal. Soil
samples suspected to contain fecal material
based on their physical appearance and position within the feature were submitted for
parasite testing, along with a control layer
from a garbage deposit from the same site
and time period. The privy soils produced
numerous egg sacs from two species of
parasite: human whipworm (Trichuris
trichuria) and giant intestinal roundworm
(Ascaris lumbriocides). These species were
present in large enough numbers (over 1,200
eggs per gram of soil) to indicate that the
soil was indeed derived from latrine deposits (Reinhard 1989). No parasite egg cases
were present in the control sample. Testing
also revealed a wide diversity of species in
the pollen and seed spectra from the same
soil strata, a result that also fits the profile
typically seen in primary privy fill.
Two main types of pollen were recovered through the testing: wind-pollinated
plants, such as trees, grasses and weeds,
and insect-pollinated species. Determining
past site vegetation can be problematic us-
ing evidence from wind-pollinated plants,
since the ease of contamination from windborne pollen must be taken into account
(Pearsall 1989). Insect-pollinated plants,
such as those of fruit trees and vegetables,
however, are rarely present in archaeological features unless they have been deposited through human activities, such as food
consumption. Pollen grains, along with vegetable and fruit seeds, are ingested with
food, and except for their internal cytoplasm, pass through the digestive tract virtually intact. The insect-pollinated species
can almost always be attributed to dietary
use.
One of the most obvious subjects of inquiry from pollen and seed analysis is that
of dietary reconstruction. Increased attention to pollen and seeds will enable archaeologists to expand their current data on meat
consumption patterns in the Chesapeake
into a more comprehensive interpretation of
colonial diet. Although relatively little work
has been completed to date on historic sites,
some patterns may have already begun to
emerge. Something in excess of 10,000
blackberry or raspberry (Rubus) seeds were
recovered from the privy. Steve Mrozowski
and Karl Reinhard (personal communication 1991) have reported similar levels of
blackberry seeds in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century privies from Rhode Island to
North Carolina. Eighteenth-century English
cookbooks known to have been sold in Williamsburg, as well as Mary Randolph’s 1824
The Virginia Housewife, list numerous recipes for blackberry wine, raspberry vinegar,
and raspberry conserves and jams (Hess
1984). Other seeds from the privy included
two species of pear (Pyrus sp.), muscadine
grape (Vitus rotundiflora) and the herb thyme
(Labiatea). Other herbs and spices were also
represented in the pollen spectrum: sage (Artemisia), parsley (Apiaceae) and mint
(Lamiaceae). What makes these spices in150
teresting is their very presence in the privy.
Documentary research using probate inventories from the Williamsburg area has indicated that the use of spices was restricted to
the elite throughout most of the eighteenth
century (Carr and Walsh 1991). A probate
inventory, taken at the time of Brush’s death
in 1727, valued his entire estate at £90, a
figure that placed him firmly in the lower
middling ranks of society; yet it appears he
was using various herbs and spices to season his food. Equally surprising were the
large quantities of broccoli or cauliflower pollen. Both members of the mustard family,
broccoli and cauliflower are seasonal vegetables, requiring specialized planting and
growing conditions. Gardening manuals of
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries devoted a great deal of attention to the planting and care of broccoli and cauliflower
(Randolph 1826; Langley 1728; WebbPrentis Papers). Both were vegetables whose
use were most likely restricted largely to the
wealthy, who could afford the labor it took
for the intensive cultivation of these plants.
In addition to their value in dietary reconstruction, pollen and seeds also provide
information on landscape reconstruction.
Pollen from arboreal species, like the pine
(Pinus sp.), oak (Quercus), cottonwood
(Populus), and sweet gum (Liquidambar sp.)
found in the privy, could have been carried
by the wind for miles, and thus can be used
to assist in reconstructing landscape on a
regional, rather than a site-specific, level.
Low-growing weedy plants, whose pollen
movement is somewhat more restricted, can
be used to reconstitute the environment at
a more local level. Weed species, such as ragweed (low spine Asteraceae), goosefoot
(Chenopodiaceae) and pigweed (Amaranth), which grow predominately in disturbed soils, indicate the presence of plowing or garden activity on or near the Brush
site.
Another form of evidence, although indirect, for the landscape of the Brush property was provided, surprisingly enough, by
the parasite remains discussed earlier. Both
whipworm and roundworm are transmitted through contact with feces-contaminated soil, which could be expected from
eating poorly-washed vegetables grown in
a garden that had been fertilized with
nightsoil or from poor sanitation practices.
Each of the two species of parasitic worms
from the privy requires different environmental conditions, with the roundworm
flourishing in sunny garden soils, while the
whipworm eggs need moist, shady soils for
incubation (Reinhard, Mrozowski and
Orloski 1986). The much higher numbers of
whipworm discovered in the privy suggest
that the Brush property was shaded by trees
in the 1720s.
Two types of seeds recovered from the
privy may offer another path of inquiry, although the evidence remains slender at this
stage. Five seeds from black nightshade
(Solanum nigrum), a weed indigenous to Virginia, were recovered. Although black
nightshade and its close relative, deadly
nightshade (Atropa belladonna) are poisonous to cattle, black nightshade is listed as
having medicinal qualities in Culpepper’s
Herbal, dating to the 1670s. The seeds, when
mixed with horehound and wine, are listed
as a cure for dropsy in another dispensatory. Since the nightshade, like most fruits
and vegetables, is an insect-pollinated plant,
it most likely entered the privy through being ingested by a human. Seeds from thyme,
another plant with medicinal qualities, were
also present. Thyme is one of the oldest and
most widely used of medicinal herbs, appearing in herbals as early as the third millennium B. C. (Hess 1981). Eighteenth-century sources list it, among other uses, as a
pain reliever for decayed teeth. Sage and
mint, other ingredients in toothache cures,
151
Langley, Batty (1728). New Principles of Gardening.
A. Betteswoth and J. Batley, London.
were also present in the privy. This type of
inquiry may shed interesting light into the
use of medicinal herbs in the colonial period. Many cookbooks and household guides
contained recipes and cures for various ailments, and Gervase Markham, in The English Housewife (1615), contained among his
attributes of the complete seventeenth-century woman a knowledge of physical healing and how to administer medicine. This
line of inquiry may present an answer for
why a middling artisan like Brush had spices
and herbs incorporated into his diet. They
may not have been used for seasoning his
food at all, but for medicinal reasons. Other
topics of study suggested by the results of
pollen and seed analysis are examining the
relationships between diet and health, and
how the knowledge of medicinal herbs is
transferred through time.
Markham, Gervase (1615). The English Housewife.
Edited by Michael Best, 1986. McGill-Queen’s
University Press, Kingston. Mrozowski,
Stephen A.
Mrozowski, Stephen A. (1991). A Preliminary
Report of the Archaeobotanical Analysis of
Context 29G-The Brush-Everard Site,
Williamsburg, Virginia. Ms. on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg,
Virginia.
Pearsall, Deborah M. (1989). Paleoethnobotany; A
Handbook of Procedures. Academic Press, New
York.
Randolph, John, Jr. (1826). A Treatise on Gardening
by a Citizen of Virginia. Edited by M. F. Warner.
Reprinted from The American Gardener of John
Gardiner and David Hepburn. 3rd edition.
Appeals Press, Richmond, 1924.
Reinhard, Karl (1989). Analysis of Latrine Soils
from the Brush-Everard Site, Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia. Ms. on file, Department of
Archaeological Research, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg,
Virginia.
References Cited
Beaudry, Mary, and Stephen Mrozowski (editors)
(1989). Interdisciplinary Investigations of the
Boott Mills Lowell, Massachusetts. Volume III: The
Boardinghouse System as a Way of Life. Report
prepared for the National Park Service by the
Center for Archaeological Studies, Boston
University.
Reinhard, Karl (1991). Parasitological Analysis
of the Brush-Everard Site, Williamsburg,
Virginia. Ms. on file, Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Carr, Lois G., and Lorena S. Walsh (1994).
Changing Lifestyles and Consumer Behavior
in the Colonial Chesapeake. In Of Consuming
Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth
Century, edited by Cary Carson, Ronald
Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert, pp. 59-166.
University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Reinhard, K.J., S.A. Mrozowski, and K.A. Orloski
(1986). Privies, pollen, parasites and seeds, a
biological nexus in historic archaeology.
MASCA Journal 4:31-36.
Webb-Prentis Papers. Manuscripts on file,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library,
Williamsburg.
Hess, Karen (editor) (1981). Martha Washington’s
Booke of Cookery. Columbia University Press,
New York.
Hess, Karen (editor) (1984). Virginia House-wife,
by Mary Randolph. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia. Facsimile of 1824
edition.
152
Appendix 5.
Analysis of Latrine Soils from the Brush-Everard Site,
Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia
by Karl J. Reinhard
A
s demonstrated by several authors,
the analysis of latrine soils is a suc
cessful way of retrieving parasitological data (Herrmann 1986. Jones, 1985;
Jones et al. 1988; Reinhard et al. 1986, 1988)
and dietary data (Reinhard et al. 1986). The
analysis of microscopic remains such as pollen grains and parasite eggs, and macroscopic remains such as seeds provides a
“biological nexus” for the reconstruction of
past lifeways in historic archaeology
(Reinhard et al. 1986).
Soil samples from a feature that was
preliminarily identified as a privy from the
Brush-Everard site were submitted for analysis. The purpose of the analysis was to test
this preliminary identification through the
analysis of microscopic remains. One sample
came from a kitchen refuse area (sample l)
and was provided as a control. The second
sample came from the bottom of the feature
(sample 2). This is a more organic stratum
that contains large quantities of seeds. By
comparing the parasite egg counts and pollen spectra from the two levels, it was hoped
that the use of the feature as a latrine could
be verified.
from each soil sample sent to the laboratory,
one for parasite analysis and one for pollen
analysis. The pollen sample and parasite
sample are processed in the same way except that the pollen samples are submitted
to additional chemical treatments that destroy parasite eggs.
Thirty milliliters of soil were measured
for each subsample. A Lycopodium spore tablet was added to each subsample. Each
spore tablet contains 11,300 plus or minus
200 spores. The addition of a known number of spores to the subsamples enables accurate measurement of the number of parasite eggs or pollen grains per milliliter of soil
by calculating a ratio of eggs or pollen to
Lycopodium spores.
The subsamples were treated first in 30%
hydrochloric acid in 300 milliliter beakers.
The acid dissolves calcium carbonate that
holds microscopic particles in the soil matrix. Acid was added to the soil samples until
reaction between the acid and carbonates
ceased. Then distilled water was added to
the beakers holding the soil-acid mixture.
Once the soil was disaggregated by hydrochloric acid, they were sedimented and
screened to remove large, heavy components. The soil mixture was rigorously
swirled until the soil was in suspension. The
beaker was then set aside for 30 seconds to
allow the heavy fraction to settle. The supernatant was then poured through a 0.25
millimeter mesh screen into a 500 milliliter
beaker. This process was repeated twice, at
which point the supernatant was nearly
Materials and Methods
The soil samples were processed for the recovery of both pollen and parasite eggs. The
process is designed to dissolve and/or extract different soil components to leave specific organic debris containing parasite eggs
and pollen. Two subsamples were extracted
153
clear. The material resting on top of the
screen was dried on blotter paper and then
examined for macroscopic remains. The
heavy sand sediment was discarded.
The microscopic remains in the 500 milliliter beakers were concentrated by centrifugation. The concentrated remains were then
washed three times in distilled water to remove traces of hydrochloric acid that would
otherwise react with chemicals in subsequent stages of processing.
After the microscopic remains were
washed and again concentrated by centrifugation, they were treated with 72% hydrofluoric acid. This process dissolves fine silicates. The concentrated remains were transferred to 700 milliliter plastic beakers and
about 50 milliliters of acid were added to
the soil. After stirring, the soil-acid mixture
was set aside for 24 hours to allow for
completion of the reaction. After 24 hours,
the remaining sediments were concentrated
by centrifugation. The sediments were then
washed with distilled water to remove residual hydrofluoric acid that would otherwise pose a health hazard to the analyst.
After the water washes, distilled water
was added to the microscopic sediments in
50 milliliter centrifuge tubes The tubes were
then placed in a sonicator and sonicated for
4 minutes. This treatment loosens fine organic debris and separates the microscopic
particles. After sonication, the microscopic
remains were transferred to 12 milliliter
glass centrifuge tubes. After the microscopic
remains were concentrated by centrifugation and the supernatant poured off, a zinc
bromide heavy density mixture (specific
gravity 2.0) was added to the tubes. The
sediment was then mixed into the zinc bromide and the tubes were spun in a clinical
centrifuge at 1,500 r.p.m. for 15 minutes.
This process resulted in the separation of
light organic remains, including pollen
grains and parasite eggs, from heavier or-
ganic detritus. The light remains floated to
the surface of the heavy density mixture and
were easily removed. The heavy detritus
sank to the bottom of the tubes.
After the zinc bromide heavy density
treatment, one subsample of each soil
sample was transferred to glass vials in glycerol and examined for parasite eggs. The
other subsamples were processed further to
extract pollen by acetolysis. The acetolysis
step destroys parasite eggs and consequently, the parasite subsample underwent
no further processing.
The pollen subsamples were washed
twice in glacial acetic acid. Then an acetolysis mixture (9 parts acetic anhydride to one
part sulfuric acid) was added to the tubes
which were then heated for 20 minutes. The
acetolysis treatment dissolves several organic
compounds, the most important of which
are cellulose and chitin. After the acetolysis
treatment, the soils were washed once with
glacial acetic acid and then with distilled
water until the supernatant was clear.
The microscopic remains were then
treated for 30 seconds in 5% potassium hydroxide to dissolve humic compounds. After several water washes the supernatant
was clear and the microscopic remains were
transferred into vials with glycerol.
Microscopic examination of both the
parasite and pollen samples was accomplished by placing a drop of glycerol with
suspended microscopic remains onto a microscope slide. A coverslip was placed over
the drop and sealed with commercial nail
polish. After the polish dried, the slides were
examined with a binocular compound microscope. The pollen preparation was examined at 400 power and the parasite sample
was examined at 200 power. The differences
in magnification are due to the general
larger size of parasite eggs which can easily
be discerned at lower magnification in comparison to smaller pollen.
154
Appendix 5, Table 1.
Parasite Egg Counts from the Brush-Everard Site
Sample No.
1
2
Trichuris trichiura
Ascaris lumbricoides
Lycopodium spores
0
52
20
67
0
217
Results
The first goal in examining the pollen
preparations was to determine whether or
not the samples contained enough pollen for
a full 200 grain count. It has been found by
researchers in the Palynology Laboratory,
Texas A&M University that less than 1,000
pollen grains per milliliter of soil sample is
insufficient for a full 200 grain count. This
is due to two factors. First, samples that contain less than l,000 grains are usually subject to water percolation or decomposition.
In such cases there is differential preservation of pollen types. Thus, the resulting pollen count presents a skewed representation
of the pollen types originally present in the
soil. Secondarily, it has been found that
counting pollen from samples containing less
than 1,000 grains is extremely time consuming. Therefore, the analyst spends an uneconomical amount of time to obtain counts
that have little scientific validity.
The pollen and eggs were counted as
were Lycopodium spores. A minimum of two
hundred pollen grains were counted from
samples that contained sufficient pollen.
The 200 grain count has been found to be
statistically reliable at the 95% confidence
interval (Barkley 1934) The number of pollen grains per milliliter of soil was calculated
on the basis of the ration of pollen grains to
the known number of Lycopodium spores.
The same process was applied in the parasite egg analysis.
The dried macroscopic remains from sample
I contained sand and fragments of what I
believe to be anthracitic coal or coke derived
from the burning of coal. Sample 2 contained fine sand and many Rubus seeds.
Rubus seeds are commonly found in Colonial and post-Colonial latrines in Newport,
Rhode Island, and Greenwich Village, New
York. Their presence in the Brush-Everard
deposits is, therefore, suggestive of privy deposits.
No parasite eggs were found in sample
one. However, sample 2 contained 1,200
eggs per gram (Table l). Of these, 83% are
identical to the eggs of the human whipworm, Trichuris trichiura. The remainder are
similar to the eggs of the giant intestinal
roundworm, Ascaris lumbricoides.
The pollen concentration values differed
between the two soil samples. In sample 1,
129 pollen grains per milliliter of soil were
present. In sample 2, 20,100 grains per gram
were present. Thus, there was insufficient
pollen in sample I to allow for a complete
200 grain count. However, there was an
abundance of pollen in sample 2.
The pollen spectrum of sample 2 was
dominated by what I believe to be a species
in the Caparidaceae (Caper family). Of 1,011
pollen grains counted, 869 were of this type
(Tables 2 and 3). This identification is not,
155
Appendix 5, Table 2.
Pollen Counts from the
Brush-Everard Site
Taxon
Sample 1
Apiaceae
Artemisi
Berberos
Brassicaceae
Caparidaceae
Carya
Cheno Am
Fabaaceae
High spine Asteraceae
Lamiaceae
Ligulaflorae
Liquidambar
Low spine Asteraceae
Nyssa
Pinus
Poaceae
Populus
Quercus
Salix
Unidentifiable
Zea mays
Sample 2
——
——
——
2
——
——
2
——
2
——
3
——
1
——
2
——
——
2
——
2
——
1
2
1
8
869
1
43
3
2
2
——
2
17
2
7
18
1
5
7
9
12
Total pollen
18
1011
Lycopodium spores
37
15
as yet, definitive. My identification is based
on close morphological similarity between
Cleome (beeweed), a New World caper species that grows in the Southwest U.S., and
general similarity to other members of the
family on file in the pollen comparative collection, Department of Anthropology, Texas
A&M University. However, there
is the possibility that this pollen type may
belong to the Solanaceae (potato family). In
either case, the abundance of this insect pollinated type indicates that it was a dietary
component. It is also probable that flowers
of this plant species were eaten, based on
the abundance of the pollen in the privy. I
suggest that the pollen is perhaps derived
from Carraris spinosa, and Old World spice
that was commonly consumed in Europe.
Until pollen of this species is obtained and
compared to the Williamsburg samples, this
should be considered as an educated guess,
not a definitive identification. The pollen
grains themselves are very small, 15 micrometers long and 10 micrometers wide,
are oval tricolporate with a weak, rugged
pore. More work will be necessary to eventually identify this pollen type.
Other dietary types are present in the
deposits. Most importantly, large grains of
a cultivated grass are present. The grains are
consistent with the morphology of maize.
Three of 12 cultivate grass grains are broken. Such breakage is indicative of grinding. Thus, these pollen indicate the con156
Appendix 5, Table 3.
Common Names for Pollen Taxa from the Brush-Everard Site
Scientific Name
Common Name
Apiaceae
Artemisia
Berberis
Brassicaceae
Caparidaceae
Carya
Cheno Am
Fabaceae
High spine Asteraceae
Lamiaceae
Ligulaflorae
Liquidambar
Low spine Asteraceae
Nyssa
Pinus
Poaceae
Populus
Quercus
Salix
Unidentifiable
Zea mays
parsley family
sage
barberry
mustard family
caper family
pecan
goosefoot and/or pigweed families
bean family
composite family subgroup including sunflower
mint family
composite family subgroup including dandelion
sweetgum
composite family subgroup including ragweed
black gum
pine
grass family
cottonwood
oak
willow
pollen too decomposed for identification
maize
sumption of cultivated grains and suggest
that the grains were ground into flour. Two
other types have a possible dietary origin.
Brassicaceae (mustard family) pollen is
present and may be derived from the consumption of vegetables such as broccoli.
Apiaceae (parsley family) species include
many spices and the presence of this pollen
type in the privy may indicate the use of
spices in this family.
Many environmental pollen types were
present in the privy. These include arboreal
plants (Salix, Quercus, Nyssa, Populus, Pinus,
Carya, Liquidambar). Most of these are derived from trees growing in the
Williamsburg area. Pinus, however, produces exceptionally buoyant pollen grains
that are carried many miles from their
source. Consequently, Pinus pollen is not
necessarily derived from trees in the
Williamsburg area. Nonarboreal plants are
also represented in the pollen spectrum.
These include Cheno Ams (Chenopod and
Amaranth families), types in the Asteraceae
(composite family), Poaceae (grass family)
and Berberis (barberry). These types originated from plants growing in the vicinity of
Williamsburg.
Discussion and Summary
The parasite eggs include species that are
transferred by contact with human excreta.
It is clear that sanitation practices in
Williamsburg were not sophisticated
enough to prevent fecal borne disease. The
presence of the eggs of intestinal worms in
the privy is proxy evidence that the inhabitants of Williamsburg were at risk of protozoal and bacterial infection with species that
are transferred by direct fecal contact. It is
therefore probable that infections with Giardia sp., Entamoeba hvstolytica, Iodamoeba sp.
and other protozoa were common and that
157
Literature Cited
children especially were susceptible to diarrheal disease from these species as well as
bacterial pathogens.
The pollen evidence documents the consumption of flowers such as capers which
may have been eaten as a spice and were
possibly introduced from Europe. More
evaluation of the pollen is necessary to support this hypothesis. Cultivated grains, possibly maize, also constituted part of the diet.
The environmental information indicates that a variety of trees grew in the
Williamsburg area. These included black
gum, sweet gum, oak, willow, cottonwood
and pecan. However, non- arboreal plants
are more heavily represented in the pollen
record. Most important are pollen grains derived from disturbance types such as
Chenopodiaceae, Amaranthaceae, low
spine Asteraceae (ragweed type), Artemisia,
and Poaceae (grass family). The dominance
of these types of pollen indicate that environment in the area of the Brush-Everard
site was disturbed by gardening, plowing,
or other intensive human activity.
The find of parasite eggs, seeds and high
quantities of pollen is clear evidence that the
soils submitted for analysis are derived from
fecal deposits. This confirms the hypothesis
that the feature under study did serve as a
latrine as well as a kitchen midden.
Barkley, F.A. (1934). The statistical theory of
pollen analysis. Ecology 15:283-289.
Herrmann, B. (1986). Parasitologische
Untersuchung mittelalterlicher Kloaken. In B.
Herrmann (ed.), Mensch und Umwelt im
Mittelalter. Stuttgart: Deutsche VerlagsAnstalt, pp. 160-169.
Jones, A.K.G. (1985). Trichurid ova in archaeological deposits: their value as indicators of
ancient feces. In N.J.R. Fieller, D.D. Gilbertson,
and N.G.A. Ralph (eds.), Paleobiological
Investigations: Research Design, methods and
data analysis. Symposia of the Association for
Environmental Archaeology No. 5b, BAR
International Series 266, pp. 105-119.
Jones, A.K.G., A.R. Hutchinson, and C.
Nicholson (1988). The worms of Roman
horses and other finds of intestinal parasite
eggs from unpromising deposits. Antiquity
62:225-229.
Reinhard, K.J., U.E. Confalonieri, B. Herrmann,
L.F. Ferreira, and A.J.G. Araujo (1988). Recovery of parasite eggs from coprolites and
latrines: aspect of paleoparasitological
technique. Homo 37:217-239.
Reinhard, K.J., S.A. Mrozowski, and K.A. Orloski
(1986). Privies, pollen, parasites and seeds, a
biological nexus in historic archaeology.
MASCA Journal 4:31-36.
158
Appendix 6.
Parasitological Analysis of the Brush-Everard Site,
Williamsburg, Virginia
by Karl Reinhard
P
arasitological and palynological
analyses were undertaken from the
Brush-Everard Site of several contexts
in an attempt to expand previous findings
derived from the examination of latrine and
kitchen refuse deposits. Previous research
had revealed two species of parasitic worms
associated with fecal contamination: Trichuris trichiura and Ascaris lumbricoides. It was
hoped that further analysis of soils from the
privy, from refuse and from a near-by ravine would be useful in delimiting the extent of soil contamination with eggs from
these parasites and therefore provide insights into the parasite ecology of the site.
The examination of archaeological
parasite ecology is a relatively new aspect
of New World archaeo-parasitological research (Reinhard 1991). This approach has
been applied most extensively in Europe
with archaeological soils and latrine deposits (Jones 1986; Herrmann 1986, 1987;
Herrmann and Schultz 1986). Because historic archaeologists recover the same types
of deposits as European researchers, it is especially appropriate to apply this approach
to North American historic archaeology. The
parasitological analysis of several soil types
from the BrushEverard site is the first step
towards implementing this sort of study.
the refuse layer, and one other control
sample.
The technique employed here is very useful in quantifying small numbers of eggs in
soil deposits and therefore in tracing areas
of archaeological sites that were potentially
infective. Thirty milliliters of soil were extracted from each soil sample. To each 30
ml sample, a Lycopodium spore tablet contain 11,400 plus or minus 400 spores was
added. The samples were then treated with
hydrochloric acid to dissolve carbonates and
liberate microscopic particles. The samples
were then screened through a mesh of approximately 300 micrometers. The fine microscopic particles that passed through the
screen were then concentrated by centrifugation. The sediments were then floated in
a zinc bromide heavy density solution of 2.0
specific gravity. The supernatant containing
light, microscopic remains was poured off
and concentrated through centrifugation.
The microscopic remains were partially dehydrated in 50% ETOH and then transferred
to 2 dram vials in glycerol.
To make microscope preparations, drops
of the glycerol containing sediments were
placed on microscope slides and covered
with a cover glass. Several preparations of
each sample were made and examined under 200 power. For those samples that contained parasite eggs, the Lvcopodium spores
were counted and a ratio of spores to parasite eggs was calculated. Based on the known
number of spores per ml of sediment, the
number of eggs per ml were calculated.
Materials and Methods
Eleven samples were analyzed, seven from
the site’s privy, from the ravine, one from
159
Results
samples described herein contain very few
eggs of only one species. In the sample examined previously, the eggs of T. trichiura
dominated the samples. The difference between the samples is suggestive of the effects of differential preservation on parasite
eggs. As noted previously in Europe and
North America (Reinhard et al. 1986), T.
trichiura eggs seem to decompose faster than
those of A. lumhricoides. The difference in
the egg counts could be due to either differential preservation of to different parasite
spectra of the household at different period
in time. The low egg counts in this study
make me suspect that differential preservation is a more likely cause. Thus, in the interpretation of parasite ecology from historic
sites, it appears prudent to evaluate the data
with a degree of skepticism and in context
of differential preservation.
It is of interest that A. lumbricoides and
T. trichiura eggs dominate the samples from
the Brush-Everard Site. Ascarids, and
trichurids, in the modern world are the most
common human parasites and can persist
in a variety of environments due to the
extracorporal egg stage which is remarkable
resistant do the environment.
This suggests that only the most infective fecal borne parasites could sustain infections at this site and that its parasite ecology was limited to only a few, fecal horne
species.
Only two of the samples, both from the latrine, contained parasite eggs. These were
samples 29G-637 and 29G-640. Sample 29G640 contained 171 eggs per ml of soil.
Sample 29G-637 contained 262 eggs per
gram. Of these two samples, only eggs of A.
lumbricoides were found.
Discussion
The lack of parasite eggs in most soil samples
indicates that the site was not extensively
saturated with parasite eggs. It would be
interesting to examine house floors and
other special use areas to ascertain whether
parasite eggs were concentrated in areas
where human activity was most intense.
The egg concentration values for the
samples that were parasite positive are both
well below those defined by Jones (1985) as
being typical of fecal soils in an urban setting. Jones states that 400 eggs per gram are
typical of the urban environment. However,
the European work only addresses parasite
ecology in the urban setting.
In the less urban conditions of early colonial America, especially on farmsteads,
one would not anticipate finding many, if
any, parasite eggs throughout a site. The
parasite ecology of early American rural
colonists must have been defined not so
much by population crowding but rather by
specific and possibly idiosyncratic behaviors
that maintained parasite life cycles in circumscribed areas. Thus, the evaluation of
rural Colonial parasite ecology must focus
on sampling areas that can clearly be associated with human habitation and activity.
In contrast to the latrine sample analyzed previously (Reinhard 1989) which
contained an abundance of parasite eggs of
two species (1,200 eggs per gram), the
References Cited
Herrmann, B. (1986). Parasitologische
Untersuchung mittelalterlicher Kloaken. In B.
Herrmann (ed.), Mensch und Umwelt im
Mittelalter. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt,
pp. 160-169.
Herrmann, B. (1987). ParasitologischEpidemiologische Auswertungen
mittelalterliche Kloaken. Zeitschrift für
Archaeologie des Mittelalters. Köln: RheinlandVerlag, pp. 131-161.
160
Herrmann, B. and U. Schultz (1986).
Parasitologische Untersuchungen eines
Spätmittelalterlich-frühneuzeitlichen
Kloakeninhaltes aus der Lubecker Fronerei.
Lubecker Schriften zur Archaologie und
Kulturgeschichte 12:167-172.
Reinhard K.J., U.E. Confalonieri, B. Herrmann,
L.F. Ferreira, and A.J.G. Araijo (1986). Recovery
of parasite eggs from coprolites and latrines:
aspect of paleoparasitological technique.
Homo 37:217-239.
Reinhard, K.J. (1991). Parasitology as an interpretive tool in Archaeology. American Antiquity
57(2):231-245.
Jones, A.K.G. (1985). Trichurid ova in archaeological deposits: their value as indicators of
ancient feces. In N.J.R. Fieller, D.D. Gilbertson,
and N.G.A. Ralph (eds.), Paleobiological
Investigations: Research Design, methods and data
analysis. Symposium of the Association for
Environmental Archaeology No. 5b, BAR
International Series 266, pp. 105-119.
161
162
Appendix 7.
Minimum Vessel Counts
for Brush Privy and
Everard Main Ravine
163
164
Appendix 7, Table 1.
Brush Privy Ceramics and Glass
Vessel #
5
6
7
8
9
11
79
253
264
266
280
285
288
293
298
304
327
336
347
352
354
360
363
368
369
392
456
457
465
488
502
504
506
508
512
513
514
515
519
520
528
593
632
660
669
693
711
712
716
749
779
Type
Context #
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
Yorktown-type milkpan
delft plate
delft plate
delft plate
delft plate
delftware plate
delft plate
delft plate
delft plate
delft hollow
delft tea bowl
delft plate
delft drug jar
delft drug jar
delft drug jar
delft drug jar
delft drug jar
delft drug jar
delft drug jar
delft drug jar
delft tile
delft tile
delft tile
delft tile
delftware cup
delft tea bowl
delft bowl
delft punch bowl
delftware saucer
delftware punch bowl
delft cappucine cup
delft tea bowl
delftware bowl
delft plate
delft chamberpot
Westerwald storage jar
dipped white salt glaze mug
Fulham mug
Fulham storage jar
Fulham mug
Fulham storage jar
Fulham storage jar
Fulham storage jar
Nottingham stoneware bowl
Yorktown bowl
29F-639
29F-638
29F-641
29F-641
29F-641
29F-641
29F-645
29F-582
29F-588
29F-566
29F-570
29F-641
29F-582
29F-581
29F-596
29F-581
29F-588
29F-581
29F-566
29F-625
29F-566
29F-566
29F-566
29F-582
29F-493
29F-582
29F-582*
29F-582
29F-637
29F-566
29F-641
29F-573
29F-566
29F-581
29F-643
29F-643
29F-653
29F-653
29F-643
29F-582
29F-447
29F-582
29F-656
29F-643
29F-582
29F-625
29F-566
29F-566
29F-566
29F-566
29F-566*
165
Mends to
29G-535
29F-570
29F-1156, -1202
Privy
29G-575
29G-626
29G-566
29G-573
29G-640
29G-566, -583
29F-279
29G-566
29G-574
29G-625, -581
29G-625, -644
29G-566
29G-563
29G-593
29G-645
29G-566, -570
29F-656
29F-656, -413
Appendix 7, Table 1 (cont’d).
Brush Privy Ceramics and Glass
Vessel #
800
885
905
918
945
1184
1194
1244
1358
1372
8268
8277
8281
8282
8287
8288
8400
8402
8405
8407
8415
8427
8436
8437
8438
8439
8440
8442
8443
8444
8446
8447
8449
8451
8454
8465
8466
Type
Context #
Mends to
Yorktown-type milkpan
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain bowl
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain plate
delft tile
delft tea bowl
delftware plate
Chinese porcelain cup
Fulham mug
glass decanter
Silesian stemmed glass
pitcher handle
jelly glass
stemmed glass
Silesian stemmed glass
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
wine bottle
29F-643
29F-582
29F-583
29F-582
29F-566
29F-566
29F-407
29F-643
29F-566
29F-581
29F-640
29F-657
29F-651
29F-645
29F-645
29F-641
29F-625
29F-625
29F-629
29F-625
29F-627
29F-629
29F-643
29F-625
29F-629
29F-625
29F-643
29F-625
29F-641
29F-625
29F-630
29F-622
29F-625
29F-644
29F-645
29F-656
29F-625
29G-625
*Already counted with other Brush layers/features.
166
29G-484
29G-1268
29G-506
29G-575
29G-645, -631
29G-631, -645
29G-631
Appendix 7, Table 2.
Thomas Everard Main Ravine Vessels
Vessel #
251
252
255
256
258
260
261
265
267
268
269
270
272
274
276
277
278
283
284
287
295
296
300
301
302
303
304
306
307
308
309
313
316
317
318
330
332
333
338
341
342
343
344
345
346
348
356
359
362
366
370
375
Type
Context #
Mends to
delft plate
delft plate
delft plate
delft plate
delft plate
delft plate
delft dish
delft plate
delft plate
delft dish
delft plate
delft plate
delft plate
delft plate
delft soup plate
delft plate
delft plate
delft soup plate
delft plate
delft plate
delft dish
delft plate
delft bowl
delft bowl
delft basin
delft punch bowl
delft hollow
delft punch bowl
delft bowl
delft bowl
delft punch bowl
delft punch bowl
delft punch bowl
delft punch bowl
delft punch bowl
delft punch bowl
delft plate
delft dish
delft dish
delft drug jar
delft drug jar
delft drug jar
delft drug jar
delft ointment pot
delft drug jar
delft drug jar
delft drug jar
delft chamberpot
delft chamberpot
delft ointment pot
delft ointment pot
delft ointment pot
29F-413
29F-570
29F-570
29F-570
29F-570
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-373
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-570
29F-413
29F-413
29F-570
29F-620
29F-413
29F-395
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-570
29F-413
29F-570
29F-413
29F-413
29F-570
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-570
29F-341
29F-570
29F-620
29F-570
29F-413
29F-570
29F-570
29F-400
29F-971
29F-570
29F-363
29F-363
29F-570
29F-570
29F-413
29F-413
29F-372
29F-570
29F-511, -570
29F-596
29F-440
167
29F-304, 29G-566, 29F-646
29F-570, -976
29F-395
29F-570, -634, -971
29F-440, -951, -965
29F-279
29F-63
29F-440, -570
29F-440, -298
29F-279
29F-440
29F-288
29F-399
29F-279
29F-460, -486, -620
29F-570
29F-620
29G-566
29F-279
29F-279
29F-570, -596
29F-656
29F-596
29F-464
29F-365, -563, -539
29F-407
29F-396
Appendix 7, Table 2 (cont’d).
Thomas Everard Main Ravine Vessels
Vessel #
376
377
380
382
383
384
386
387
388
389
392
387
394
395
396
398
453
455
464
466
469
474
476
478
489
497
500
501
513
525
527
537
541
550
557
560
561
562
566
567
568
569
570
578
588
595
599
605
610
615
618
619
Type
Context #
delft ointment pot
delft drug jar
delft ointment pot
delft ointment pot
delft ointment pot
delft ointment pot
delft ointment pot
delft ointment pot
delft ointment pot
delft drug jar
delft drug jar
delft ointment pot
delft drug jar
delft punch bowl
delft chamberpot
delft chamberpot
delft tile
delft tile
delft tile
delft undecorated tile
delft tile
delft tile
delft tile
delft tile
delft tile
delft platter
delft punch bowl
delft punch bowl
delft punch bowl
delft chamberpot
delft chamberpot
delft undecorated tile
delft basin
Westerwald chamberpot
Westerwald chamberpot
Westerwald chamberpot
Westerwald chamberpot
Westerwald chamberpot
Westerwald jug
Westerwald chamberpot
Westerwald chamberpot
Westerwald chamberpot
Westerwald chamberpot
Westerwald mug
Westerwald jug
white salt glaze bowl, rolled rim
white salt glaze bowl
white salt glaze patty pan
white salt glaze saucer
white salt glaze cup
white salt glaze cream jug
white salt glaze cream jug
———
———
———
29F-413
29F-395
29F-620
29F-392
29F-395
29F-374
29F-413
29F-377
29F-378
29F-372
29F-385
29F-392
29F-570
29F-352
29F-413
29F-413
29F-308
29F-413
29F-620
29F-345
29F-357
29F-570
29F-372
29F-620
29F-367
29F-399
29F-570
29F-570
29F-345
29F-570
29F-570
29F-570
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-570
29F-570
29F-413
29F-570
29F-413
29F-570
29F-413
29F-373
29F-570
29F-570
29F-570
29F-570
168
Mends to
29F-63, -399, -596
29F-395
29F-622
29F-63, -378
29F-408, -570, -385
29F-279
29F-440, -570, -582
29F-63, -395
29F-403, -407
29F-279, -413
29F-547, -628
29F-547
29F-443, -976
29F-279, -583
29F-413, -486, -380
29F-494, -570
29F-413
29F-464
29F-395
29F-440, 29G-625, 29G-643
29F-63
29F-396, -264
29F-565
29F-279, -949
29F-279
29F-279, -440, -570
29F-511, -279, -151
29F-279
29F-440, -299
29F-596
29F-279
29F-279
29F-279c
29F-395
29F-413
29F-971
29F-620
Appendix 7, Table 2 (cont’d).
Thomas Everard Main Ravine Vessels
Vessel #
624
625
629
630
633
634
635
644
650
656
657
659
665
666
675
676
677
680
683
684
685
686
687
688
691
694
695
697
698
717
730
731
733
734
736
737
738
741
742
745
746
750
752
753
754
760
761
762
763
764
766
Type
Context #
white salt glaze teapot
white salt glaze teapot
white salt glaze can
white salt glaze mug
white salt glaze mug
dipped white salt glaze tankard
white salt glaze tankard
white salt glaze chamberpot
white salt glaze dot diaper basketweave
soup plate
dipped white salt glaze mug
dipped white salt glaze mug
American stoneware storage jar
Fulham storage jar
Fulham storage jar
Fulham storage jar
Fulham tankard
Fulham storage jar
Fulham storage jar
Fulham storage jar
Fulham pipkin
Fulham storage jar
Fulham storage jar
Fulham storage jar
Fulham storage jar
Fulham storage jar
Fulham jug
Fulham storage jar
Fulham storage jar
Fulham storage jar
Fulham can
Nottingham mug
Nottingham mug
Nottingham mug
Nottingham mug
Nottingham tankard
Nottingham mug
Nottingham mug
Nottingham mug
Nottingham mug
Nottingham bowl
Nottingham bowl
Nottingham bowl
Nottingham hollow
Nottingham patty pan
Nottingham rusticated pitcher?
colonoware bowl
colonoware bowl
colonoware bowl
colonoware bowl
colonoware bowl
colonoware bowl
29F-570
29F-413
29F-357
29F-570
29F-570
29F-392
29F-361
29F-413
29F-413
29F-570
29F-570
29F-570
29F-413
29F-570
29F-413
29F-345
29F-413
29F-570
29F-379
29F-349
29F-378
29F-620
29F-570
29F-570
29F-385
29F-570
29F-620
29F-344
29F-399
29F-413
29F-570
29F-413
29F-570
29F-570
29F-373
29F-570
29F-620
29F-570
29F-413
29F-379
29F-570
29F-376
29F-570
29F-976
29F-413
29F-413
29F-380
29F-344
29F-570
29F-620
29F-570
169
Mends to
29F-440, -570
29F-620
29F-396
ER1269A
29F-949
29F-656
29F-596
29F-157
29F-565, -596
29F-440, -570
29F-299
29F-413, -570
29F-620, -570, -440, -413
29F-413, -570, -620
29F-398
29F-245
29F-613
29F-570, -413, -596
29F-63
29F-596, -157
29F-152
29F-397, -403, - 443
29F-403
29F-622
29F-622, -948, -951
29F-596, -570, -504
29F-570, -604, -975
29F-440, -620
29F-604
29F-385, -413, -443, -494
29F-570
29F-398, -399, -570, -944
29F-413, -620, -400
29F-440, -570
29F-620, -597, -582
29F-309, -443
Appendix 7, Table 2 (cont’d).
Thomas Everard Main Ravine Vessels
Vessel #
767
768
769
770
771
772
776
778
780
782
783
785
787
788
790
796
801
804
805
810
811
812
813
814
820
825
826
833
835
836
845
851
853
876
879
886
887
889
890
891
897
898
900
910
911
912
913
914
915
920
921
922
Type
Context #
colonoware bowl
colonoware bowl
colonoware bowl
colonoware bowl
colonoware bowl
colonoware bowl
colonoware pipkin
colonoware hollow
Yorktown-type bowl
white sandy storage jar
coarseware bowl
coarseware bowl
Yorktown-type milkpan
Yorktown-type milkpan
Yorktown-type milkpan
Yorktown-type milkpan
Yorktown-type milkpan
Yorktown-type milkpan
Yorktown-type milkpan
Yorktown-type bird bottle
Yorktown-type pipkin
Yorktown-type milkpan
Yorktown-type bird bottle
Yorktown-type pipkin
Yorktown-type chamberpot
Buckley storage jar
Buckley storage jar
Buckley butterpot
Buckley storage jar
North Devon milk pan
North Midland slip mug
North Midland slip flatware
North Midland slip plate
agateware teapot
white sandy milkpan
Chinese porcelain plate
Chinese porcelain plate
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain plate
Chinese porcelain dessert plate
Chinese porcelain can
Chinese porcelain can
Chintn cup
Chinese porcelain punch bowl
Chinese porcelain cup
Chinese porcelain cup
Chinese porcelain cup
Chinese porcelain cup
Chinese porcelain cup
Iberian storage jar
Iberian storage jar
Iberian storage jar
29F-570
29F-570
29F-396
29F-620
29F-413
29F-620
29F-345
29F-620
29F-413
29F-570
29F-570
29F-570
29F-570
29F-396
29F-570
29F-378
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-570
29F-570
29F-413
29F-570
29F-570
29F-570
29F-413
29F-392
29F-392
29F-620
29F-413
29F-570
29F-413
29F-570
29F-413
29F-413
29F-372
29F-373
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-392
29F-372
29F-372
170
Mends to
29F-620, -656, -397
29F-400
29F-309, -570
29F-401, -413
29F-273
29F-620
29F-514
29F-366, -391, -397
29F-440
29F-63, -570
29F-570, -440
29F-511
29G-382
ER1268L
29F-397, -400, -570, -596
29F-395
29F-570
29F-570
29F-413
29F-646
29F-412
29F-279
29F-582
29F-128
29F-485, -549
29F-582
29F-570, -440, -620
29F-413
29F-413, -440, -309
29F-413, -440, -465
Appendix 7, Table 2 (cont’d).
Thomas Everard Main Ravine Vessels
Vessel #
923
924
925
926
927
929
930
931
932
947
948
949
950
951
953
954
955
958
959
964
965
968
972
983
988
989
990
992
994
995
997
998
1240
1253
1271
1352
1353
1355
1356
1359
1360
1365
1368
1377
1380
1382
1391
1392
1395
1397
1398
Type
Context #
Mends to
Iberian storage jar
Iberian storage jar
Iberian storage jar
Iberian storage jar
Iberian storage jar
Iberian storage jar
Iberian storage jar
Iberian storage jar
Iberian storage jar
Chinese porcelain plate
Chinese porcelain bowl
bianco sopra bianco
English porcelain bowl
Chinese porcelain bowl
Chinese porcelain cup
Chinese porcelain mug
Chinese porcelain cup
Chinese porcelain cup
Chinese porcelain cup
Chinese porcelain cup
Chinese porcelain cup
Chinese porcelain cup
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain saucer
delft plate mimosa
Chinese porcelain plate
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain cup
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain cup
Chinese porcelain cup gilded
Chinese porcelain saucer
creamware bowl
creamware feather plate
Astbury teapot
Astbury mug
white salt glaze bowl scratched
dipped white salt glaze bowl
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain saucer famille
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain dish
29F-372
29F-392
29F-372
29F-392
29F-413
29F-372
29F-372
29F-372
29F-372
29F-307
29F-413
29F-413, -440,
29F-413, -440. 638
29F-413, -440
29F-413, -440, -565
29F-440
29F-440
29F-309, -413, -440
29F-413, -440, -309
29F-413, -440, -309
29F-345
———
———
———
———
———
29F-620
29F-972
———
29F-308
29F-344
29F-570
29F-570
29F-407
29F-570
29F-620
29F-385
29F-341
29F-570
29F-379
29F-570
29F-972
29F-373
29F-372
29F-570
29F-307
29F-570
29F-395
29F-373
29F-345
29F-372
29F-1054
29F-413
29F-307
29F-363
29F-570
———
———
———
29F-570
29F-344, -395, ER1198
171
29F-309, -570
29F-396, -440, -620
29F-560
29F-339
29F-345, -395
29F-620
29F-440
29F-440
29F-407
29F-440
29F-413
29F-413, -440, 29G-566
29F-440
29F-656
29F-1151
29F-620, - 972
29F-440
29F-413, -72, -976
ER1257D
29F-395
Appendix 7, Table 2 (cont’d).
Thomas Everard Main Ravine Vessels
Vessel #
1399
1435
1573
1705
1823
1824
1830
1855
1858
8260
8261
8262
8264
8266
8267
8269
8271
8272
8275
8279
8280
8283
8284
8286
Type
Context #
Mends to
Chinese porcelain plate
Wedgwood green bowl?
whiteware saucer
white salt glaze lid
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain saucer
Chinese porcelain cup
Chinese porcelain cup
stemmed glass
stemmed glass
stemmed glass
jelly glass
stemmed glass
stemmed glass
engraved glass decanter
stemmed glass
glass tumbler
glass handle
glass decanter
glass pitcher
stemmed glass
stemmed glass
glass tray/salver
———
29F-308
29F-399
29F-400
29F-570
29F-400
29F-620
29F-378
29F-396
29F-400
29F-413
29F-413
29F-413
29F-570
29F-381
29F-570
29F-413
29F-570
29F-396
29F-364
29F-413
29F-413
29F-620
29F-413
29F-413, -395
172
29F-482
29F-1255
29F-520
29F-440
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THE
BRUSH-EVERARD SITE,
WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA
Between 1987 and 1989, the Colonial Williasmburg Foundation undertook a large-scale excavation
of the Brush-Everard site, one of Williamsburg’s most important properties. Originally funded by
AT&T to investigate the possibility of finding clues to African American life in the 18th century, the
project expanded into a detailed study of the transformation of one of Williamsburg’s 18th-century
“urban plantations.” Built in the colonial capital, but retaining features of a rural plantation complex,
these urban plantations reveal the South’s unique adaptation to urbanization. From the early occupation of gunsmith John Brush, as revealed by a rich privy deposit, to the occupation of Williamsburg’s
mayor, Thomas Everard, in the 1760s and 1770s, the Brush-Everard site shows Williamsburg’s
development from a town of merchants and craftsmen to a center of politics and commerce.
COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS issue limited editions of small
conference proceedings, archaeological reports, specialized historical, architectural, and curatorial
studies, annotated primary documents, and other historical materials useful to museum planners and
interpreters and to students of early American history. Larger interpretive monographs sponsored by
the Foundation are published by the University Press of Virginia as Colonial Williamsburg Studies in
Chesapeake History and Culture.
Colonial Williamsburg Research Publications are available from
The Editor, Research Division
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
P.O. Box 1776
Williamsburg, VA 23187
FRONT COVER: Photograph of the restored Brush-Everard House
(Dave Doody, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation).
ii