1
25
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/45914/archive/files/b14c2b35ce800f4ef86d485af3c73a80.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=amXU6ADFaAK0dJxdmW9yl74RQl4V2oNmGFh8Lp-Zg2JMf4fs5eHwEn5mKn0%7E%7Et5GhdZytAYaf%7ELgRVOH5uGeNnYrdRM7DDIuoHNllYs6WxzI1HrahmC%7EA5n7obuzU19xjXvetXAyH9MDdDpeFd2X0s1eOrG-6iLIG6FWBmk%7EwSwhJxKU9fCoA9sEun5jHTlchw8pxvZ9CizUdI0LEGLNa2lia8qcWs6%7EZvHhDwRH45zLSj3E%7EXSE%7EEYNzSBh2mxtAolCA062PbnlD0e%7EzDbEJI2onmlY9u2Vs2liogJ3NJMskA-fUxpAIKfAnWasvHY7nCOZthUBgPpBJuOY5MVVxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
33b4606c2cfa1c1b6cf1394f2532e902
PDF Text
Text
Archaeology and Enslaved Life on
Coke’s Plantation: An Early History of
the Governor’s Palace Lands
By Maria Franklin
August 2017
The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
�Table of Contents
List of Figures ..........................................................................................................5
Chapter 1 – Project Introduction ..................................................................................7
Project Area ..............................................................................................................8
Previous Archaeology, Site 44WB90 .........................................................................9
Site 44WB90: Coke’s Plantation and the Palace Lands ...........................................11
Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) .............................. 12
Chapter Summaries ............................................................................................... 12
Chapter 2 – Research Questions and Methods ........................................................... 13
Introduction ...........................................................................................................13
Research Questions................................................................................................ 13
Remarks ................................................................................................................. 17
Field Methods and Data Recovery ...........................................................................18
Excavation Units ....................................................................................................18
Features ................................................................................................................. 19
Sampling Protocols .................................................................................................20
Soil Chemistry Samples ...................................................................................... 20
Phytolith and Pollen Samples .............................................................................. 20
Flotation Samples ............................................................................................... 21
Artifacts and Ecofacts ......................................................................................... 21
Chapter 3 – Historical context .................................................................................... 23
Introduction ...........................................................................................................23
Slavery in Williamsburg .......................................................................................... 23
Whaley’s “Old Field”: c. 1704-1747........................................................................25
John Coke’s Plantation: c. 1747-1769 ....................................................................29
John Coke’s Slaveholding ................................................................................... 31
The Transfer of John Coke’s Estate .....................................................................32
The Governor’s Palace Lands: c. 1769-1776 ........................................................... 35
The Palace Park ..................................................................................................36
Slavery and Governors Botetourt and Dunmore .................................................. 38
The Events of 1776 ............................................................................................. 39
Aftermath: c. 1784-1904 ........................................................................................ 40
Concluding Remarks .............................................................................................. 42
Chapter 4 – Excavation results and site chronology ................................................... 45
Introduction ...........................................................................................................45
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 2
�Soil Profile .............................................................................................................. 47
Excavation Units ....................................................................................................47
Recovery Methods ..................................................................................................49
Test Transects ........................................................................................................50
Features ................................................................................................................. 52
F01: Sub-floor pit ............................................................................................... 54
F02 and F03: Brick Chimney Foundation and Builder’s Trench ......................... 57
F04: Ditch...........................................................................................................57
F05: Ditch...........................................................................................................59
F06: Ditch...........................................................................................................61
North Fence: F07-F21 and F31-F36 ....................................................................63
South Fence: F22-F30 ........................................................................................ 63
Miscellaneous Features....................................................................................... 64
Interpretation of the Palace Lands Site Chronology ................................................ 64
Phase I: c. 1747-1769 ........................................................................................ 67
Phase II: Late Eighteenth Century to Early Nineteenth Century .......................... 68
Phase III: Mid-Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries ............................................69
The Ceramic Crossmend Evidence..........................................................................70
Remarks ................................................................................................................. 71
Chapter 5 – Historic Artifacts ..................................................................................... 73
Introduction ...........................................................................................................73
Foodways Group ....................................................................................................74
Ceramic Tablewares ............................................................................................... 78
Tea and Coffee Service Wares ................................................................................. 80
Ceramic Food Preparation and Storage Wares ........................................................ 81
Unidentifiable Ceramics ......................................................................................... 82
Glass Assemblage ...................................................................................................82
Glass Tablewares ...................................................................................................83
Glass Beverage Storage and Containers .................................................................83
Unidentified Glass ..................................................................................................84
Table Utensils ........................................................................................................84
Architectural Group ............................................................................................... 85
Sewing Equipment Group....................................................................................... 86
Medicinal and Hygiene Group ................................................................................ 87
Personal Group ......................................................................................................90
Furniture Group.....................................................................................................90
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 3
�Tobacco Group .......................................................................................................91
Tool Group ............................................................................................................. 91
Native American Group .......................................................................................... 92
Other Hardware Group ........................................................................................... 92
Arms Group ...........................................................................................................93
Clothing and Adornment Group ............................................................................. 94
Horse and Transport Group ................................................................................... 98
Unidentified Artifact Group .................................................................................... 99
Other Notable Artifacts ......................................................................................... 100
Chapter 6 – Interpretations ...................................................................................... 103
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 103
The Built Environment ......................................................................................... 104
Social Organization at the Palace Lands Site ........................................................ 105
Comparative Analysis of Household Assemblages ................................................. 106
The Rich Neck and Utopia IV Slave Quarters .................................................... 106
The Artifact Assemblages .................................................................................. 108
Research Questions.............................................................................................. 110
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 121
References ............................................................................................................... 125
Primary Sources ................................................................................................... 125
Secondary Sources ............................................................................................... 125
Appendices .............................................................................................................. 135
Appendix A. Dryscreen and Wetscreen Samples, Features 1, 4, and 5 (F01, F04,
and F05)............................................................................................................... 137
Appendix B. Soil Chemistry Samples ................................................................... 139
Appendix C. Phytolith and Pollen Samples .......................................................... 141
Appendix D. Flotation Samples ........................................................................... 145
Appendix E. Ceramic Vessels .............................................................................. 147
Appendix F. Inventory of Estate of John Coke, February 15, 1768 ...................... 163
Appendix G. Excavation and Test Units ............................................................... 167
Appendix H. Feature Elevations .......................................................................... 171
Appendix I. Summary of Features, North Fence .................................................. 173
Appendix J. Summary of Features, South Fence ................................................. 175
Appendix K. Summary of Other Features ............................................................ 177
Appendix L. Contexts, Structure 140, Utopia IV .................................................. 179
Appendix M. Contexts, Site 68AL, Rich Neck Slave Quarter................................. 183
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 4
�List of Figures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
2.1.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
4.1.
Williamsburg, Virginia. .............................................................................7
Visitor Center complex, Colonial Williamsburg, 2007. ...............................8
Project area, Palace Lands site (44WB90) ..................................................9
Phase I survey of CW Visitor Center, June 1996 .....................................10
Phase II survey of CW Visitor Center, November 1996 ............................. 11
Block excavation plan, Palace Lands site ................................................ 18
York County rent roll tract map, tracts 595A and 595C, 1704 ................ 25
York County land transactions, tracts 595A and 595C, c. 1711-1737 .....26
York County, tracts 474B, 595A and 595C, 1747 ...................................29
John Coke’s plantation and Williamsburg property, c. 1747-1767 ..........30
York County tract map, 1768 ..................................................................34
The Governor’s Palace Lands, c. 1769-1816 ............................................37
Project area during early stage of excavation immediately prior to machine
grading of ground vegetation, view to the south, June 1998 .................. 45
4.2. Palace Lands site, post-excavation, view to the west ............................... 46
4.3. Context 2, 1006N/1005E, north profile................................................... 47
4.4. Block excavation plan showing areas of plowzone, redeposited subsoil,
and silt, Palace Lands site .....................................................................48
4.5. Contexts 180 and 136 (modern, redeposited subsoil), and context 184 (silt
layer), 992N/1011E, northwest quadrant of unit, east profile ............... 49
4.6. Plan of 1999 test units, Palace Lands site ............................................... 51
4.7. Context 263, 1008N/974E, south profile ................................................ 52
4.8. Plan of features (post excavation), Palace Lands site ............................... 53
4.9. Features 1 (sub-floor pit) and 2 (chimney foundation), view to the
northwest .............................................................................................. 55
4.10. Plan of Features 1 and 2 .......................................................................55
4.11. Feature 1 (F01), sub-floor pit, north profile ...........................................56
4.12. Feature 2 (F02), brick chimney foundation, view to the north ............... 57
4.13. Plan and profiles of Feature 4 (F04) ...................................................... 59
4.14. Plan and profile of Feature 5 (F05) ........................................................ 60
4.15. Plan and profiles of Feature 6 (F06) ...................................................... 62
4.16. Periods of manufacture for ceramic ware types recovered from feature
contexts ................................................................................................ 66
5.1. Colonoware bowl, rim fragment (235-33AS). Photo courtesy of the Digital
Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (http://www.daacs.org/)
............................................................................................................. 80
5.2. Colonoware porringer handle (230-33AS). Photo courtesy of the Digital
Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (http://www.daacs.org/)
............................................................................................................. 80
5.3. Tea/coffee service vessels, (a) Jackfield teapot lid (238-33AS), (b)
creamware sugar bowl lid (183-33AS), (c) creamware coffee pot lid (28433AS) ....................................................................................................81
5.4. Food preparation and storage vessels, (a) Buckley milk pan (201-33AS), (b)
Fulham-type stoneware storage jar (230-33AS) .....................................82
5.5. Table utensil, lead alloy spoon handle with maker’s mark of “H” (63-33AS;
1008-00012-NOS-00239). Illustration by Will Russell ........................... 85
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 5
�Figure 5.6. Table utensil, lead alloy spoon handle with incised Greek cross (20-33AS;
1008-00050-WTS-00152). Illustration by Will Russell ........................... 85
Figure 5.7. Table utensil, tin-plated, two-piece handle (1008-00050-WTS-00154,
1008-00050-WTS-00155, 1008-00050-WTS-00156 and 1008-00050WTS-00157) .......................................................................................... 85
Figure 5.8. Sewing Equipment Group; (a) copper alloy thimble (97-33AS; 1008-00054WTS-00048), (b) copper alloy thimble (24-33AS; 1008-00050-WTS00190), (c) copper alloy thimble (83-33AS; 1008-00053-WTS-00108), (d)
copper alloy thimble (98-33AS; 1008-00054-WTS-00049). .................... 87
Figure 5.9. Medicinal and Hygiene Group, (a) non-lead glass, light green
pharmaceutical bottle, base fragment (1008-00050-WTS-00001) (b) nonlead glass, light green pharmaceutical bottle (1008-00050-WTS-00053)89
Figure 5.10. Medicinal and Hygiene Group, delftware salve pot (254-33AS). Photo
courtesy of the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery
(http://www.daacs.org/) .......................................................................89
Figure 5.11. Personal Group, lead alloy weight with the numeral “1” (68-33AS; 100800019-DRS-00185). Illustration by Will Russell ....................................90
Figure 5.12. Clothing and Adornment Group, (a) copper alloy shoe buckle (25-33AS;
1008-00050-FLT-00020), (b) copper alloy shoe buckle (81-33AS; 100800053-WTS-00036). Illustration by Will Russell ....................................95
Figure 5.13. Copper alloy shoe buckle (123-33AS; 1008-00129-WTS-00002).
Illustration by Will Russell ....................................................................95
Figure 5.14. Clothing and Adornment Group; (a) copper alloy two-piece button with
molded decoration and bone back (33-33AS; 1008-00050-WTS-00141
and 1008-00050-WTS-00142), (b) copper alloy two-piece button with
molded decoration and bone back (36-33AS; 1008-00050-WTS-00147
and 1008-00050-WTS-00148). Illustration by Will Russell .................... 96
Figure 5.15. Clothing and Adornment Group; (a) copper alloy, two-piece button with
molded decoration and missing back (34-33AS; 1008-00050-WTS00143), (b) copper alloy two-piece button with molded decoration and
bone back (87-33AS; 1008-00053-WTS--00081). Illustration by Will
Russell ..................................................................................................96
Figure 5.16. Clothing and Adornment Group; (left) tin alloy finger ring with a silver
wash (76-33AS; 1008-00053-WTS-00130), (right) copper alloy flat-disc
button with missing shank (102-33AS). Illustration by Will Russell ......96
Figure 5.17. Clothing and Adornment Group; tin alloy ring with a silver wash (center;
1008-00053-WTS-00130) as recovered from excavation attached to two
copper alloy rings (photo taken prior to conservation) ........................... 97
Figure 5.18. Clothing and Adornment Group, glass cufflink jewels/pastes (100800050-WTS-00223; 1008-00054-WTS-00064; 1008-00054-WTS-00065)
............................................................................................................. 98
Figure 5.19. Unidentified Artifact Group, copper alloy hardware, possible finial (4333AS; 1008-00050-WTS-00234) .......................................................... 100
Figure 5.20. Bottle seal, “T Everard 1768” (12-33AS; 1008-00023-DRS-00055).
Illustration by Will Russell .................................................................. 101
Figure 5.21. Selection of fossil shells recovered from the Palace Lands site ............. 101
Figure 6.1. Percentages of artifact groups by site .................................................... 112
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 6
�Chapter 1 – Project Introduction
During the summers of 1998 and 1999, the Colonial Williamsburg Department
of Archaeological Research (DAR), with the assistance of students from the College of
William & Mary and the University of Texas-Austin field schools, conducted an
excavation of site 44WB90 in Williamsburg, Virginia (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1. Williamsburg, Virginia.
This eighteenth-century, slave-related site was identified in 1996 during a
Phase I survey of the Colonial Williamsburg (CW) Visitor Center complex (Figure 1.2;
Pickett 1997). The site was once located on land that formed a portion of the
Governor’s Palace Lands from which it derives its name. This report summarizes the
results of the Phase III data recovery of the site.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 7
�Figure 1.2. Visitor Center complex, Colonial Williamsburg, 2007.
The excavation was conducted under the direction of former DAR Research
Associate Maria Franklin. Marley R. Brown III, then Director of the DAR, provided
general supervision of the project. Staff archaeologists Andrew Edwards, Greg Brown
and David Muraca provided logistical support. The field school teaching assistants
included Anna Agbe-Davies, David Brown, Roxanne Lawson, Kerri S. Barile, Sean
Maroney, and Rob Weber. Rob Weber and Greg Brown assisted enormously in the
archival research of the site’s history. Linda Rowe, Jennifer Jones, Nicole Mahoney,
Terri Keffert, and Donna Sawyers catalogued the artifacts under the guidance of Bill
Pittman and Kelly Ladd, and Joanne Bowen and Steven Atkins analyzed the faunal
remains. Lucie Vinciguerra and Heather Harvey produced the graphics from original
field drawings. Finally, my sincere thanks go to Hans Schwarz for his editing,
attention to detail, and pulling it all together, and to Mark Kostro for ensuring that
this report has a home.
In 2008, the Department of Archaeological Research was integrated with
Historic Architecture and now operates as the Department of Architectural and
Archaeological Research.
Project Area
The Palace Lands site (44WB90) was located on the property of the Visitor
Center complex between the Cascades Motel and Route 60 (Figure 1.3). The site was
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 8
�situated on a terrace overlooking Route 60 that is still wooded and covered with dense
ground vegetation. A house, occupied during the excavations, bordered the site and
car parts, modern dishes, beer bottles, and other debris were scattered across the
area.
Figure 1.3. Project area, Palace Lands site (44WB90)
Due to planned renovations of the Visitor Center, Phase I and II surveys of site
44WB90 were undertaken in 1996 by the DAR (Cooper 1997; Pickett 1997). Artifacts
recovered during Phase II testing dated primarily to the eighteenth century. This
evidence, along with the site’s location, tied the site to a 200-acre tract of land
purchased by the Council sometime between 1769 and 1773 when the acreage
became part of the Governor’s Palace Lands. Subsequent research revealed that prior
to this event the site was inhabited by enslaved Virginians who belonged to John
Coke.
Previous Archaeology, Site 44WB90
In June of 1996, the DAR conducted a Phase I survey of the Visitor Center,
located south of the Woodlands Conference Center, as the area was slated for future
development. Archaeologists David Muraca and Dwayne Pickett conducted the survey
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 9
�which was intended to locate prehistoric and historic sites within the project area.
Archaeologists dug 135 40-cm shovel tests at fifteen-meter intervals (Pickett 1997:5).
There were 23 positive shovel tests (21 of which are indicated in Figure 1.4) and
archaeologists recovered eighteenth-century artifacts from three of these. With
eighteenth-century habitation evident in the area, the site was registered with the
VDHR. Archaeologists recommended a Phase II survey of the site which commenced
in November of 1996.
Figure 1.4. Phase I survey of CW Visitor Center, June 1996
The Phase II survey of site 44WB90 was supervised by Margaret Cooper and
was intended to locate subsurface features and to delineate the site’s boundaries
(Cooper 1997; Figure 1.5). This survey focused on the area where eighteenth-century
artifacts were previously recovered. Archaeologists dug 16 75 × 75 cm test units at
ten-meter intervals and eight 75 × 75 cm test units at five-meter intervals. They also
excavated two 1 × 1 m units and one 2 × 2 m unit. One test unit uncovered a portion
of a brick chimney foundation (Cooper 1997). The 347 artifacts collected during the
survey included 117 artifacts that were attributed to the eighteenth-century site
occupation (Cooper 1997:16). The location of the chimney remains and a
concentration of eighteenth-century artifacts in the area surrounding the feature led
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 10
�to the decision to conduct a Phase III data recovery of the site. This stage of the
investigation took place during two summer field seasons in 1998 and 1999.
Figure 1.5. Phase II survey of CW Visitor Center, November 1996
Site 44WB90: Coke’s Plantation and the Palace Lands
Site 44WB90 was referred to as the Palace Lands Quarter following the Phase II
survey. It was known prior to the surveys conducted that the area once formed part of
the Palace Lands. The discovery of a potential slave quarter during Phase II testing,
however, led to the reference of the site as the “Palace Lands Quarter.” Yet while the
site quartered enslaved Virginians and was part of the Palace Lands, subsequent
research revealed that it was likely never both of these simultaneously. Instead, the
Afro-Virginians who inhabited the site belonged to a prominent resident of
Williamsburg by the name of John Coke.
John Coke was a goldsmith and tavern keeper who owned the land upon which
the site was located from c. 1747-1767. It is clear from historical documents that he
used the land for planting. Although he owned nine enslaved blacks upon his death
in 1767, it is still not known which of these individuals lived at the Palace Lands site.
Coke willed the plantation to his son Samuel who put the plantation, its livestock and
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 11
�several enslaved blacks up for auction in 1769. In c. 1769-1773, but probably closer
to 1769, the Council purchased the tract and it was incorporated into the Palace
Lands.
Coke’s 200-acre plantation became part of what was known at the time as the
Palace “park.” The last two royal governors, Botetourt and Dunmore, used the park
for pasturage, raising crops, and for fuel (Gibbs 1980). In the years following the
Revolution, the Palace Lands tract was vested, deeded and willed many times. A
second occupation took place in the site’s vicinity during the late eighteenth century,
and this was followed by one or more settlements near the site starting in the midnineteenth century. Although a chain of title has been traced from 1704 to 1904, it
appears that the land was leased to tenants, who remain anonymous, during these
last two site phases.
Even though some variant of “Coke’s Plantation” would be a more appropriate
name for the site, this report most often refers to the site as the “Palace Lands”
(without the “quarter” designation) for the sake of continuity.
Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS)
The Palace Lands site is one of many Chesapeake slave-related sites that are
inventoried in the DAACS database (http://www.daacs.org/). (DAACS was formerly
known as the Digital Archive of Archaeology of Chesapeake Slavery.) In the writing of
this report, unless otherwise noted, DAACS was consulted for all artifact analyses and
to query mean ceramic dates. Since the DAACS’ artifact queries will allow any
individual to download the entire database, a summary finds list is not included in
this report.
Chapter Summaries
The remainder of this report is divided into six chapters. Chapter 2 presents
the project research design, field methodology, sampling protocols, and artifact
treatment. Chapter 3 summarizes the site’s historical context. Chapter 4 provides an
overview of the excavation results and an interpretation of the site’s chronology. In
chapter 5, a descriptive analysis of the historic artifacts is presented. The report ends
with Chapter 6 with an interpretation of enslaved domestic life at the Palace Lands site
and addresses the questions raised by the research design.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 12
�Chapter 2 – Research Questions and Methods
Introduction
This chapter presents the project’s research goals, and the field and lab
methods, including all sampling protocols. The research goals were shaped by many
factors which included the historical context of the Palace Lands site, the site’s specific
characteristics, the nature of the archaeological data recovered from the site, and the
probable identity of the site’s occupants. To summarize, the Palace Lands site was
occupied during the third quarter of the eighteenth century by a group of enslaved
Virginians who belonged to John Coke, a Williamsburg goldsmith and tavern owner.
The domestic nature of the site and archaeological assemblage suggest that it was
inhabited by a household that included a child or children.
The similarities and differences between Palace Lands and other
contemporaneous slave-related archaeological sites in the region are worth noting.
Although the Palace Lands site is small, with only one domicile represented, as with
other slave quarter sites it still speaks to the question of enslaved social organization
and the attempts by its residents to institute some form of household life. Further, as
part of a 200-acre plantation, household members labored in the fields and raised
livestock much like their counterparts at other slave quarters. Yet there are
differences as well. First, the site’s urban location stands in contrast to the majority of
slave quarter sites excavated in the area which were usually situated on rural
plantations (e.g., Carter’s Grove, Utopia). At the Palace Lands, site inhabitants likely
spent as much time in town as they did on the plantation. They may have even split
their duties between the plantation and Coke’s tavern, and maintained relationships
with friends and family residing in town. Second, Coke’s plantation could best be
described as a quarter farm when compared to the grand plantation estates of his
contemporaries at Carter’s Grove, Green Spring, Wilton, or Shirley plantations. While
Coke was relatively wealthy by the time of his death in 1767, his 200-acre plantation
and slaveholding of nine individuals were modest when measured against, for
example, the estate of Phillip Ludwell III who died in the same year. Ludwell owned
nine plantations and well over 200 enslaved individuals (Franklin 2004). Since few
archaeologists have excavated small to middling plantations in the Tidewater, the
Palace Lands project offered an opportunity to investigate enslaved lifeways in these
settings.
Research Questions
Starting in the 1990s, the DAR, under the directorship of Marley R. Brown III,
implemented a research agenda that prioritized the study of enslaved Virginians in the
Tidewater region. In line with the CWF’s attempt to present to the public a more
inclusive history of colonial life, the DAR staff began, in earnest, to excavate slaverelated sites, sharing their research with curators and African-American interpreters.
Staff archaeologists investigated slave quarter sites at Carter’s Grove and Rich Neck
Plantation, and included interpretations in their reports of slave-related artifacts and
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 13
�features associated with colonial-era dwellings and businesses in town. It was within
this broader research context that the Palace Lands project took place.
By the time data recovery began at the site, and in the years that followed, the
archaeology of slavery has made significant inroads, shedding light on Virginia
plantation slavery and the experiences of enslaved Africans and blacks (e.g., AgbeDavies 2015; Brown 2014; Crader 1990; Deetz 1993; Edwards 1995; Fesler 2004;
Heath 1999a; Higgins and Blanton 2000; Kelso 1984; Kern 2005; Mrozowski et al.
2008; Neiman et al. 2000; Pogue 2003; Pullins et al. 2003; Reeves and Greer 2012;
Sanford 1994; Samford 2007). This project’s research questions were intended to
contribute to the existing literature by both expanding on previous findings while
hopefully adding new insights.
One observation, in particular, stands out regarding previous studies: most of
the sites excavated in Virginia were occupied by enslaved individuals and families who
were owned by wealthy planters (Pullins et al. 2003). Some of the most intensivelyresearched quarters were once part of the plantation holdings of Thomas Jefferson,
James Madison, George Washington, the Carters, and the Burwells. These men had
at their disposal thousands of acreage for planting and raising livestock, and dozens of
enslaved Virginians who made it possible. They were able to establish self-sufficient
plantations by raising subsistence crops and training enslaved laborers as
blacksmiths, carpenters, weavers, and so on to produce most of what was needed to
manage their holdings efficiently, including the provisioning of their enslaved
workforce.
While the majority of those enslaved belonged to the planter elite, their
counterparts living on the more numerous smaller holdings had experiences that
differed in significant ways. Scholars have noted that enslaved family formation
presented greater challenges on small and middling plantations where the
opportunities to find a spouse were limited (Berlin 2003; Kulikoff 1986:331; Walsh
1997:30). In contrast, the quarters of large holdings tended to be populated by
multiple kin-related households with members ranging in age (see, for example,
Franklin 2004 and Walsh 1997; Kulikoff 1986:335-344, 364-371). As the property of
wealthy slaveowners, these enslaved Virginians were less likely to be sold off during
the colonial era than those who were part of smaller holdings. As a result, their
families were more stable, and it was not uncommon to find two generations of the
same family residing at a quarter. Scholars have characterized these communities as
close-knit, with individuals socialized to care for one another, regardless of blood ties,
and to practice mutual obligation that involved working cooperatively in the fields and
at home (Jones 1985:29-43; Walsh 1997:50-51, 144-145). In these settings, the social
networks that enslaved women maintained across households to share the burdens of
childcare and domestic chores (White 1985) would have been absent or minimal on
smaller plantations.
Coke was a man of means, and as a tavern owner and goldsmith, he was not
wholly dependent on his plantation for turning a profit. Still, he was not a peer among
the likes of a Carter or Jefferson and his plantation was on the low end of the scale of
what passed as “middling” for the era (estimated at 200-800 acres). Would life have
differed for the household residing at Coke’s when compared to those occupying much
larger quarters? Slavery was not a monolithic experience for those held in bondage
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 14
�since gender, age, region, labor regiment, time period, whether one was African-born
or not, and a host of other factors influenced one’s experiences. The Palace Lands site
provides an opportunity to consider further the heterogeneity of enslaved lifeways, and
this line of inquiry is best approached through a comparative study.
To date, the majority of archaeological research on slavery has tended to be
site-specific. There are a number of legitimate reasons for this, including the influence
of post-processualism in historical archaeology, which has led to an emphasis on
microscale analyses. More practical concerns are the differences in data recovery
methods and artifact cataloging systems used for sites (Galle 2010:28). However, the
Digital Archive of the Archaeology of Comparative Slavery, or DAACS, with its
standardization of data has made it possible to conduct comparative studies. An
analysis of the Palace Lands assemblage in isolation, while likely useful, would
preclude the possibility of determining whether archaeological research can help to
identify variations in enslaved lifeways between small and large plantations.
Artifacts recovered from slave quarters typically represent a range of practices
and social relations, especially those embedded in domestic life: the household
economy, cultural production, consumption, socialization, and leisurely pursuits. A
comparative analysis of artifacts from the Palace Lands with those found at quarters
associated with great plantations might potentially reveal how factors tied to a
slaveowner’s wealth and the size of his holdings shaped the home life of enslaved field
hands who struggled to carve out some autonomous space within the quarters.
There are some key questions concerning the size of holdings, labor
management, and provisioning systems between John Coke and elite planters that
may have had implications for enslaved households: 1. Since the number of field
hands at Coke’s was much smaller, were they able to meet the various needs of their
household? 2. Did Coke provision his enslaved field hands in similar ways to elite
planters, and if not, how might this have influenced their home life? 3. To what extent
were Coke’s field hands able to participate in the consumer revolution that
characterized the period? Each of these questions guided the analysis of the Palace
Lands artifacts and is given further consideration below.
1. Since the number of field hands at Coke’s was much lower than at large plantation
quarters, did this have detrimental effects on their ability to balance institutional with
household labor?
There are at least three interrelated factors to consider: the number of
inhabitants at the quarter, how they socially organized domestic tasks, and how Coke
managed his enslaved labor force. During the eighteenth century, the wealthiest
planters who owned thousands of acres usually quartered ten full-time field hands
and their families at each of their multiple plantations. As mentioned before, these
enslaved communities generally consisted of multiple, kin-related households with
some generational depth. Much of the domestic work was socially organized largely by
gender, and males and females often worked in cooperative groups to complete tasks.
In contrast, Coke’s quarter was inhabited by a single household at any one time over a
20-year period. Without the cooperative, social networks of larger quarters, this
household may have faced far more difficulty in balancing its domestic life with Coke’s
labor demands.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 15
�Relatedly, field hands on large plantations were mainly reserved for agricultural
work since wealthy planters also had skilled laborers and full-time domestics at their
disposal for other chores. Lorena Walsh’s (2010:448-459) analysis of the profit
margins and management of five middling plantations (300 acres in size) in York
County sheds some light on the workloads of the enslaved field hands who occupied
them. The four to eight adult field hands on each estate were responsible for a greater
range of tasks than their counterparts on large plantations:
“Where there were only a few hands to plow the land, look after the livestock, run the
dairy, shear the sheep, spin yarn, gather fodder, catch fish, make cider, plant a
vegetable garden, sow and harvest wheat, beans and peas, tend corn, make casks, and
keep fences and buildings in repair, few of the enslaved could tend a full cop of
tobacco” (Walsh:2010:458).
Coke had nine enslaved individuals at the time of his death. Although this was
a relatively high number compared to other Williamsburg slaveowners, Coke owned a
number of enterprises where enslaved labor was needed. These nine were variously
assigned to work primarily at his tavern, plantation, home, and perhaps his silver and
goldsmithing business. In all likelihood, there was very little down time for his field
hands who, in addition to covering all of the bases on his plantation, may have been
hired out and also rotated between his other businesses to fill in as needed. How
might this have influenced their ability to meet the needs of their household?
If their assemblage lacks the range of evidence for household-related activities
typically seen with large quarters, this would suggest that the household needed to
relinquish performing some of their domestic work. If the assemblages are
comparable, it’s likely that household members – lacking the cooperative networks of
larger quarters – had to invest more time and energy toward domestic chores. They
might also have practiced a more flexible arrangement in the social organization of
tasks.
2. Did Coke provision his enslaved field hands in similar ways to elite planters, and if
not, how might this have influenced their home life?
Successful, great plantations were run with efficiency, and slaveowners
rationed food and distributed basic clothing once or twice a year to field hands along
with work-related tools. Coke likely followed suit. What is less known is the extent to
which other material resources were provided. Are there differences in provisions that
might have had an impact on Coke’s enslaved household?
3. To what extent were Coke’s field hands able to participate in the consumer revolution
that characterized the period?
In terms of material possessions, Afro-Virginians came by goods through a
variety of means beyond provisioning. Individuals favored by slaveowners, usually
domestics and skilled laborers, received the occasional gift and hand-me-downs. For
the vast majority who were field hands, portable property came by barter, purchase,
and by creating what they needed. Of these, consumerism appears to account for
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 16
�most of the artifacts recovered from sites, including refined earthenware ceramics,
wine bottles, and various small finds like buttons.
Previous studies have demonstrated that enslaved Virginians were active
participants in the consumer revolution that occurred during the latter part of the
eighteenth century (Breen 2013; Heath 2004; Galle 2006, 2010; Martin 2008).
Whatever they were able to acquire for themselves lessened the burden of upkeep for
slaveowners. Enslaved Virginians were expected to keep gardens (Heath and Bennett
2000), and with or without permission, regularly hunted or trapped game, and fished
(Crader 1990; Franklin 2004). In turn, they were integral to the local market economy
through selling produce, fowl, eggs, and fish. Moreover, some were allowed to hire
themselves out to earn cash. The expectation is that those on middling plantations
like Coke’s were also able to exploit opportunities to shop. If so, the Palace Lands
assemblage should include items often purchased by enslaved consumers, including
clothing-related items (Galle 2010; Heath 2004).
Remarks
To reiterate, many slave-related sites that archaeologists have investigated in Virginia
were once owned by wealthy planters. These slave quarters were often occupied for
decades as the land and its enslaved occupants were passed down to heirs who
continued to profit from the cash crops raised. By the second half of the eighteenth
century, multi-household communities composed of kin-related individuals typified
the social organization of satellite plantations. Yet, while the majority of those
enslaved belonged to these large holdings, middling plantations with as little as two
enslaved field hands were more common across Virginia’s landscape. John Coke’s
200-acre plantation, situated on what would become part of the park lands of the
Governor’s Palace, numbered among them. The excavation of the site where a sole
household resided for roughly 20 years provided an opportunity to consider what
domestic life entailed for them.
The research questions proposed are basic, exploratory ones: are there any
significant differences between enslaved household-related assemblages recovered
from Coke’s modest plantation versus those from large plantations? If so, are the
differences potentially related to variations in institutional and household tasks, and
the organization of those tasks, that might be tied to planter wealth? Were there
different acquisition patterns for resources, and if so, what are the implications?
Given that the material and social worlds are entwined and mutually constituting,
these lines of inquiry are an attempt to move towards an interpretation of how specific
external factors related to slavery influenced the materiality of everyday practice. We
know that enslaved experiences were heterogeneous, yet archaeological studies have
tended to focus on slave quarters that were part of large plantation holdings. Thus,
our understanding of cultural and social practices within enslaved communities may
be skewed. A comparative study of the Palace Lands assemblage with others
recovered from the Williamsburg area is attempted in Chapter 6 in order to address
this issue.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 17
�Field Methods and Data Recovery
Archaeologists conducted an open area excavation of the Palace Lands site
during the months of June and July in 1998 and 1999. For the Phase III data
recovery, a new grid system set at two-meter intervals was established over the project
area for horizontal control of feature excavations (Figure 2.1; see Chapter 4). The grid
point at 996N/1011E served as both the grid datum and the elevation datum. All grid
coordinates refer to the northwest corner of a unit.
Figure 2.1. Block excavation plan, Palace Lands site
The on-site recording of the excavations followed the procedures outlined by the
former Department of Archaeological Research’s Field Manual. All context records
related to the project were entered into the Re:Discovery database by former DAR staff,
and were also archived in DAACS (http://www.daacs.org/).
Excavation Units
Archaeological sites located in rural areas of the Tidewater are commonly sealed
with a layer of plowzone that must first be removed in order to find features. At the
Palace Lands site, excavators removed topsoil and plowzone together by shovel. The
layers were generally removed in 2 × 2 m excavation units, and assigned a context
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 18
�number. The protocol established for dryscreening plowzone at the site called for a 25
percent sample from a 1 × 1 m quadrant of a unit, but this protocol was adjusted at
times as the excavation progressed, mainly due to time constraints (see Chapter 4).
The plowzone was dryscreened through 1/4-inch mesh. Excavators recorded soil type,
texture, and color (based on Munsell soil color charts). The presence of animal bone,
coal/clinker, charcoal, brick, mortar, shell, and marl inclusions was recorded on
forms for each context.
In addition to the plowzone, excavators identified modern redeposited subsoil
layers and silt layers within some excavation units. These were removed by shovel.
Each stratum was distinguishable by color and texture from the plowzone and was
assigned separate context numbers.
Features
Features were excavated by trowel. All features were cross-sectioned and
recorded with a plan and profile drawing. In addition to the single plans of features,
an overall site plan was hand drawn in the field and updated as excavations
progressed. A post-excavation site plan was also drawn in the field. Each feature was
photographed in both black-and-white print film and color slide film prior to
excavation, during excavation (to capture profiles), and after excavation.
Vertical control of the excavation was kept with a TDS that was set up over the
elevation datum at 996N/1011E (see Figure 2.1). Elevations were recorded from the
top and bottom of each feature (see Chapter 4).
Every distinctive episode of fill encountered within a feature was assigned a new
context number. Soil inclusions, type, texture and Munsell color were recorded for
each context within a feature. For large features, including the sub-floor pit (F01) and
three ditches (F04, F05 and F06), a single deposit was often assigned multiple context
numbers that coordinated with the various cross-sections of that deposit. In these
instances, DAACS has assigned the context numbers associated with the same deposit
with a Stratigraphic Group (SG) designation. The feature tables in Chapter 4 provide a
summary list of all contexts and stratigraphic groups.
In general, feature fill was dryscreened through 1/4-inch mesh and flotation
samples were collected from each deposit of fill (see “Flotation Samples” below).
Although wetscreening was not a standard DAR field procedure, contexts within three
major features were selected for wetscreening in order to aid in the recovery of small
finds, microfauna and charred botanical remains (Appendix A). Since wetscreening is
time-consuming, and since flotation samples were routinely collected from each
feature deposit, excavators were selective in determining which deposits to wetscreen.
Only those with ash or charcoal present, or those with a relatively high number of
visible artifacts were wetscreened. Wetscreening was done on site through 1/16-inch
wire mesh screens. Initially, a 10- to 20-liter sample from the first half of the context
cross sectioned and excavated was wetscreened. If the results were poor (in terms of
the number of finds recovered), excavators reverted to dryscreening.
Four of the deposits within the sub-floor pit (F01) had a high density of
artifacts. The earliest deposit of this feature had heavy concentrations of charcoal and
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 19
�ash. After flotation samples were collected from each deposit, the remainder of the
fills was wetscreened (see Appendix A). For one ditch, F04, excavators wetscreened
portions of five of the deposits. A sample of only one deposit was wetscreened within
the last major feature selected for wetscreening (F05). The fourth major feature (F06),
a third ditch, was excavated towards the end of the last field season. Due to time
constraints, none of the fill from this feature was wetscreened.
Sampling Protocols
The DAR established standard procedures for collecting environmental and soil
samples, and these were outlined in the DAR Field Manual.
Soil Chemistry Samples
Soil chemistry samples were collected from multiple deposits within the three
ditches (F04, F05 and F06) and from postholes along both the north and south
fencelines (Appendix B). The samples were collected in boxes obtained from the Soil
Conservation Service at Virginia Polytechnic Institute for future analysis of soil
chemistry and pH value.
Phytolith and Pollen Samples
The analyses of phytoliths and pollen can aid in historic landscape studies by
helping researchers to discern broad vegetation patterns and land-use strategies over
time (Kelso 1991:2). Although the Palace Lands project did not include phytolith or
pollen analysis as part of its research agenda, samples were collected in anticipation
that future researchers might make use of the data.
Two methods for collecting samples were employed at the site: column sampling
and horizontal sampling (Piperno 1988:110-113). Column samples are taken from
wall profiles with clearly-defined strata, and are usually collected from a test pit or
trench. Horizontal sampling involves the collection of small samples, or “pinches”,
from within and outside of features, from ceramics, living surfaces, etc. All samples
were collected using sterilized trowels and cups. Samples were placed in plastic bags
that were sealed and then stored at the archaeology lab.
At the Palace Lands site, excavators collected samples from modern surface
areas, plowzone contexts both near and away from features, and from feature fill.
Modern control samples were taken from the surface areas of ten test units that were
located along transects that led away from the excavation to the north and west
(Appendix C). Unlike the area of site excavation, the test units were located in areas
that were away from site activities and not cleared of vegetation. Of the ten samples
from these units, two were column samples. The column samples were taken
following the natural strata, and at ten-centimeter intervals within strata that were
deeper than 10 cm. Samples were also collected from the plowzone layer from 2 × 2 m
units along two transects at 992N and at 1001E across the general excavation unit.
Samples were also taken from plowzone contexts 241 and 246. The samples from
contexts 158, 160, 161 and 180 along 992N are questionable, however, since recent
construction activities disturbed the layers from which the samples were taken.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 20
�Finally, samples were collected from the fill within site features (see Appendix C). All
of the samples from within features were taken from discrete deposits and care was
exercised in not mixing the samples between deposits. From within the sub-floor pit
(F01) and two ditches (F05 and F06), excavators sampled every deposit of fill. From
within the remaining ditch (F04), only three deposits were not sampled. One was a
concentration of oyster shells (context 30, SG05) and another was a deposit of
architectural debris (context 40, SG06)). Both of these deposits rested on top of the
ditch. The third deposit, a silt layer (SG08), was too thin to sample. Along the two
fencelines identified at the site, a selection of posthole and postmold fills were
sampled.
Flotation Samples
The DAR’s standard flotation sampling protocol was to obtain a 10-liter soil
sample from undisturbed layers and feature deposits. We collected samples that
exceeded the 10-liter minimum from nine out of the fifteen feature deposits sampled
from within the sub-floor pit (F01) and the three ditches (F04, F05 and F06; Appendix
D). Flotation samples were not collected from the postholes.
Soil samples were processed at the archaeology lab using a Flote-Tech flotation
device equipped with fine, medium, and coarse screens. The processed samples were
divided into light and heavy fractions. Upon identification, charred seeds, faunal
remains, and small finds were isolated and removed for identification.
Artifacts and Ecofacts
Nearly all of the finds identified in the field were bagged. In dealing with oyster
shells, the standard procedure for the DAR was to collect only shells with whole or
partial valves in order to determine season of harvest, salinity regime and site
catchment areas. The rest of the shell fragments, along with brick fragments, were
discarded after excavators noted their presence on field context forms.
All artifacts were processed at the archaeology lab and were catalogued in
Re:Discovery. Objects requiring conservation were sent to the CW Curation
Department for treatment. A partial assemblage of the ceramics and glass was set
aside for crossmend analysis. These included the ceramics recovered from contexts
within the cellar (F01), two ditches (F04 and F06), and seven postholes (F11, F13-F15,
F17, F18 and F20) along the portion of the north fenceline that was adjacent to F04.
The crossmending was conducted in order to assist in determining the depositional
history of the site’s features (see Chapter 4). Each unique ceramic or glass vessel was
assigned an object number (see Appendix E for a list of ceramic vessels). Since the
Palace Lands site was selected for inclusion in DAACS, the artifact assemblage was
eventually re-catalogued by archaeologists at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello. The CW
object numbers for each vesselized sherd are indicated in the “Notes” entry of the
DAACS artifact query for ceramics. The DAACS staff also completed the crossmending
process, thus providing a minimum number of vessels count. Since DAACS object
numbers were not assigned to these vesselized sherds, the author assigned a unique
letter or dual letters (“a” through “z”, and “aa” through “ee”) to each vessel for the
purpose of writing this report (see Appendix E).
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 21
�Faunal remains were analyzed for the purpose of studying diet and subsistence
strategies. Zooarchaeologists Joanne Bowen and Steven Atkins supervised the
identification and analysis of micro- and macro-fauna. All faunal remains were
counted and weighed. Bones were identified down to species where possible, and NISP
(number of identified specimens) and biomass were determined for each taxa. The
faunal specimens were cataloged in DAACS.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 22
�Chapter 3 – Historical context
Introduction
The history of the Palace Lands site is one that involves a succession of
landowners spanning two centuries, the last two royal governors of Virginia, Patrick
Henry and the Continental Army, and a group of enslaved Afro-Virginians who
managed to establish a home life on what was once an urban plantation. The
archaeological evidence indicates that the site was intensively occupied mainly during
the third quarter of the eighteenth century (see Chapter 4) when John Coke held deed
to the acreage. Coke owned the land from c. 1747-1767 and he probably kept a
plantation on it over this 20-year period. Upon his death, his son Samuel continued
to run the plantation until c. 1769. John Coke was not the average planter as he was
also a Williamsburg silver and goldsmith, and tavern owner. His middling plantation,
which consisted of 200 acres, undoubtedly provided him with additional income as he
died a man of some wealth.
Coke’s plantation would eventually be sold at auction and the land incorporated
into the Governor’s Palace Lands. The last two royal governors, Botetourt and
Dunmore, used the land for raising livestock and crops, and for felling trees for fuel.
With Dunmore’s unceremonious departure from Williamsburg in 1775, the Palace
Lands acreage was soon taken over by Patrick Henry, the newly-elected governor of the
state. The removal of the capitol to Richmond soon after left the property subject to a
number of land transactions that have been traced up until the early twentieth
century.
This chapter summarizes the historical sources related to the Palace Lands site.
Most of the sources concern land transactions dating from 1704 to 1904. Yet there is
also information regarding the slaveholdings of John Coke and the last two royal
governors that is pertinent to determining who may have lived at the site.
Unfortunately, very little has been gained from the historical record about the
enslaved Virginians themselves. Whatever else can be learned about the AfroVirginians who lived at the Palace Lands site must be derived from the archaeological
record.
Slavery in Williamsburg
The location of the Palace Lands site, and its connections to John Coke and the
last two royal governors, places it within the context of urban slavery in Williamsburg
where enslaved blacks were commonplace. During the mid-eighteenth century,
roughly half of Williamsburg’s population was of African descent (Tate 1965:55).
Blacks accounted for 52.4 percent of Williamsburg’s populace (n=1880) by 1775 (Willis
et al. 1998:586). Thad Tate (1965:50, 62) estimates that “easily five-sixths of the
families in Williamsburg owned at least a single slave” during the 1780s.
Unlike their counterparts who mostly toiled as field hands for wealthy planters
in rural areas beyond the capitol, the majority of Williamsburg’s enslaved population
served in a domestic capacity. There were also skilled and unskilled laborers who
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 23
�worked in the printing office and tanyard, on building projects, in taverns, as
shoemakers, butchers, carpenters and so on (Tate 1965:56-78; Willis et al. 1998). Yet
the enslaved Virginians who occupied the Palace Lands site were caught up in two
intertwined worlds. They would have been deeply familiar with the urban landscape,
and lived close enough to move about town frequently and with ease. They also very
likely maintained steadfast relations with friends and family in town. The rhythm of
their work lives, however, revolved around a schedule and labor regime to which the
majority of enslaved Virginians, who were field hands, were also accustomed.
Prior to the establishment of Coke’s plantation, the Palace Lands site first
appears in the historical record as part of a 300-acre lot in 1704. It changed hands a
number of times over the next two centuries, and the parcel shifted in acreage along
the way (Table 3.1). Most of the deed holders were well-to-do, if not wealthy. Almost
all of them also owned houses in town, an indication that the Palace Lands parcel did
not serve as their residence. Although it is unclear how every landowner made use of
the land, the most likely explanation, based upon the landscape features and its few
documented uses, is that for two-hundred years the property was mainly used for
farming and pasturage, and the trees felled for fuel.
Table 3.1
Landowners, York County Tract 595A, 1704-1904
Size of
Tract
300 acres
200 acres
364 acres
<165
acres
200 acres
200 acres
200 acres
300 acres
293 acres
Landowner Name
Mary Whaley
John Custis
William Robertson
Elizabeth Robertson Lidderdale and John
Lidderdale
John Baskerville
John Coke
Samuel Coke
Governor’s Palace Lands
College of William and Mary
Edmund Randolph
College of William and Mary
Rev. Dr. Samuel Smith McCroskey
Robert Saunders, Sr.
William Browne (deeded by Saunders, Sr.)
Robert Saunders, Jr. (inherited from Saunders, Sr.)
John and Amanda Gregory
Samuel S. Griffin
Dr. Robert M. Garrett
Dr. Van F. Garrett
Southern Land Company
Palace Lands Archaeology
Years of
Ownership
1704-1737
1737
1737-1739
1739-1742
c. 1742-1747
c. 1747-1767
1767-1769
c. 1769-1784
1784-1786
1786-1790
1790
1790-1816
1816-1835
c.1825-?
1835-1838
1838-1841
1841 to some
time prior to
1866
Pre-1866 to 1883
1883-1904
1904
Page 24
�Whaley’s “Old Field”: c. 1704-1747
The Palace Lands site is located on land that is linked to a series of property
transactions that can be traced back to 1704 (see Table 3.1). In that year, Mary Page
Whaley, widow of James Whaley (d. 1701), was recorded in the York County rent roll
as owning 500 acres in Bruton Parish on both sides of Capitol Landing Road (YCP-RR
1704; Figure 3.1). Her property was divided into two parcels. One was a 300-acre lot
that the road to Capitol Landing passed through (see “595A”, Figure 3.1). The Palace
Lands site is situated on what was the southern portion of this lot (see Figure 3.1).
The second parcel was 200 acres in size and adjoined the first lot to the east (see
“595C”, Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1. York County rent roll tract map, tracts 595A and 595C, 1704
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 25
�Mary Whaley divided and sold portions of her property between 1707 and 1737
(Whaley, Mary, WPF; Figure 3.2). The Whaleys apparently resided on the larger lot
(tract 595A) as a 1707 deed of the 200-acre lot (tract 595C; see Figure 3.2) to John
Page describes tract 595A as “the plantation where James Whaley lived and Mary
Whaley now lives” (Whaley, Mary, YCP-BF, M 1797, reel 93; Whaley to Page, YCDB
1701-1713, vol. 2, pp. 235-236, M-1.13). In 1711-1712, Whaley sold unspecified
acreage of the northern portion of her remaining 300-acre parcel (tract 595A; see
Figure 3.2) to David Bray (Whaley to Bray, YCDB 1701-1713, vol. 2, pp. 381-382, M1.13). The parcel must have been less than 100 acres as she apparently retained
some marshland on Queen’s Creek adjacent to Capitol Landing (also known as Queen
Mary’s Port; see Figure 3.1) that she eventually sold (see below). The land deeded to
Bray, which was also bounded by Queen’s Creek and Capitol Landing, passed through
several owners before becoming the possession of Benjamin Powell in 1774 (York
County Project summary cards, tract 595A). Unlike the remaining 200 acres (of tract
595A), the portion sold to Bray was never incorporated into the Palace Lands.
Figure 3.2. York County land transactions, tracts 595A and 595C, c. 1711-1737
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 26
�Whaley held on to her 200 acres and the parcel of marshland at Capitol
Landing for some time. She was residing in England by the time she began dealings
with John Custis over her property. Custis was a prominent figure in Williamsburg.
He was a member of the House of Burgesses and served on the governor’s Council,
and he was also a wealthy slaveowner. His son’s widow, Martha Dandridge Custis,
later married George Washington. In 1736, Custis came close to purchasing Whaley’s
land which adjoined his 200 acres (see Figure 3.2). In a letter dated that year to
Robert Cary, his London merchant, he asked Cary to inform Whaley that her agent
(Edward Jacquelin) had agreed to sell the land to him (Custis 2005:169-170).
Apparently, the deal fell through. In an irate letter penned in 1737, Custis (2005:185186) wrote to Whaley:
I am informd that one Matt Moody and Martha Booker have writ to you a
thousand lies diswadeing you not to let me have your land, the truth is this they
both keep ordinarys close upon your Land; and have done it very great dammage
by Keeping their stock on it especially hogs wch roots up your Marsh and will
make it good for nothing…the house you formerly lived is tore to peices and most
of it carryd away and burnt…I should never have troubled my self about your
Land; since you formerly denyd me, if you had not by Mr Jacquelin made me an
offer of it; and unless someone has it that lives near it, it will soon be ruind—
those 2 sorry people will never bee able to purchase it of it; nor indeed they Can
have no reason to buy it; wn they have the full use of it for their stocks and
fireing without paying a farthing…
Custis’ remarks referred to one Mathew Moody who was appointed ferry keeper
in 1734 at Capitol Landing, a busy site of trade and tobacco shipping during the
colonial period (Bullock 1930). He also operated a tavern at the landing and owned
lots in the adjacent area (Metz et al. 1998:100), though it seems he preferred to allow
his livestock to roam on Whaley’s marshland. Custis’ letter clearly had its intended
effect. Whaley sold the southern half of her 200 acres, referred to as Whaley’s “Old
Field”, plus the marshland to John Custis for ₤100 on September 13, 1737 (Tyler
1895:7; YCP-RR, tract 595A, card III; Whaley, Mary, YCP-BF, M 1797, reel 93; Whaley
to Custis, YCDB 1729-1740, no. 4, pp. 473-475, M-1.14). Excluded from the
transaction was a ten-acre parcel located in the southeast corner of the land (see
Figure 3.2). Whaley founded Matthew’s School House (also known as “Mattey’s
School”) at this location in honor of the Whaleys’ only child who died in 1705 at the
age of nine years. The charity school was established for the “neediest children” of the
parish and operated well into the twentieth century (Tyler 1895).
Although a deed for the transaction has not been found, there is other evidence
which indicates that Custis purchased not just 100 acres from Whaley, but the
entirety of Whaley’s land (see Figure 3.2). In his correspondence to Cary in 1738,
Custis (2005:1989) wrote that he “kept the Land but 4 days.” Custis sold Whaley’s
100 acres and another parcel of land, presumably the adjacent 100 acres also formerly
of Whaley’s, to a William Robertson. The transaction was recorded on January 29,
1737, nearly eight months prior to the date of Whaley’s deed to Custis (Custis, John,
YCP-BF, M1797, reel 24; YCP-RR, tract 595A, card III; Lidderdale to Baskerville, YCDB
1741-1754, no. 5, pp. 44-51, M-1.14). Custis proved to be a shrewd businessman as
he noted further in his letter to Cary that he sold Whaley’s “high Land” for the same
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 27
�amount that he paid for it plus the “marsh.” Custis (2005:189) gleefully stated, “the
high Land I was never fond of, the Marsh was all I then wanted wch I have got clear, or
as good…I am now in possession of all I desired almost for A song.” The marsh was
the very same land that Moody and Booker used indiscriminately for pasturage. It
consisted of 16½ acres on Queen’s Creek adjoining Capitol Landing, the site where
Moody operated the ferry and his ordinary (see Figure 3.2). The land was eventually
deeded to Mathew Moody by John Custis in 1748-1749 (Custis to Moody, YCDB 17411754, no. 5, pp. 272-274, M-1.14). The deed describes the lot as “that piece or parcel
of Marsh commonly called Whaley’s Marsh” and as “all the marsh land which the said
John Custis purchased of Mary Whaley”.
William Robertson, a clerk of the governor’s Council, owned the 200-acre lot
purchased from Custis for two years before his death in 1739. He willed the property
to his daughter Elizabeth, the wife of John Lidderdale (YCP-RR, tract 595A, card III;
Lidderdale to Baskerville, YCDB 1741-1754, no. 5, pp. 44-51, M-1.14). Lidderdale was
a merchant who also sold enslaved Africans (Goodwin 1951:3). In 1742-1743,
Lidderdale sold the property to a bricklayer by the name of John Baskerville. The deed
of sale conveyed 200 acres on both sides of Capitol Landing Road, and the bounds of
the property described in the deed clearly indicate that it was the 200 acres once
owned by Mary Whaley (Lidderdale to Baskerville, YCDB 1741-1754, no. 5, pp. 44-51,
M-1.14). Baskerville may have established a plantation on the land. He placed an ad
in the Virginia Gazette (January 9, 1746, p. 4, William Parks) asking for the owner to
come and claim a cow and its calf that had both strayed “to the Subscriber’s
Plantation, near Williamsburg.” Since there is no evidence in the York County records
that Baskerville was a slaveowner, he likely lived at the plantation and worked the
land himself or with hired laborers.
It is not certain when Baskerville released the land since records concerning its
sale have not been found, nor have his will or estate inventory. Yet other property
transactions concerning parcels adjacent to the 200-acre lot provide evidence which
demonstrate that John Coke owned the property by August 17, 1747. A deed for this
date conveys 52 acres of land from Benjamin Waller to James Keith (YCDB 17411754, no. 5, pp. 212-216, M-1.14; Figure 3.3). The deed describes the land as
bounded by “Mr. Coke’s Line” and has a sketch showing the 52 acres (see Figure 3.3)
with “Mr. Coke’s Land” indicated for the property to the north which is the 200-acre
lot in question. (Waller’s 52 acres would eventually be purchased in 1768 by the
Council from Lt. Gov. Fauquier’s estate and incorporated into the Palace Lands as
discussed below.) Subsequent deeds concerning land bordering the 200-acre parcel
all mention Coke’s land in defining the lot boundaries (Custis to Moody, February 21,
1748-1749, YCDB 1741-1754, no. 5, pp. 272-274, M-1.14; Moody to Cobbs, April 24,
1750, YCDB, 1741-1754, no. 5, pp. 370-371, M-1.14; Moody to Fauquier, July 11,
1760, YCDB 1755-1763, no. 6, pp. 249-251, M-1.15). It was during the period that
John Coke owned the land that habitation of the site excavated at the Palace Lands
took place.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 28
�Figure 3.3. York County, tracts 474B, 595A and 595C, 1747
John Coke’s Plantation: c. 1747-1769
John Coke immigrated to Virginia in 1724 when he was twenty-years old. A
native of Derbyshire, England, Coke was a silver and goldsmith (Bullock 1931; Daniel
1946:11). He married a woman named Sarah Hoge and they had three sons, one of
whom died in infancy (Stephenson 1990[1953]:17). The two surviving sons were
named Samuel and Robey (or Robie; WMQ 1898:127). By 1740, Coke owned a house
and outbuildings on three contiguous lots (CW Block 27, colonial lots 281, 282 and
361) on Nicholson Street off Capitol Square and adjacent to the Public Goal
(Buchanan 1961:2; Figure 3.4). It is at this location where the Cokes operated a
tavern. In addition to purchasing the 200-acre lot by 1747, Coke acquired the two lots
(CW Block 27, colonial lots 279 and 280) adjacent to his own in town on February 5,
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 29
�1755 (Bullock 1931; see Figure 3.4). The Cokes’ former residence, now known as the
Coke-Garrett House, still stands in the Historic Area of Colonial Williamsburg.
Figure 3.4. John Coke’s plantation and Williamsburg property, c. 1747-1767
Coke was a man of means by the time of his death in 1767, the year his will
was probated. He was not only a silver and goldsmith and tavern keeper, but he also
kept a plantation upon the 200 acres he purchased some twenty years before his
passing. Although he was a tradesman, Coke’s prosperity is evident in the amount of
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 30
�movable wealth he possessed and this without doubt elevated his social standing. In
their research on the standard of living in the colonial Chesapeake, historians Lois
Carr and Lorena Walsh (1988:142) reckoned that those considered “rich” owned more
than ₤225 of movable wealth, with enslaved blacks and livestock accounting for the
bulk of this property. Moreover, individuals worth more than ₤490 were in the top 5
to 10 percent of the wealthholders (Carr and Walsh 1988:138). Coke’s estate, not
including his plantation or town property, was worth just over ₤772 (Appendix F), an
amount that clearly put him above the majority of his peers in terms of wealth. A
number of his possessions also suggest that Coke had aspirations of gentility. Carr
and Walsh (1988:143) noted the kinds of luxury items (amenities index) and objects
needed to provide “comfort and cleanliness” (modern index) typically found among the
inventories of the wealthy, which serve as a measure of gentility that even middling
planters aspired to. Coke owned seven of the 12 items listed in the amenities index,
including table knives and forks, bed linen, books, and coarse earthenware. He
possessed 11 of the 12 items listed in the modern index, including chairs and tables, a
pot for boiling plus a means of preparing food using an alternative method (which in
this case included a fry pan, chafing dishes, a Dutch oven, and a cheese toaster),
interior lighting, a mattress, and bedstead. It is certain that a number of these items,
which in the case of beds, tables, chairs and tablewares were listed in multiple
numbers in Coke’s inventory, were used for his tavern. Still, Coke and his family were
undoubtedly privy to the same comforts as their paying guests.
According to his estate inventory, he owned nine enslaved blacks: five males
and four females (YCWI, 21, 1760-1771, pp. 381-385, M-1.11; see Appendix F). While
a number of them undoubtedly served his household and tavern, he kept the rest at
his nearby plantation since there is no evidence to suggest that he leased the land or
hired laborers to work the land. Moreover, when the plantation was put up for sale
(see below), several enslaved blacks were also advertised for sale. These were likely
the field hands that the family no longer had need of.
John Coke’s Slaveholding
John Coke’s probate inventory, dated February 15, 1768, lists the following
enslaved individuals and their values (listed below in the order that they appear in the
inventory; see Appendix F):
1 Negro Man Tom
Squire
Debdford
James
Phill
Lucy
Alice
Sylvia
Judith
40..0..0
40..0..0
55..0..0
55..0..0
55..0..0
40..0..0
10..0..0
50..0..0
25..0..0
The seven individuals valued at ₤40 to ₤55 were more than likely within or near
their prime years of age in terms of labor productivity, estimated by Lorena Walsh as
starting at age 18 and extending into their early 30s (Walsh 1997:300). The man
Squire is a case in point. His baptismal record for July of 1750 (Coke, John, YCP-BF,
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 31
�M1797, reel 20) states that he was baptized as an adult which would have made him
around 36 years of age when he was inventoried. Since it was common practice to list
enslaved individuals in probates in the order of adult male, adult female, and children,
Alice, valued at ₤10, was probably well past her prime. Judith, who is listed last and
valued at ₤25, was probably a teen in 1768. Walsh (1997:301) noted that since
slaveowners purchased few Africans from the slave trade after 1740, enslaved blacks
born after that year were likely Virginia natives. If this holds true, most of Coke’s
enslaved Virginians (including Debdford, James, Phill, Sylvia and Judith) were most
likely native-born.
Historical records indicate that Coke owned at least two other individuals
besides the ones listed in his probate. One source for an infant named William reveals
that he was born on January 20, 1748/1749 and baptized on February 5, 1748/1749
(Coke, John, YCP-BF, M1797, reel 20). Another enslaved male is referred to in a
document dated on July 19, 1762, as “His old negro man Ralph for reasons appearing
to the c[our]t was set levy free” (Coke, John, YCP-BF, M1797, reel 20). Since neither
William nor Ralph appear in Coke’s probate, they were either sold or died during
Coke’s lifetime.
Coke’s slaveholding at the time of his passing of nine enslaved blacks was
relatively large for Williamsburg. Although five-sixths of the families owned slaves in
town, a large percentage of the slaveowners were of more modest means who owned
one or two individuals (Tate 1965:55). In his study of Williamsburg’s slaveholdings for
1782, Michael Nicholls’ (1990) provided an idea of what the average slaveholding
consisted of prior to the Revolution. He estimated that 74.4 percent of Williamsburg’s
households owned between one to six slaves. Just over a quarter of the households
owned seven or more. Rather than simply suggesting that Coke was wealthier than
many of his neighbors, these numbers indicate that he needed enslaved labor for other
than domestic service, the work performed by most of the town’s enslaved population.
Work at Coke’s plantation, as on others, consisted of raising livestock and
crops, and felling trees for fuel. Coke’s estate included 24 head of cattle and 10
calves, oxen, and one sow (see Appendix F). He also owned five horses, several of
which may have been kept at the plantation. Work-related tools listed in his inventory
include six axes, seven hoes, three spades and a pair of sheep shears. Where the
inventory was partially torn, there is also an entry for “79 barrels of” valued at ₤35.
Presumably, the barrels held a cash crop that was raised at the plantation.
With regard to the management of the plantation, there are no sources that
refer to Coke’s hiring of an overseer. Since the plantation was located so close to his
residence (see Figure 3.4), Coke or his sons more than likely supervised the work of
the enslaved Virginians who lived there.
The Transfer of John Coke’s Estate
In his 1764 will (YCWI, 21, 1760-1771, pp. 366b-368, M-1.11), proved on
November 16, 1767, Coke left instructions to divide his property between his two
surviving sons and his wife. To his son Samuel, also a silversmith, he willed “my
plantation containing 200 acres, more or less, lying on both sides of the Main Road
which leads from the city of Williamsburg down to the Capitol Landing commonly
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 32
�called Queen Mary’s Port, to him and his heirs forever.” Samuel also inherited “one
Mulatto Man named Charles” whose name does not appear in Coke’s estate inventory.
It is possible that Charles was given to Samuel, sold to someone else, or died within
the three-year interim from the will’s creation to the date of its execution. Coke left to
his son Robey, a wheelwright and house joiner (Willis et al. 1998:416), “all the houses
and 5 lots or half acres of ground whereon I now live in the City of Williamsburg” (see
Figure 3.4). Robey also inherited two individuals, Phillip and Sylvia. Sarah received
what remained of Coke’s estate which would have included the majority of his
enslaved blacks. Yet she paid taxes on Phillip and Sylvia, in 1783 and 1784, which
suggests that she had sold her own enslaved laborers sometime prior. Sarah
undoubtedly used the two to help her run the tavern which she continued to operate
after her husband’s death. Interestingly, Phillip’s name appears in a document that
indicates he had a run in with the law. Not long after Coke’s death, Phillip and Lewis
(who belonged to one William Pearson) were accused of breaking into a house and
stealing ten gallons of liquor, a pot of sweetmeat, and ten pounds of soap (Coke, John,
February 12, 1768, OB 1765-1768, p. 433, YCP-BF M1797, reel 126).
In just over a year after inheriting his father’s plantation, Samuel was ready to
unload it. Samuel and his mother placed an ad in the Virginia Gazette to announce
the auction of Coke’s plantation that is telling. It reveals that Samuel continued to
operate the plantation as his father had by raising livestock and cash crops. It also
indicates that in selling or renting the plantation, the Cokes no longer needed several
of their slaves who were also put up for auction along with the livestock. The Cokes’
ad ran on January 12, 1769 (p. 4, Purdie & Dixon):
To be SOLD by publick auction, on Thursday the 2d of FEBRUARY next, at the
late dwelling-house of JOHN COKE, deceased, in Williamsburg, ALL his
HOUSEHOLD & KITCHEN FURNITURE, several valuable SLAVES, with the
stocks of CATTLE, HORSES, and SHEEP; also a quantity of CORN and
FODDER. At the same time will be sold, or rented, a plantation lying on both
sides of the road to the Capitol landing, containing upwards of 200 acres; it is
exceeding good land, and in order for cropping. Credit will be allowed for all
sums above five pounds until the 20th of October next, the purchasers giving
bond and security to
SARAH COKE, Executrix.
SAMUEL COKE, Executor.
The HOUSES in Williamsburg will be rented at the same time, on reasonable
terms.
In all likelihood, the Council purchased the 200-acre plantation from Samuel at
auction in 1769. Even though there are no records concerning such a transaction,
there is one source that suggests that part of the land may have been leased by the
Council for Governor Botetourt’s use by 1768, and a second source that demonstrates
that the land was certainly part of the Palace Lands by 1773. An ad placed in the
Virginia Gazette on December 29, 1768 (p. 3, William Rind), and again on January 5,
1769, announces the sale of 100 acres of land “within a mile of the city of
Williamsburg, adjoining his excellency the Governor’s pasture, the lands of John Coke
[emphasis added], and Daniel Parke Custis, Esq., deceased, and Queen’s Creek.” The
land for sale was part of the estate of the late Lawson Burfoot (Figure 3.5). It was
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 33
�formerly the northern part of Mary Whaley’s 300-acre lot situated at Capitol Landing
and sold to David Bray in 1711-1712 (see Figure 3.2). Since the ad mentions that the
land abutted both John Coke’s land and Governor Botetourt’s pasture, it may be that
Samuel, or his father, had leased a portion of the plantation land to the Council. The
other lots adjoining Burfoot’s 100 acres included land set aside for the county’s Poor
House and parcels owned by Benjamin Waller and John Parke Custis. These lots were
never incorporated with the Palace Lands (see Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5. York County tract map, 1768
If the Council rented pasturage from the Cokes, they likely followed through
with purchasing the plantation in 1769. Samuel Coke’s actions at the time disclose
that he was ready to move on to another line of work. In the very same issue of the
Virginia Gazette that the Cokes’ notice for the auction appeared, Samuel placed an
additional ad (January 12, 1769, p. 3, Purdie & Dixon) looking to hire someone who
could build a mill and mill house. The work was eventually completed as Samuel
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 34
�would later advertise for a miller for his gristmill, known as Coke’s Mill (Virginia
Gazette, January 30, 1772, p. 3, Purdie & Dixon). On February 1, 1770, Samuel
announced that he had rented Burwell’s Ferry along with the house and was open for
business (Virginia Gazette, February 15, 1770, p. 4, Purdie & Dixon). Burwell’s Ferry
was located on the James River at some distance from town. The implication of
Samuel’s dealings is that he sold his plantation in 1769, or very soon after, and
successfully managed to shift occupations from planter to ferry keeper and mill owner.
Samuel Coke was deceased by November 18, 1773. His widow, Judith, placed an ad
in the Virginia Gazette that ran on this date to notify the public of the sale of Samuel’s
estate which did not include his plantation (November 18, 1773, p. 2, Purdie & Dixon).
Coke’s plantation was part of the Palace Lands by June 10, 1773. In a deed
dated to that year the 100 acres formerly of Lawson Burfoot’s estate (see Figure 3.5)
transferred from John Ferguson to John Tazewell. This time the land is described as
“bounded by the Governor’s Land,” the acreage formerly owned by Samuel Coke
(Ferguson to Tazewell, YCDB 1769-1773, vol. 8, pp. 343-347, 400-403, M-1.16).
Thus, as early as February of 1769 but definitely by June of 1773, the Palace Lands
property included Coke’s plantation.
The Governor’s Palace Lands: c. 1769-1776
The beginning of the occupation span of the Palace Lands site dates to John
Coke’s ownership of the land where he, and then his son Samuel, operated a
plantation. The archaeological evidence indicates that habitation continued near the
site following the auction of the plantation in 1769 as a small number of late
eighteenth-century to early nineteenth-century ceramics were recovered from the site.
It is very unlikely that Samuel or Sarah Coke sold the enslaved blacks who resided at
the site to Botetourt and that they continued to live there and work the land. There
are no records of such a sale, and no matches exist between the names of slaves listed
in John Coke’s 1768 inventory with those listed in Botetourt’s 1770 inventory
(Department of Research 1930:198).
The historical record is not definitive with regard to when Coke’s plantation was
incorporated into the Palace Lands. What is likely is that the Council leased a portion
of Coke’s plantation as early as 1768, and it is certain that between 1769 and 1773
the plantation became part of the Palace Lands. With this event, the Palace Lands site
became entangled with the history of the Governor’s Palace and the last two royal
governors of Virginia, both of whom were slaveowners.
The governors of colonial Virginia enjoyed the use of a landed estate that served
as a residence, a means to support their households, and as a way to earn revenue
through leasing land to tenants (Gibbs 1980:1). As early as 1618, the Virginia
Company apportioned 3,000 acres near Jamestown for Governor George Yeardley’s
use. He and his successors received rents from this land up until the Revolution
(Gibbs 1980). Just after the capitol moved to Middle Plantation (the early precursor to
Williamsburg), the Council purchased a 75-acre tract in c. 1700 for the governor’s
residence (Gibbs 1980:2). Sixty-three acres of the tract were located in York County
(see Figure 3.1) and 12 acres were situated within the city bounds. The Governor’s
Palace was built upon this lot and ready for occupation by 1715 (Hood 1991:38).
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 35
�In 1758, Lt. Gov. Francis Fauquier arrived in Virginia with his wife and son and
took up residence in the Governor’s Palace. Fauquier purchased two lots adjoining the
Palace Lands in 1760 (Gibbs 1980:3). The first purchase was of a 52-acre lot from
John Ferguson for ₤250 (Ferguson to Fauquier, February 18, 1760, YCDB 1755-1763,
no. 6, pp. 226-230, M-1.15). The second was for a 35-acre improved lot sold to
Fauquier by Mathew Moody for ₤70. According to the deed, the property held
“Moody’s cornfield” and one or more houses (Moody to Fauquier, July 11, 1760, YCDB
1755-1763, no. 6, pp. 249-251, M-1.15). Both lots, totaling 87 acres, were bounded to
the north by John Coke’s plantation. Fauquier died at the Palace in 1768, and his 87
acres were subsequently sold to the Council (see Figure 3.5) which increased the size
of the Palace Lands to about 162 acres (Gibbs 1980:3; Hillman 1966:288-289).
Norborne Berkeley, Baron de Botetourt, would step ashore in Virginia in 1768
as the first full governor to have done so in sixty years (Hood 1991:12). Botetourt was
clearly impressed with his accommodations, as he wrote to the Earl of Hillsborough:
“My house is in admirable order, the ground behind it much broke, well-planted, and
water’d by beautiful Rills; and the whole in every respect just as I could wish” (Hood
1991:71). Botetourt’s tenure as governor, however, was short lived as he died in 1770.
His replacement, John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, was the last royal governor.
Dunmore began his residency at the Governor’s Palace in 1771 and ended it abruptly
when he fled the city four years later.
The Palace Park
With the Council’s purchase of the 200-acre lot formerly owned by the Cokes,
the Palace Lands increased to 364 acres in size (Figure 3.6; see Table 3.1). The land
was referred to as the “Palace Land” by the mid-nineteenth century, and it remained
as a 364-acre parcel at least until 1816. Prior to its demise in 1781, the Georgian
manor house and formal gardens were the property’s visual focal points.
Contemporary observers often mentioned the stately elegance of the Palace, although
most wrote slightly kinder memoirs of Williamsburg than the following eyewitness did
in 1736 (Department of Research 1930:123): “Williamsburg is a most wretched
contriv'd affair... There is nothing considerable in it, but the College, the Governor's
House, and one or two more, which are no bad Piles...” The rest of the Palace property
was divided into specific utilitarian areas that served to support the governors’
households. Patricia Gibbs’ (1980) research on the Palace Lands estate provides the
best account for how the land was used from c. 1769-1775.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 36
�Figure 3.6. The Governor’s Palace Lands, c. 1769-1816
Gibbs (1980) noted that the Palace Lands was partitioned into a number of
subdivisions including those close to the Palace which included the kitchen yard,
kitchen garden and orchard, stable yard, and formal garden and canal. Indentured
servants and enslaved blacks worked and resided in the various outbuildings
surrounding the Palace. The property also consisted of what eighteenth-century
observers referred to as the “park” (Gibbs 1980:5). The park included the pastures
and meadows, arable land, and woodland located in the hinterlands of the Palace
property (see Figure 3.6). The 200-acre lot formerly of John Coke constituted the bulk
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 37
�of the park, and the land was put to use as pasturage, for raising crops, and for
collecting firewood.
One of the main functions of the park was that of pasturage for the governors’
livestock. According to Gibbs (1980:23), the amount of pasturage needed by Fauquier,
Botetourt and Dunmore can be determined by the number of livestock each owned.
She estimated that Fauquier and Botetourt, based on the livestock listed in their
estate inventories, needed 50 and 63 acres of pasture grounds respectively. Dunmore,
however, required much more pasturage than his predecessors. In 1784, Dunmore
attempted to recoup the losses he sustained when he was forced to leave
Williamsburg. His schedule of losses (dated February 25, 1784) includes 154 head of
cattle “in the Park at Williamsburg,” 150 sheep, 13 coach and saddle horses, and four
colts (Hood 1991:298). Dunmore’s horses and livestock required 263 acres of
pasturage and it is doubtless that Coke’s former plantation served this need (Gibbs
1980:24).
Land set aside for pasturage needed to be cleared, and the same held for land
used for cultivation. Arable land within the bounds of the Palace park is indicated on
Desandroüins’ (1781) map of Williamsburg, and some of this acreage may have been
farmed (see Figure 3.6). The Cokes’ 1769 ad (see above) states that the plantation was
“good for cropping” and Gibbs (1980:26) observed that historical records associated
with Botetourt indicate that farming took place during his tenure as governor. Stores
inventoried in his outhouses include 23 bushels of Indian corn, 47½ bushels of oat,
and 23 bushels of English wheat. Botetourt’s inventory of his “park implements” also
lists a broad hoe and a grubbing hoe, three scythes, and clover and rye grass seeds
(Hood 1991:292).
Wooded acreage within the park served as fuel for the approximately 20
fireplaces within the Governor’s Palace and its outbuildings (Gibbs 1980:29).
Botetourt’s inventory of his “park implements” includes tools for logging: axes, wedges,
and a hand saw (Hood 1991:292). Fauquier, Botetourt and Dunmore all
supplemented their firewood with coal that they purchased. Botetourt and Dunmore
also required fuel to operate a forge. Botetourt brought over from England a
blacksmith named John Draper, and Dunmore hired one locally (Gibbs 1980:29; Willis
et al. 1998:355).
Slavery and Governors Botetourt and Dunmore
Gibbs research demonstrates that the Palace park played a crucial role in the
support of the governors’ households. The park was enlarged by 200 acres probably
during Botetourt’s reign as governor (1768-1770). It was enslaved blacks who were
put to work in this new addition to the park to cut firewood, and to raise livestock and
crops.
Botetourt arrived in Williamsburg with twelve indentured servants. A letter
from William Nelson to the Duke of Beaufort (Hood 1991:230) declares, “His Lordship
brought over with him a good many white Servants, and, after a short Trial, found it
convenient to purchase and hire Negroes to assist in the business of his Family, and
do the Drudgery without Doors.” The “short Trial” was short indeed. He purchased
one woman, Hannah, from the estate of Lt. Gov. Fauquier sight unseen, and paid for
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 38
�her six days after arriving in Virginia (Hood 1991:231; Willis et al. 1998:351).
Botetourt eventually owned three men and four women, one with a child (Hood
1991:231). Those forced to “do the Drudgery without Doors” within the park, whether
owned or hired, were under the supervision of land steward Silas Blandford, one of
Botetourt’s indentured servants (Willis et al. 1998:350-351, 355).
Lord Dunmore’s slaveholding was much larger than that of his predecessor. He
owned enslaved blacks not only for the support of the Palace and his household,
which included his nine children, but to work on his three plantations. Between 1772
and 1773, Dunmore purchased Porto Bello and the Old Farm plantations in York
County, and a plantation in Berkeley County. Unfortunately, there are no historical
records that provide information on his enslaved Virginians, including how they were
distributed between the Palace and each of Dunmore’s plantations (Willis et al.
1998:356). Dunmore’s Loyalist Claim for his Virginia property includes documents
stating that he owned “57 Negroes” and the labor of “12 indented servants” when he
left the Palace (Willis et al. 1998:356-357).
Botetourt and Dunmore clearly had no problems acclimating to the institution
of slavery. Even Botetourt, who may have intended to keep an exclusively white
household staff, made a quick turnaround to slaveowner. Both men hired enslaved
blacks on a regular basis, including skilled laborers (Hood 1991:231). Dunmore must
have also hired them to work on his plantations, as he claimed that he kept “100 to
150 Negroes constantly at work upon the farm” (Willis et al. 1998:356). The kind of
work that was carried out within the Palace park was considered work suitable for the
enslaved. There are no records of Palace park land being leased to tenants (Gibbs
1980:27), and as Botetourt’s and Dunmore’s indentured servants were tradesmen and
domestics, it is safe to conclude that enslaved blacks were assigned to work within the
park.
The archaeological evidence indicates that the Palace Lands site was mainly
inhabited during the third quarter of the eighteenth century, a period that overlaps
with the tenures of both governors. It is not likely, however, that Botetourt’s enslaved
Virginians occupied the site. Botetourt owned a relatively small number of enslaved
blacks that included seven adults and one child. Yet it appears that they mostly
worked as domestics and that Botetourt’s staff hired enslaved blacks to labor in the
park (Willis et al. 1998:354). Dunmore, on the other hand, owned as many as 57
enslaved Virginians. Given his investment and interest in planting, and the number of
livestock he kept at the park, it is possible that several of his enslaved laborers resided
at the Palace Lands as early as 1771. Whether they took over residency of the
dwelling identified at the site, however, may never be known. There is no
archaeological evidence for this potential four-year site habitation that could be
discerned from that left behind by Coke’s enslaved blacks, particularly since the
occupation spans for each group would have been very close in time.
The Events of 1776
On July 12, 1775, Lord Dunmore wrote in distress from aboard the HMS
Fowey, which was anchored on the York River. His letter (Department of Research
1930:248) states: “…and they have taken possession of the Park/ a considerable piece
of land adjoining and belonging to the Governors house for their cavalry, wantonly
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 39
�cutting and maiming my cattle which they found there.” Dunmore fled the Palace a
month before and sought refuge on the Fowey amidst a tide of revolutionary fervor
that left Williamsburg in turmoil and the governor as unpopular as ever. Dunmore’s
slaves and servants fled as well. The Virginia Gazette (July 14, 1775, p. 1, Alexander
Purdie) proclaimed: “All his Lordship’s domesticks have now left the palace, and are
gone, bag and baggage, to his farm at Porto Bello, about six miles from town.”
Patrick Henry was elected governor of the state of Virginia in June of 1776 and
arrived at the Governor’s Palace where he would reside for the next three years. The
Declaration of Independence was read at the Capitol, the courthouse, and at the
Palace in late July. Just days before, Henry apportioned 200 acres of the Palace park
for public use, which the Continental Army would soon occupy (Department of
Research 1930:256, 258). On August 6, 1776, Henry (Department of Research
1930:258) made the recommendation that barracks for the Continental Army should
be “built on that Part of the Park, which the governor lately gave up for the use of the
Troops.” The order was carried through by the Council of the State of Virginia in
September (Department of Research 1930:261). Humphrey Harwood was hired to
build the brick barracks, and his account book demonstrates that he spent time
between 1776 and 1779 in repairing them (HHAB 1776-1794, MS 33.01, folios 7 and
25).
Historical documents related to the Palace Lands for the years of the war
indicate that much of the drudgery associated with the upkeep of the Palace and the
surrounding grounds continued (Department of Research 1930). Enslaved blacks
were hired to work in the gardens and soldiers were ordered to look out for the cattle
and horses within the park and to ensure that the fences were in good order
(Department of Research 1930:250, 252, 261). As Dunmore’s belongings and enslaved
blacks were sold at auction, Henry ordered furnishings for the Palace. As late as
September 18, 1779, an account book records payment to John Fenton for “work in
ditchg & fencing the Public Pasture” (Department of Research 1930:270).
The Governor’s Palace burned to the ground in December of 1781. At the time,
the Palace housed sick and wounded soldiers. Although the cause of the fire remains
unknown, a letter penned to George Washington (Department of Research 1930:284)
states: “It is generally thought the fire was laid into the lower rooms, where no sick
were, by negroes or disaffected persons.”
Aftermath: c. 1784-1904
The College of William & Mary acquired the 364-acre Palace Lands tract
through an act of the General Assembly in 1784 (Department of Research 1930:290).
On June 15, 1785, and again on January 12, 1786, the College attempted to sell the
Palace Lands at auction (Department of Research 1930:290; Gibbs 1980:37). Edmund
Randolph owned title to the Palace Lands through an unrecorded transaction by 1786,
and he more than likely had purchased the land at the 1786 auction. Randolph
mortgaged the tract to Robert Greenhow, a Williamsburg merchant, in August of 1788
(Department of Research 1930:291). The land reverted back to the College in 1790
and was subsequently sold that June to the Rev. Dr. Samuel Smith McCroskey (Gibbs
1980:4-5).
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 40
�The history of the Palace Lands during the nineteenth century revolves around
a succession of doctors, lawyers, and professors (see Table 3.1). Using the Palace
Lands Papers (PLP 1815-[1866]1904, M1552), a chain of title can be traced for this
century. Robert F. N. Smith administrated the estate of Rev. Dr. McCroskey in 1815
(Certificate of B. Upshur, Clerk, Northampton County Court, January 9, 1815, PLP,
M1552). Robert Saunders, Sr., acquired the tract including all buildings at auction
from the McCroskey estate for $1150 an acre in 1816 (Deed, McCroskey estate to
Saunders, April 4, 1816, PLP, M1552). Saunders sold one portion of the tract to
William Browne some time before 1825. This sale is evidenced by another deed dated
for December 17, 1825, between Richard T. Booker and William Browne. The deed
concerns lots in Williamsburg which describes the lots as bounded “on the north by
the land of William Browne called the Palace land” (Stephenson 1955:24). Saunders
evidently sold to Browne about 164 acres of the south portion of the Palace Lands
tract. Saunders willed the remaining 200 acres of the tract to his son Robert in 1835.
In 1833, Robert Saunders, Jr., was hired as a professor of mathematics at William &
Mary and in 1847 he became President pro tem. He also served as the head of the
Eastern State Lunatic Asylum prior to the Civil War (Tyler 1915:217).
Robert Saunders, Jr., sold his 200-acre portion of the Palace Lands plus an
additional lot referred to as “The Landing Field” to John and Amanda Gregory in 1838
for $3,000. The deed (Saunders to Gregory, June 20, 1838, PLP, M1552) describes the
York County lot as:
“…containing by estimation Two hundred acres be the same more or less, the same
being sold in the gross and not by the acre, and the same being all that portion of
the tract of land called ‘Palace Land’ together with that piece or parcel of land
called ‘The Landing Field’ in said county which was held by Robert Saunders
Senior the father of the granter at the time of his death, being all the said part of
the ‘Palace Land’ and ‘The Landing Field’ which was not sold by the said Robert
Saunders Senior to William Browne.”
John M. Gregory graduated from William & Mary with a law degree in 1830. He
served James City County in the House of Delegates until 1841 when he was elected
to the Council of State. He became lieutenant governor in 1842 and acting governor in
1843. Gregory was appointed a district attorney and then Circuit Court judge in
succeeding years. He retired from public service in 1880 and died in Williamsburg in
1888.
The Gregorys sold the Palace Lands for $3,300 to Dr. Samuel S. Griffin in July
1841 (Deed, Gregory to Griffin, July 10, 1841, PLP, M1552). Apparently, Dr. Griffin
conveyed the Palace Lands parcel to Dr. Robert M. Garrett prior to 1866 as a deed of
life interest for a house on the tract was acquired by Lovey T. Jackson from Dr.
Garrett in that year (receipt for payment, Jackson to Garrett, May 9, 1866, PLP,
M1552). Dr. Garrett was one of the Directors of the Eastern State Asylum and served
as President of pro tempore of its board during this time. Coincidentally, he also lived
in the house on Nicholson Street once occupied by John Coke that is referred to now
as the “Coke-Garrett house.”
The documentary evidence suggests that Dr. Garrett purchased 100 additional
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 41
�acres of the Palace Lands for he owned 300 acres of farm land upon his death in c.
1883. Garrett willed to his son, Dr. Van F. Garrett, the 300 acres save for seven acres
which Van was to share with his three sisters. The will describes the property as, “the
farm of land attached to my present dwelling house in the City of Williamsburg,
containing about three hundred acres of land, be the same, more or less, except about
seven acres… as bounded on the North by the C. & O. Railroad, on the East by the
street leading to the Captol Landig [sic] Road to Queen's Creek on the Wist [sic] by the
lot of land belonging to W. W. Vest, and the jail lot and Dawson's lot and on the South
by the Street in front of my dwelling house” (Daniel 1946:19).
In 1904, the Southern Land Company purchased the Palace Lands (now called
Garrett Farm) from Dr. Van F. Garrett for $5,000 (C.B. Chapman to the Peninsula
Bank, August 9, 1904, PLP, M1552).
Concluding Remarks
The Palace Lands site sits on land with a chain of title that has been traced for
a period of two centuries. Situated in York County, the acreage was valuable for a
number of reasons. It was adjacent to Williamsburg, providing easy access to the
capitol city and its market economy. Capitol Landing Road, a major thoroughfare that
is still in use, passed through the property allowing for ease of travel and the transport
of goods. The road led to Capitol Landing on Queen’s Creek, a busy site of trade
during the eighteenth century. Most importantly, the acreage was good for farming
and pasturage, and the woodland provided fuel. All of these features of the land were
significant in the sense that they each contributed in some way towards generating
profit for the free white populace beginning with the landowner and extending to those
who lived in town and within the colony. Crops and livestock raised on the land
supported one’s household and were also sold or traded at market, or to various
townsfolk. Supplies needed to maintain the plantation were undoubtedly purchased
in town without difficulty. Goods shipped out could be effortlessly transported from
the plantation and the city via Capitol Landing Road to ships at the landing where
imported goods and enslaved Africans entered the colony for sale. For much of the
Palace Lands’ history, it was enslaved Africans and creoles who provided the bulk of
the labor to sustain these profitable enterprises.
A search of the archival records and secondary sources that might reveal
information concerning the enslaved Virginians who lived at the Palace Lands site has
not been completely exhaustive. There are always more documents to comb over for
any one project. Still, what has been uncovered about the Palace Lands site has led to
a commonplace and disappointing truth: there are far more records for colonial
Virginia’s wealthy whites than there are for its enslaved blacks. The documented
history of the site thus far is one that is overwhelming biased towards the men who
operated businesses in Williamsburg, planters, and the prominent politicians who
governed Virginia. The majority of these men were slaveowners. Very little has been
gained from the archives about the enslaved Virginians who lived at the site. Instead,
the historical record underscores the extent to which enslaved blacks were viewed as
property. The sources cited in this study of the site include probate inventories, a will,
a Loyalist Claim of property losses and an advertisement for the auctioning of slaves,
all of which confirmed the ownership of people.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 42
�Nonetheless, the historical record has contributed to this study in several
significant ways. It has assisted in the development of a site chronology, and in
establishing who owned the land and to what purpose the land served during the third
quarter of the eighteenth century. In the end, however, the archaeological investigation
of the Palace Lands site was initiated with the understanding that it might prove to be
the best, if not only, means to interpret the social and cultural lifeways of the site’s
inhabitants.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 43
�Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 44
�Chapter 4 – Excavation results and site chronology
Introduction
Site 44WB90 is located in an area of the CW Visitor Center that, during the
time of the excavation. was undeveloped (see Figure 1.2, Chapter 1). The site sits on a
terrace that was wooded and covered with dense ground vegetation until it was
mechanically stripped during the early stage of the excavation (Figure 4.1). Both
natural and cultural processes impacted the site’s formation over the years. The site
was reclaimed for agriculture and subsequently plowed after abandonment. The
heaviest site impacts were due to the expansion of Route 60, and subsequently, the
construction of a house and outbuilding adjacent to the site sometime during the
twentieth century. Machine push piles of redeposited subsoil overlay plowzone along
the site’s eastern boundary (in relation to the grid). Displaced subsoil, silt and
plowzone layers were also evident along the south edge of the site. At times, these
layers were difficult to discern from one another. Moreover, the site’s east boundary
was bordered by a ravine. The ravine appeared to have been at least partially created
by machine grading and earth removal. Any features associated with the early
habitation of the site that extended into this area were destroyed during these
construction activities. Phase I and II test units in the area impacted by construction
turned up both redeposited clay and modern artifacts (Cooper 1997; Pickett 1996), as
did our excavation units.
Figure 4.1. Project area during early stage of excavation immediately prior to machine grading of ground
vegetation, view to the south, June 1998
Field excavations at site 44WB90 revealed a bonded brick chimney foundation,
a rectangular sub-floor pit, a series of ditches, and two fencelines (Figure 4.2). These
features were filled with eighteenth-century debris. During all survey and excavations,
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 45
�archaeologists also
recovered artifacts
related to a late
nineteenth-century
domestic occupation,
and site disturbance and
artifact scatters
associated with
twentieth-century
development, habitation,
and recreational use of
the area. While the data
recovery phase focused
on the excavation of site
features, two transects
were placed extending
west and north of the
general excavation unit
in order to locate
additional subsurface
features.
The purposes of
this chapter are twofold.
First, a summary of the
excavation (1998-1999)
and survey (1999)
results is presented.
Second, an
interpretation of the
site’s chronology is
proposed. Unless
otherwise noted, all
proveniences are in
reference to grid north.
Figure 4.2. Palace Lands site, post-excavation, view to the west
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 46
�Soil Profile
The majority of excavation units consisted of a 5-6 cm layer of topsoil that
sealed plowzone which overlay sterile subsoil or features (Figure 4.3). The topsoil was
a brown (Munsell color 10YR 5/3) sandy clay loam with brick inclusions. The
plowzone was a brown (10YR 5/3) sandy clay loam with brick, charcoal, mortar and
shell inclusions and variously measured 11 to 56 cm in thickness.
Figure 4.3. Context 2, 1006N/1005E, north profile
Excavation Units
The excavated portion of the Palace Lands site, referred to below as the general
excavation unit, encompassed an area that measured approximately 20 × 32 m (640
sq m). A block excavation of 2 × 2 m units was initiated in the area of the chimney
foundation located during Phase II testing. Archaeologists dug a total of 75 2 × 2 m
and two 1 × 2 m excavation units (Appendix G and Figure 4.4; DAACS 2006a). The
plowzone, redeposited subsoil, and silt layers were removed by shovel-shaving to
subsoil. In addition, three areas were machine graded down to the bottom of the
plowzone and shovel-shaved to subsoil (see Figure 4.4). The test units will be
discussed in a separate section below.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 47
�Figure 4.4. Block excavation plan showing areas of plowzone, redeposited subsoil, and silt, Palace Lands
site
Most of the finds retrieved from plowzone contexts are eighteenth-century
artifacts, including bottle glass, ceramics, and assorted architectural debris, although
an assortment of both nineteenth- and twentieth-century artifacts were also recovered.
Layers of redeposited subsoil and/or silt were discovered in 23 excavation units
(see Figure 4.4 and Appendix G). These layers were limited to the east and south
areas of the general excavation unit. The redeposited subsoil was a yellowish brown
(10YR 5/4) sticky clay that in most instances sealed plowzone contexts (Figure 4.5).
In other cases (within the 2 × 2 m units at 992N/1011E, 994N/1009E and
1002N/1015E) there was no evidence of plowzone and only redeposited clay and/or
silt layers were present (see Figure 4.5). The deepest deposit of the redeposited subsoil
layer (context 81) occurred in the northeast corner of the site (see Figure 4.4) and
extended to a depth of 60 cm below the topsoil. A 16m test trench was excavated
down to subsoil through context 81 (at 1006N/1011E) to determine the nature of the
deposit which extended across five 2 × 2 m units. Late twentieth-century debris was
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 48
�scattered throughout the redeposited subsoil wherever it was identified. The artifacts
retrieved included mouth-blown and machine-made bottle glass, ceramics, nails, and
unidentified iron hardware.
Figure 4.5. Contexts 180 and 136 (modern, redeposited subsoil), and context 184 (silt layer),
992N/1011E, northwest quadrant of unit, east profile
Silt layers (see Figure 4.5) were identified in seven 2 × 2 m units, although
portions of it extended into contiguous units. The silt was mainly concentrated in the
southeast corner of the excavation (see Figure 4.4). It was a light olive brown (2.5Y
5/3) silty clay with rust-colored streaks that in most cases was sealed by plowzone.
Although this would suggest that silting occurred sometime prior to plowing, the most
likely interpretation of the stratigraphic sequence is that earth-moving equipment
displaced layers and moved soil, including silt, from elsewhere onto the site. In some
instances it was difficult to discern plowzone from silt layers. There were relatively few
artifacts (n= 87) recovered from silt layers and these include window glass, nails, wine
bottle glass and ceramics (DAACS 2006b). The 18 ceramic sherds include eighteenthcentury wares (n=6) and ironstone cup sherds (n=12). The latter were discovered in
one 2 × 2 m unit (context 184).
Recovery Methods
Every plowzone context was sampled for dryscreening through 1/4 -inch mesh
(see Figure 4.4 and Appendix G). In units that were not 100-percent sampled,
artifacts were also retrieved by hand and bagged. The approach to sampling shifted
over the two field seasons in response to the more urgent need to focus on feature
excavations, particularly during the second season. The team dryscreened 100
percent of the soil from the initial 12 2 × 2 m units excavated that sealed or were
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 49
�adjacent to the features that defined the dwelling (F01, F02 and F03). Two 1 x 2 m
units were also 100-percent sampled for dryscreening (contexts 233 and 250).
Subsequently, 25-percent samples were shovelled out and dryscreened from 49
excavation units. Due to time constraints, and the presence of modern layers in two
units (contexts 172 and 173), excavators collected only 2-percent dryscreen samples
from the northwest quadrant of six units.
A 50-percent sample was dryscreened from each of the seven 2 × 2 m units
(contexts 188, 246, 181, 241, 186, 219, 189) located along transect 999E (see Figure
4.4). The samples were collected from each 2 × 2 m unit by first taking a 25-percent
sample from the northeast corner of the unit and assigning a separate context number
for this sample (contexts 190, 245, 185, 242, 192, 218, 191; see Figure 4.4). The
remaining 25-percent sample was then removed from the northwest corner of the unit.
The recovery method shifted for the units along this transect in order to slow the pace
of excavation in anticipation of the discovery of features underlying them. One ditch,
F06, and its associated fenceline extended into the east sidewalls of two units
(contexts 189 and 219), and the sub-floor pit (F01) was located two meters to the east
of the transect. Moreover, concentrations of eighteenth-century artifacts in adjoining
units and the absence of site disturbance (in the form of redeposited subsoil) all
indicated that if early features were to be found, it would be in this area of the site.
We assigned separate context numbers to the 25-percent dryscreen samples from the
northeast quadrant of these units in order to facilitate any future analyses of the site’s
plowzone artifacts. While F06 and two postholes (F28, F30) were uncovered, no other
features were found within this transect.
Since the redeposited subsoil and silt were modern layers, where these layers
appeared in 11 of the 23 units they were not dryscreened (see Figure 4.4 and
Appendix G). Instead, the layers were shovelled out and when artifacts were
encountered these were bagged.
Test Transects
During the 1999 field season, the decision was made to conduct a limited
survey of areas north and west of the general excavation unit. The objective was to
locate subsurface features associated with the eighteenth-century occupation. These
areas were chosen for further investigation since the Phase II survey revealed
eighteenth-century artifact scatters roughly ten meters north of the sub-floor pit and
to the west of the excavation. A crew excavated three 1 × 1 m test units extending
north at 999E from the general excavation unit (Figure 4.5). One more unit was
placed at 1028N/998E since a tree impeded testing at 1028N/999E. Six additional 1
× 1 m test units were placed along a west transect at 1008N (see Figure 4.5). The test
units were placed at five-meter intervals. The soils from all ten units were removed by
shovel and 100 percent of the soil was dryscreened. Phytolith samples were collected
from each unit (see Chapter 2 and Appendix C).
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 50
�Figure 4.6. Plan of 1999 test units, Palace Lands site
Excavators did not locate any subsurface features within the test units. The
stratigraphic sequence within the four north test units (contexts 259-262) was similar
to that of most of the excavation units, with topsoil sealing plowzone which overlay
subsoil. The plowzone was shallower, however, and averaged 12.5 cm in thickness.
The assemblage (n=170) from the north test units includes nineteenth- to twentiethcentury artifacts (ironstone ceramics and machine-made bottle glass) and eighteenthcentury finds (DAACS 2006b). In the west test units (contexts 263-265 and 270-272)
there was evidence of an eighteenth-century ravine at 1008N/974E (context 263; see
Figure 4.6) and 1008N/969E (context 271). What was referred to as the plowzone
stratum long the western transect was markedly deeper than anywhere else on the
site, indicating instead that it was ravine fill. At 1008N/974E, subsoil was finally
exposed 96 cm below the top of the unit (see Figure 4.6). The fill in these six units
averaged 55.7 cm in thickness. Moreover, the 429 artifacts recovered from this
transect all date to the mid-eighteenth century (DAACS 2006b). This evidence
suggests that a colonial-era ravine once existed in this area that eventually filled in
due to erosion. Site inhabitants likely used the ravine to dump refuse. The soil
profiles within the Phase II tests in this area support this observation (Cooper 1997).
In five of the test units, excavators discovered a layer that was highly similar in soil
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 51
�color and texture to what was later identified as ravine fill. This stratum was similarly
quite deep and extended from 50 to 79 cm from the top of the units to subsoil and
contained only eighteenth-century materials.
Figure 4.7. Context 263, 1008N/974E, south profile
Features
The features associated with the Palace Lands site included a brick chimney
foundation, a rectangular sub-floor pit, a series of three ditches, and two fencelines
defined by postholes and postmolds (Figure 4.7 and Table 4.1; DAACS 2006a). All of
the features were hand trowelled, except for five postholes (F22, F32, F34, F35 and
F36) that were shovelled out at the end of the 1999 field season. Unless otherwise
indicated in the discussion below or in Appendix A, the fills from the four major
features (F01 and F04-F06) were dryscreened through 1/4-inch mesh (see “Field
Methods and Data Recovery”, Chapter 2). The sampling protocols for soil,
phytolith/pollen and flotation samples are discussed in Chapter 2 (see also
Appendices B, C and D).
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 52
�Figure 4.8. Plan of features (post excavation), Palace Lands site
Table 4.1
Summary of Features, Palace Lands Site
Feature Description
Sub-floor pit/root cellar
Brick chimney foundation
Builder's trench for chimney
Ditch
North fence
South fence
Animal burrow
Tree hole
Unidentified feature
Feature No.
F01
F02
F03
F04, F05, F06
F07-F21, F31-F36, F39
F22-F30
F47, and contexts 123/124
F43, F46, F48, F49, F50
F37, F38, F40-F42, F44, F45, F51-F56
Feature elevations are listed in Appendix H. The elevation datum was located
at grid point 996N/1011E (datum height = -0.618 m below the top of subsoil at the
instrument). Only the top elevation was recorded for some features. These include
the unexcavated chimney foundation (F02), an unexcavated posthole (F9), and three
additional postholes (F13, F21, F22). Since more than one elevation was taken at the
tops and bottoms for each of the major features (F01, F04, F05 and F06), the
measurements for ‘depth below grade’ referred to in the discussion below are the
deepest elevation recorded for a particular feature.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 53
�Stratigraphic Group (SG) designations are used below in reference to feature
deposits. A Stratigraphic Group is defined by DAACS (2006c) as: “A group of
separately excavated contexts that the original excavators of a site recognized were
part of a single larger deposit. Stratigraphic groups are numbered uniquely within
sites and carry a SG-prefix.”
F01: Sub-floor pit
Feature 1 was a sub-floor pit, or root cellar, located adjacent to the remains of
the chimney foundation (F03; Figure 4.8). It was rectangular in plan (Figure 4.9) and
measured 173 m (5.68 ft) in length (north-south) and 175 m (5.74 ft) in width, and
76.5 cm (2.5 ft) in depth below grade. In profile, the feature exhibited straight sides
and a flat bottom (Figure 4.10). There were four deposits within F01 (Table 4.2). The
most recent deposit of fill, SG01 (context 12), was a yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sandy
clay loam with bone, charcoal, mortar, shell, brick and marl inclusions. This deposit
sealed SG02 (contexts 50 and 129), a dark brown (10YR 3/3) silt loam fill with bone,
brick, and marl inclusions that also had an abundance of oyster shells and charcoal
fragments. It sealed SG03 (context 53), a yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sandy loam with
bone, charcoal, brick, mortar and shell inclusions and high concentrations of ash.
The earliest deposit of fill within F01 was SG04 (context 54), a brown (10YR 5/3) silty
clay loam with bone, coal, charcoal, brick, mortar, shell, and marl inclusions. There
was evidence of wood lining at the bottom of the cellar in the form of a wood board.
Excavators dryscreened fill from the north half of SG01 (context 12), and
wetscreened a 20-liter sample. Very few artifacts were retrieved from dryscreening,
and none were recovered from the wetscreen samples, so the south half of the deposit
was carefully trowelled and the artifacts retrieved by hand. Flotation samples were
collected from each of the deposits (see Appendix D), and the remainder of the fills
from F01 (contexts 50, 129, 53 and 54) were wetscreened. We recovered a total of
2,891 finds (including oyster shells and charcoal fragments) from F01 (DAACS 2006b).
The assemblage includes colonowares, glass and copper alloy beads, three finger rings,
a bone enema syringe, fan blade fragments, doll fragments, thimbles and scissors.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 54
�Figure 4.9. Features 1 (sub-floor pit) and 2 (chimney foundation), view to the northwest
Figure 4.10. Plan of Features 1 and 2
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 55
�Figure 4.11. Feature 1 (F01), sub-floor pit, north profile
Table 4.2
Contexts and Stratigraphic Groups, Feature 1 (F01)
Context No.
12
50 = 129
53
54
13
Palace Lands Archaeology
Stratigraphic Group
SG01
SG02
SG03
SG04
Feature cut
Page 56
�F02 and F03: Brick Chimney Foundation and Builder’s Trench
A mortared brick chimney foundation (F02) was the only structural remains of
a building identified at the site (Figure 4.12). There were two courses of brick (context
4; see Figure 4.11) remaining. The bottom course was largely intact, while the top
course exhibited evidence of robbing and plow disturbance. Shell mortar was used in
the construction of F02, and large chunks of mortar and brick bats were discovered in
the firebox and along the outside of the west chimney cheek. The feature measured
1.69 m (5.54 ft) east-west and 0.87 m (2.86 ft) north-south.
The builder’s trench for F02 was F03 (context 5 was assigned to the trench fill).
The artifacts recovered from trowelling on top of F03 to better define it includes shell
mortar fragments, nails, and oyster shell fragments (DAACS 2006b). We did not
excavate this feature.
Figure 4.12. Feature 2 (F02), brick chimney foundation, view to the north
F04: Ditch
Feature 4 was one of three ditches that extended east-west across the site (see
Figure 4.8). It measured 12.72 m (41.73 ft) in length and varied in width from 30 to
84 cm (0.98 to 2.76 ft). Feature 4 had an elevation of 0.225 m (0.74 ft) in depth below
grade. The ditch was divided into sections for excavation (A-A’ through H-H’; Figure
4.13). Excavators defined eight deposits of fill (SG05-SG09, SG11, SG13 and SG15),
although only one deposit (SG07) extended across the entirety of the ditch (Table 4.3).
There were two discrete deposits resting on top of the ditch in different areas.
One deposit, SG05 (context 30), was comprised mainly of whole oyster shells. The
second, SG06 (contexts 40 and 276), was defined exclusively by architectural debris
including shell mortar, brick fragments and window glass. Deposits SG05 and SG06
sealed SG07 (contexts 19, 204-207, 277, 278 and 318), a sandy clay loam (dark
yellowish brown; 10YR 4/4) with bone, charcoal, brick and mortar inclusions. Since
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 57
�SG07 extended across the length of the ditch, the deposit sealed a number of other
fills. It overlay SG08 (contexts 47, 210, 216, and 282), a very thin lens of light
brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) silt that measured < 1 cm to 2 cm in thickness. Only two
artifacts were recovered from SG08: one bottle glass fragment, and one nail. Contexts
associated with SG07 also sealed SG09 (contexts 132, 213 and 221), a mottled
yellowish red (5YR 4/6) and olive (5Y 4/4) silty clay loam with bone, charcoal and
brick inclusions. Strata SG07, SG08 and SG09 sealed SG11 (contexts 48, 49, 211,
214, 217, 234 and 279). Stratum SG11 extended to subsoil, and was a silty clay loam
that varied in mottling across the ditch. Portions of it (contexts 48, 49 and 279) were
brown (10YR 5/3 and 6/3) to dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) with charcoal, brick,
shell and mortar inclusions. The remaining portions (contexts 211, 214, 217 and 234)
were dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) and yellowish brown (10YR 5/6 and 5/8)
mottled clay with brick, bone, charcoal and shell inclusions. The clay mottling was
the result of erosion of the ditch’s sidewalls over time. Where the ditch terminated to
the west, SG07 sealed SG13 (context 295), a brown (10YR 4/3) clay-mottled fill with
bone, brick and shell inclusions. This deposit sealed subsoil. To the east, SG11 sealed
SG15 (context 298), a silty clay loam (yellowish brown; 10YR 5/6) with brick, bone,
charcoal and shell inclusions that extended to subsoil.
All of the fill from F04 was either dryscreened or wetscreened (see Appendix A),
and flotation samples were taken from each deposit (see Appendix D). Excavators
recovered a total of 1,639 finds from this feature, including 143 oyster shells (DAACS
2006b). The artifact assemblage includes lead shot, a fragment of writing slate,
ceramics, tobacco pipes, mirror glass, and pharmaceutical bottle fragments. An
American stoneware sherd recovered from context 295 provides a feature TPQ of 1787.
Table 4.3
Contexts and Stratigraphic Groups, Feature 4 (F04)
Context No.
30
40 = 276
19 = 204 = 205 = 206 = 207 =
277 = 278 = 318
47 = 210 = 216 = 282
132 = 213 = 221
48 = 49 = 211 = 214 = 217 =
234 = 279
295
298
20
Palace Lands Archaeology
Stratigraphic Group
SG05
SG06
SG07
SG08
SG09
SG11
SG13
SG15
Feature cut
Page 58
�Figure 4.13. Plan and profiles of Feature 4 (F04)
F05: Ditch
Feature 5 (Figure 4.14) was an L-shaped ditch that abutted F04 at its east end
(see Figure 4.8). It measured 3.83 m (12.57 ft) across, and had an elevation of 25.8
cm (0.85 ft) in depth below grade. In profile, the north and south walls sloped down to
a round-based bottom (see Figure 4.14 ). Excavators defined four deposits of fill in
F05 (Table 4.4). The most recent deposit, SG16 (contexts 51 and 310), was a brown
(10YR 4/3) silt loam with bone, brick and shell inclusions. This stratum sealed SG17
(contexts 274 and 319), a yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sandy clay loam with bone,
charcoal, brick and shell inclusions. In the west half of the ditch, excavators
uncovered SG18 (context 275), a brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam deposit with heavy
concentrations of ash and charcoal that also had bone, charcoal, brick and shell
inclusions. Given the presence of ash and charcoal, excavators first wetscreened 20
liters of fill, and upon finding fish bone and scales, collected the remainder of the fill
for flotation. Deposit SG18 sealed SG19 (context 296), a yellowish brown (10YR 5/6)
silty clay fill with a relatively high concentration of nails and oyster shells. Neither of
these two deposits, SG18 and SG19, extended across F05 and these were not evident
where the feature was cross-sectioned for a profile drawing.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 59
�Excavators recovered 424 finds from F05 (including 38 oyster shells and 10
charred seeds; DAACS 2006b). The artifact assemblage includes wine bottle and
mirror glass, one gunflint, ceramics, iron hinge fragments, and tobacco pipe
fragments. The feature TPQ of 1762 was based on creamware sherds.
Figure 4.14. Plan and profile of Feature 5 (F05)
Table 4.4
Contexts and Stratigraphic Groups, Feature 5 (F05)
Context No.
51 = 310
274 = 319
275
296
273
Palace Lands Archaeology
Stratigraphic Group
SG16
SG17
SG18
SG19
Feature cut
Page 60
�F06: Ditch
Feature 6 was the last of the three ditches discovered at the site (see Figure
4.8). Since it was located at the end of the final field season, time constraints
prevented the crew from excavating the plowzone that covered the remainder of the
ditch. The portion of the ditch that was revealed measured 7.17 meters (23.52 ft) in
length and 0.86 m (2.82 ft) in width (Figure 4.15). The deepest elevation taken from
the bottom of this feature measured 28.6 cm (0.94 ft) below grade.
There were three deposits within F06 (Table 4.5). The most recent deposit,
SG20 (contexts 248, 299 and 300-304) consisted of a brown (10YR 4/3) sandy clay
loam with bone, charcoal, brick and shell inclusions. A relatively high number of
oyster shell fragments was recovered from this fill. This deposit sealed SG21 (contexts
311-316 and 320), a brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sandy clay loam with brick, charcoal
and shell inclusions. The earliest stratum, SG22 (contexts 317 and 325), was a
relatively thin (3-6 cm) deposit with no artifacts. This deposit was a brownish yellow
(10YR 6/6) sandy clay loam with some charcoal inclusions. Unlike the two most
recent deposits, SG22 was only found in a two-meter section of F06 between the D’-D
and F’-F cross sections.
All of the fill from F06 was dryscreened, and flotation samples were collected
from each discrete deposit (see Appendix D). We recovered 1,354 finds from F06,
including 142 oyster shells (DAACS 2006b). The assemblage includes pharmaceutical
and wine bottle glass, ceramics, window glass, and nails. Creamware sherds from the
feature provide a TPQ of 1762.
Table 4.5
Contexts and Stratigraphic Groups, Feature 6 (F06)
Context No.
248 = 299 = 300= 301 = 302 =
303 = 304
311 = 312 = 313 = 314 = 315 =
316 = 320
317 = 325
249
Palace Lands Archaeology
Stratigraphic Group
SG20
SG21
SG22
Feature cut
Page 61
�Figure 4.15. Plan and profiles of Feature 6 (F06)
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 62
�North Fence: F07-F21 and F31-F36
A post-and-rail fence defined by 22 postholes and postmolds once ran parallel
to the ditch segments (see Figure 4.8; Appendix I). Of the 19 postholes, only two did
not have postmolds. The first, F36, intruded F35 and was dug for a repair post. The
second, F10, was not excavated as it was still partially sealed by redeposited subsoil at
the end of the field season. In addition to the postholes, there were three postmolds
along the fenceline: F16, F19 and F39. The fenceline clearly extended further to the
west and east (see Figure 4.8). The section of the fenceline that was excavated
measured 30.24 m (99.21 ft) in length from F31 to F10.
The features along this fenceline were generally rectangular in plan with a wider
variation in profiles ranging from irregular to a flat-based “U” shape. The
measurements of these features varied in length and width. The smallest feature (F16)
was 24 × 19 cm (0.79 × 0.62 ft), and the largest feature (F35) measured 99 × 62 cm
(3.25 × 2.3 ft). Five of the features exhibited evidence of fence repairs. Three
postholes, F31, F33 and F36 each cut earlier postholes, and two others (F15 and F18)
had two postmolds. The postholes and postmolds were set at irregular intervals which
may indicate that there were more repair posts along the fence in addition to the five
noted above. The postmolds F16, F19 and F39 were not in alignment with, and were
much shallower than, the postmolds found within postholes. This suggests that these
posts were added later to brace the fence. The elevations for the postholes and
postmolds are provided in Appendix H.
Two of the 22 features, F9 and F10, were not excavated. Of the remaining 20,
all but six of the features (F08, F12, F31, F32, F34 and F36) produced artifacts (see
Appendix I for number of artifacts and TPQs). The assemblage (n=278) includes
ceramics, nails, window and bottle glass, and tobacco pipe fragments (DAACS 2006b).
A discussion of the feature TPQs follows in the section below regarding the site’s
chronology.
South Fence: F22-F30
Approximately three meters to the south of F06 we identified another fenceline
that ran parallel to the series of ditches and the north fence. This former post-and-rail
fence was defined by nine postholes (Appendix J; see Figure 4.8). As with the north
fence, it is probable that this fence also extended further west and east, but no further
investigations of the fenceline were conducted. The section of the fenceline that was
revealed measured 14.65 m (48.06 ft) in length from F22 to F29 (see Figure 4.8).
Each of the postholes was rectangular in plan, and they varied in size. The
smallest of these (F27) measured 33 × 40 cm (1.08 × 1.31 ft), and the largest posthole
(F28) measured 81 × 77 cm (2.66 × 2.53 ft). The elevations for each feature are
recorded in Table 4.3. Two of the postholes were dug for repair posts: F27 cut F28,
and F30 cut F29 (see Figure 4.8).
Excavators retrieved artifacts from all but two (F27 and F29) of the nine
postholes (see Appendix J). The assemblage (n=112) includes a glass jewel inset for
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 63
�cufflinks, ceramics, drinking and wine bottle glass fragments, nails, and window glass
(DAACS 2006b).
Miscellaneous Features
There were 20 miscellaneous features identified at the site, including two
animal burrows, five treeholes, and 13 unidentified features (see Table 4.1 and
Appendix K). Excavators recovered four artifacts from one treehole (F43), including a
tin-enameled ware sherd and a nail, and three brick fragments from an animal burrow
(F47; DAACS 2006b).
Interpretation of the Palace Lands Site Chronology
Based upon the existing evidence the site features and artifacts recovered from
feature contexts are associated mainly with a single dwelling and its occupation dating
to the third quarter of the eighteenth century. In order to determine a site mean
ceramic date (MCD), ceramics (vessels and non-vesselized sherds) recovered
exclusively from feature contexts were used for the ceramic seriation analysis. The
result was a site MCD of 1742 (Table 4.6). The seriation results, however, were
skewed towards an earlier date due to the inclusion of Delftwares and tin-enameled
wares which had a long period of manufacture (1600-1802); together, they represented
43 percent of the ceramics recovered from feature contexts (n=420). Thus, another
approach to dating the site was also employed. The manufacture periods of ceramic
ware types provided by DAACS (2007) were used to estimate the site occupation span.
The result suggested that the site was inhabited from the late 1740s to 1775 (Figure
4.16) which coincides with the years that Coke’s plantation was in operation. With this
in mind, and the other evidence at hand, the site’s history begins to unfold. There are
three site phases that can be discerned (Table 4.7). While the following interpretation
is in agreement with the DAACS (2006d) site chronology with regard to the time spans
assigned to the first two phases, it proposes a later date for the third phase.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 64
�Table 4.6
Ceramic Seriation, Feature Contexts, Palace Lands Site
Ware Type
Decorative Technique
COARSE EARTHENWARE
Date
Range
Median
Date
N
sherds
N
vessels
Total
Product
(MD*N)
Buckley
1720-1775
1748
4
5
9
15732
Colonoware
1650-1830
1740
3
6
9
15660
North
Midlands/Staffordshire
slipware
Red-bodied
slipware/Redware
Staffordshire mottled glaze
1670-1795
1733
6
2
8
13864
1700-1900
1800
2
1
3
5400
1680-1780
1730
0
1
1
1730
1660-1860
1760
5
1
6
10560
1660-1860
1760
6
3
9
15840
1660-1860
1760
0
1
1
1760
1660-1810
1735
0
1
1
1735
1660-1810
1735
0
2
2
3470
1745-1795
1770
1
2
3
5310
Creamware
1762-1820
1791
101
25
126
225666
Delftware, Dutch/British
1600-1802
1701
78
20
98
166698
Jackfield
1740-1790
1765
0
1
1
1765
1775-1830
1803
2
0
2
3606
1600-1802
1701
84
0
84
142884
1740-1775
1758
4
3
7
12306
1787-1920
1853
1
1
2
3706
Fulham type
1671-1775
1723
5
2
7
12061
German stoneware
1620-1775
1697
1
0
1
1697
Westerwald/Rhenish
1650-1775
1713
1
3
4
6852
White saltglazed stoneware
1720-1805
1763
22
7
29
51127
PORCELAIN
Chinese porcelain
Chinese porcelain
Chinese porcelain
Chinese porcelain
Chinese porcelain
painted, under free hand
purple-blue
painted, under free hand
yellow-red
painted, over free hand,
unidentifiable
painted, over free hand yellowred, yellow
English soft paste
REFINED EARTHENWARE
Pearlware
Tin-enameled
unidentifiable
Whieldon-type ware
STONEWARE
American stoneware
painted, under free hand
purple-blue
White saltglazed stoneware
engine turned, no applied color
1720-1805
1763
1
0
1
1763
White saltglazed stoneware
Moulded
1720-1805
1763
0
3
3
5289
White saltglazed stoneware
scratch/fill, purple blue
1744-1775
1760
0
1
1
1760
White saltglazed stoneware
scratch/fill, debased
1765-1790
1780
MEAN CERAMIC DATE
Palace Lands Archaeology
1
1
2
3560
328
Totals
92
420
731801
1742.383333
Page 65
�Figure 4.16. Periods of manufacture for ceramic ware types recovered from feature contexts
Table 4.7
Site Phases, Palace Lands Site
Phase
Date
I
c. 1747-1769
II
Late-eighteenth
century to earlynineteenth
century
III
Mid-nineteenth
century to
twentieth century
Occupants
Enslaved Virginians owned by John
Coke, and then his wife, Sarah.
Tenants or enslaved blacks associated
with Samuel Smith McCroskey. These
individuals lived in the site’s vicinity.
Farm tenants who probably leased the
land from one or more of the
following: Robert M. Garrett, Van F.
Garrett, and the Southern Land
Company. Tenants lived in the area of
the site.
Related Site
Features
All site
features.
Subfloor pit
(F01), a ditch
(F04), and
north and
south fences
N/A
A second occupation (Phase II) took place during the late eighteenth century to
early nineteenth century. The individuals who lived in the site’s vicinity continued to
use the fences and repairs to both may be attributable to this group. A relatively
small amount of this household’s refuse made its way not only into several features
along both fencelines, but also F04, a ditch (TPQ 1787; Table 4.8). The homestead
associated with Phase II was abandoned after 1787. At least one other household
lived near the site during Phase III. Artifacts from the plowzone associated with this
phase date from the mid-nineteenth century and well into the twentieth century. By
this period, the site was reclaimed for farming and plowed over, and none of the
features were likely visible above ground.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 66
�In the following discussion, the historical (see Chapter 3) and archaeological
evidence are considered together in an attempt to clarify the dates and to identify the
landowners associated with each site phase.
Table 4.8
Ceramic TPQs by Feature, Palace Lands Site
Feature
F01 (Subfloor pit)
F04 (Ditch)
F05 (Ditch)
F06 (Ditch)
F11 (context 230, posthole, North fence)
F13 (context 68, posthole, North fence)
F14 (context 33, posthole North fence)
F14 (context 257, postmold, North fence)
F15 (context 35, posthole, North fence)
F15 (context 253, postmold, North fence)
F18 (context 45, posthole, North fence)
F18 (context 268, postmold, North fence)
F20 (context 21, posthole, North fence)
F20 (context 255, postmold, North fence)
F25 (context 76, posthole, South fence)
F26 (context 100, posthole, South fence)
F28 (context 193, postmold, South fence)
TPQ
1765
1787
1762
1762
1762
1720
1740
1775
1762
1720
1762
1762
1787
1762
1720
1671
1775
Phase I: c. 1747-1769
The initial habitation of the Palace Lands site can be tied to John Coke, who
owned the land on which the site is located from c. 1747-1767 (see Table 4.7). His
son, Samuel, inherited the plantation and continued to operate it for just over a year
until c. 1769. Enslaved field hands first owned by John Coke, and then inherited by
his wife, Sarah, lived and worked on the plantation during this time. Samuel and his
mother, Sarah, put the plantation along with the livestock and “several valuable
slaves” up for auction in 1769. The Council purchased the plantation sometime
between 1769 and 1773 and the site was abandoned upon the conveyance of the
plantation to the Council.
Phase I Site Activities
The artifacts provide some indication of the sequence in which the site’s
features were constructed and filled. Its residents first built the dwelling, which is
represented by the sub-floor pit and the brick chimney foundation. Sometime after
the house was occupied its residents built the north and south post-and-rail fences.
Postholes along both fencelines were filled with debris indicating that cultural
activities had already taken place on site prior to their construction. Both fences were
mended, yet some of these repairs were made during Phase II. What is unmistakable
is that the site’s inhabitants took more precautions in preserving the north fence.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 67
�After its construction, they dug ditches along it in order to drain water away from the
posts. Clay-mottled fill and silt layers found within the ditches indicate that these
were kept relatively free of debris and left open to serve their purpose which led to the
erosion of ditch walls and silting over time. Arbitrary filling of the ditches occurred
over time, through foot traffic, sweeping, etc., since refuse was scattered around the
homestead.
Prior to site abandonment, and likely in anticipation of their sale along with the
plantation, the enslaved household residing at Coke’s dumped refuse into the root
cellar and nearby ditches. Most of the artifacts recovered from these features date to
the third quarter of the eighteenth century (see Table 4.8). Two ditches (F05 and F06)
and the root cellar with TPQs of 1762 were sealed during this phase. The third ditch
(F04) was filled, but not sealed until Phase II. The fences were left standing.
Phase II: Late Eighteenth Century to Early Nineteenth Century
With the plantation’s incorporation into the Palace Lands, the acreage was
made available to the last two royal governors of Virginia. Both Botetourt and
Dunmore used the land for pasturage, felling trees for wood, and probably for raising
crops, but their combined tenure of the Governor’s Palace was short-lived: from 1768
to 1775. Dunmore retreated from the city in 1775, leaving the Palace Lands in the
hands of American troops. The recovery of American blue-and-gray stoneware (TPQ
1787) sherds suggests a late eighteenth-century site presence that may have extended
into the early nineteenth century (see Table 4.8). Thus, the Phase II occupation in the
site’s vicinity had no association with the royal governors.
There were three landowners who held deed to the property from 1786-1816
(see Table 3.1, Chapter 3). Of these, Samuel Smith McCroskey is the one who most
likely owned it during the site’s Phase II occupation. He purchased the property from
William & Mary in 1790 and retained the land until his death in 1815. McCroskey’s
wife, Elizabeth, auctioned the property in 1816. Since the McCroskeys lived in town,
the land was probably leased to tenants as McCroskey’s will states that there were
houses on the property. It is not known at this time whether the McCroskeys owned
enslaved men or women who could have lived and worked on the land.
Phase II Site Activities
There are very few artifacts associated with Phase II, which indicates that whoever
discarded them lived in the site’s vicinity, somewhere near the former quarter but not
within it. The strongest evidence for this phase includes only eight sherds of American
blue-and-gray stoneware (TPQ 1787) and ten pearlware sherds (TPQ 1775). Only four
of these finds were retrieved from feature contexts (see Table 4.8). What they confirm
is that the fences were still standing during Phase II. Two pearlware sherds were
recovered from two postmolds (F14 and F28) along each fenceline; these fence posts
rotted in place sometime after 1775. Moreover, one American stoneware sherd was
found within F20, a posthole along the north fenceline, which suggests that it was dug
for a repair post sometime after 1787. An American stoneware sherd was also
retrieved from one ditch (F04). This ditch was partially filled, inadvertently and
intentionally, during Phase I but sealed during Phase II.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 68
�Phase III: Mid-Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries
The final site phase almost certainly conflates more than one period of
occupation. There are two challenges to clarifying the more recent history of the site.
First, the nineteenth- and twentieth-century artifacts were retrieved from plowzone
contexts. Second, most of the ceramic types, including whiteware and yellow ware,
have long periods of manufacture. The mean ceramic date for this assemblage of 113
sherds and nine vessels is 1912 (Table 4.9).
The manufacturing techniques represented by the container glass seem to
suggest that the site was inhabited throughout and beyond the nineteenth century.
Yet there are enough examples with datable attributes that when combined with the
ceramic evidence point to occupation(s) after the 1850s. Just over 25 percent (n=406)
of the plowzone glass shards are colorless, non-lead glass (TPQ 1864). Specific
examples of machine-made glass (TPQ 1905) include Ball Mason canning jars, milk
glass container fragments, an embossed Sloan’s Liniment bottle, and pressed glass
tablewares. There are even Owens bottle fragments and a hobble-skirt Coke bottle
which confirm twentieth-century site habitation.
The Palace Lands tract belonged to two individuals from c. 1860s-1904 (see
Table 3.1, Chapter 3). Dr. Robert M. Garrett purchased the property some time prior
to 1866 and willed it to his son Dr. Van F. Garrett in 1883. Both Garretts lived in
Williamsburg and probably leased the land to tenants. The land was clearly used for
farming as Robert describes the parcel as farm land in his will, and when his son sold
the property in 1904 to the Southern Land Company it is referred to as “Garrett Farm”
in the deed.
Table 4.9
Ceramic Seriation, Nineteenth- to Twentieth-Centuries Ceramics, Palace Lands Site
Ware Type
Decorative Technique
Ironstone/White Granite
Whiteware
Date
Range
1840-2000
Median
Date
1920
N
sherds
45
N
vessels
4
Total
(N)
49
Product
(MD*N)
94080
1820-2000
1910
46
2
48
91680
1880-2000
1940
1
0
1
1940
Whiteware
Painted, over free hand, Gilt;
Decalcomania, Red
Decalcomania, Green, Muted Light
1880-2000
1940
2
0
2
3880
Whiteware
Decalcomania,Red
1880-2000
1940
3
2
5
9700
Whiteware
Decalcomania, unidentifiable
1880-2000
1940
1
0
1
1940
Whiteware
Molded, Printed, flow, Purple-Blue
1840-1900
1870
5
0
5
9350
Whiteware
Printed, under, Purple-Blue,
Intense Dark
Molded; Painted, under free hand,
Purple-Blue
Printed, flow, Purple-Blue
1820-2000
1910
2
0
2
3820
1820-2000
1910
1
0
1
1910
1840-1900
1870
6
1
7
13090
1830-1940
1885
1
0
1
1885
113
9
122
233275
Whiteware
Whiteware
Whiteware
Yelloware
Totals
MEAN CERAMIC DATE
Palace Lands Archaeology
1912.090164
Page 69
�Phase III Site Activities
None of the features associated with the site were likely visible above ground by
the time the first Dr. Garrett acquired the Palace Lands tract. While there is evidence
that the fences were still standing when Coke’s plantation was abandoned, the most
recent TPQ for fence-related features is 1787.
In terms of the locus of Phase III site activities, the artifact distribution suggests
that it could have been at any number of locations near the site. Again, there was
very likely multiple occupations of the site over a period of decades. Although most of
the sherds were retrieved from units south of the southern-most fence, the rest of the
sherds, as well as machine-made and non-lead, colorless glass fragments were strewn
across the site. Some of these artifacts were discovered in the 1999 test units located
20-25 meters north of the excavation. During the 1996 Phase II site survey, mid to
late nineteenth-century artifacts, including wire nails (1880 TPQ), were also recovered
from test units located beyond the boundaries of the excavation. The evidence
suggests that a succession of tenant farming households lived somewhere in the site’s
vicinity, and probably resided in the same house.
The Ceramic Crossmend Evidence
The ceramic crossmend evidence does little to clarify the interpretation of the
site’s chronology. A partial assemblage of ceramics was selected for crossmending
from contexts within the cellar (F01), two ditches (F04 and F06), and seven postholes
(F11, F13-F15, F17, F18 and F20) along the portion of the north fenceline that was
adjacent to F04. Four vessels were partially reconstructed with contiguous mends
between features. One vessel (226-33AS; see Appendix E) consists of sherds from
both F04 and F01. Although the crossmends would seem to suggest that these
features were filled at the same time, site inhabitants may have used a refuse midden
to retrieve fill for sealing defunct features. Such was the case at the eighteenthcentury Rich Neck Slave Quarter site in Williamsburg (Franklin 2004).
The crossmend evidence from Rich Neck demonstrated that site inhabitants
made regular use of a communal refuse midden to gather fill for their defunct root
cellars. As a result, sherds recovered from plowzone contexts within the midden
mended with sherds from various deposits within the root cellars. Thus, the filling
events of different root cellars with mends from the same vessel were not necessarily
related. With this caveat in mind, the vessel crossmends (vessels 251-33AS and 28833AS; see Appendix E) between a posthole (F15) and a ditch (F04) do not necessarily
demonstrate the simultaneous filling of these features. In this scenario, the fence
would have been constructed at the same time that the ditch was being backfilled with
refuse. Yet, since the ditch served to drain rainwater away from the fence, it had to be
dug out after the fence was standing. Instead, people probably tossed or swept refuse
close to the ditches which inevitably wound up within them, and this most likely
occurred at different times, but prior to the nineteenth-century.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 70
�Remarks
The most important point to be made regarding the site’s phasing is that the artifacts
recovered from feature contexts are mainly related to Phase I, when Coke’s enslaved
field hands occupied the site. Monticello archaeologists came to this same conclusion,
although there are also competing points of interpretation regarding the site’s
chronology. A descriptive summary of the artifacts is the focus of the next chapter. In
light of the fact that the artifacts recovered from the plowzone include nineteenthcentury and twentieth-century finds, the focus is on those found within site features.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 71
�Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 72
�Chapter 5 – Historic Artifacts
Introduction
The artifact assemblage recovered from the Palace Lands site totals 14,299
finds (DAACS 2006b). The range of dates exhibited by the artifacts reveals that
multiple occupations took place on and near the site over time from the mideighteenth century up until recently. The finds are typical of historic domestic sites,
including slave quarters. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a descriptive
summary of the artifacts. Because the assemblage includes nineteenth- and
twentieth-century artifacts (including modern debris), only those recovered from
feature contexts are considered here. Excluded from the discussion are the following:
faunal remains, eggshells, seeds, nuts, wood, shells, charcoal, cinder and coal. What
remains of the assemblage totals 5,684 artifacts (Table 5.1). It is this number that is
referred to below as the “total number of artifacts.” The periods of manufacture for
ceramics recovered from feature contexts indicate that the feature-related artifacts
were in circulation and disposed of during the third quarter of the eighteenth century
(see Figure 4.16, Chapter 4). This period coincides with the operation of John Coke’s
200-acre plantation at the site.
Table 5.1
Major Artifact Groups
Major Artifact Groups
Architectural
Foodways
Unidentified Artifact
Sewing Equipment
Medicinal and Hygiene
Tobacco
Clothing and Adornment
Personal
Other Hardware
Arms
Native American
Horse and Transport
Furniture
Tool
Total
N
2398
1305
1294
262
118
105
99
32
29
12
11
8
6
5
5684
%
42.19
22.96
22.77
4.61
2.08
1.85
1.74
0.56
0.51
0.21
0.19
0.14
0.11
0.09
100.00
The artifacts were sorted into major artifact groups (see Table 5.1) which are
comparable to those that have been used for analyzing other slave-related
assemblages in Virginia (e.g., Fesler 2000, Franklin 2004; Pullins et al. 2003). The
group categories are not mutually exclusive as overlaps between groups do exist. The
assemblage underscores the domestic nature of the site with foodways-related
artifacts representing 22.96 percent of the total number (see Table 5.1). Even though
a large proportion of the assemblage consists of architectural debris (42.19 percent),
which is typical for historic sites, there are still traces of a past home life in the forms
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 73
�of doll fragments and toy marbles, sewing implements and medicinal vessels. Yet,
despite the fact that the site was part of a working plantation, excavators recovered
few artifacts related to the labor that Coke’s enslaved blacks performed (raising crops
and livestock).
The remainder of this chapter is divided into sections for each major artifact
group. The chapter closes with a section titled “Other Notable Artifacts” that covers
several interesting objects that are not otherwise included in the assessment of the
assemblage. Currently, there is not an “object number” entry for unique ceramic and
glass vessels in DAACS. Thus, in the following, ceramic vessels are identified by their
CW object number which is provided in the “Notes” entry for the DAACS ceramics
artifact query (DAACS 2006b; see also Appendix E). The CW object numbers are
always followed by “33AS”, the site number assigned by CW to the Palace Lands. For
all other artifacts, the text and figure captions include the CW object number where
these were assigned followed by the DAACS artifact ID number (which begins with the
designation of “1008”).
Foodways Group
The term “foodways” is used here to refer to those practices related to food and
beverage preparation, service, consumption, and storage. The foodways-related
artifacts constitute the second largest major artifact group at 22.96 percent (n=1305)
of the total artifact assemblage (see Table 5.1). The artifacts from this group were
assigned to six categories based on material and general function within the foodways
realm, and two categories were added for unidentifiable ceramics and glass (Table 5.2).
The glass and ceramic artifact counts in Table 5.2 include both unique vessels and
non-vesselized ceramic sherds and glass fragments. A brief discussion of the
crossmend analysis is provided in Chapter 4, and the ceramic vessels are listed in
Appendix E. The unidentifiable ceramics and glass were included with the Foodways
Groups although it is acknowledged that some of these could be non-foodways related
objects (e.g., pharmaceutical bottles, chamber pots, etc.).
The overview of the Foodways Group begins with the ceramic assemblage,
followed by the glass assemblage and table utensils.
Table 5.2
Foodways Group
N
Ceramic Tablewares
Ceramic Tea and Coffee Service
Ceramic Food Preparation and Storage
Ceramic, Unidentified
Glass Tablewares
Glass Beverage Storage and Containers
Glass, Unidentified
Table Utensils
Total
Palace Lands Archaeology
%
89
113
21
224
59
634
142
23
1305
6.8
8.7
1.6
17.2
4.5
48.6
10.9
1.8
100.0
Page 74
�There are 87 vessels and 360 sherds from feature contexts which constitute
34.3 percent of the Foodways Group (DAACS 2006b). Included in this group are
ceramics for table service and consumption (6.8 percent), tea and coffee service (8.7
percent), food preparation and storage (16 percent), and unidentified ceramics (17.2
percent; see Table 5.2). The distribution of ceramics by ware type is shown in Table
5.3. The most popular ware types present are creamware, delftware, unidentifiable
tin-enameled ware and white salt-glazed stoneware. The 87 vessels are summarized
by ware type and form in Table 5.4 (see also Appendix E).
Since the artifact analyses presented in this report relies on DAACS artifact
queries, the DAACS categories used to describe the ceramics are reproduced here
(Aultman, Grillo and Bon-Harper 2003). For clarification, “vessel category” refers to
the general shape of a ceramic sherd or vessel, whether hollow or flat. “Vessel form”
refers to the specific form of the original vessel (e.g., porringer, plate, teabowl, etc.). In
a number of instances, vessel form can only be identified in general terms as
unidentified “tableware”, “teaware” or “utilitarian.”
There are a number of unique vessels that CW lab technicians identified with
regard to vessel form that were re-cataloged in DAACS in more general terms. There
were 22 discrepancies and where these exist the author re-examined the ceramics to
make a determination as to how to categorize a vessel for the purpose of analyzing the
ceramics. In most cases, the CW and DAACS vessel descriptions with regard to vessel
category and form are similar, but the form assigned by CW is more specific. For
example, for vessel 264-33AS, DAACS categorizes the vessel as “tableware” and “flat”,
while CW categorizes the vessel as a plate. Since the vessel is represented by a marley
fragment, the “plate” identification is retained here. Where the CW-assigned form is
used in place of the DAACS one, this is noted in Appendix E by an asterisk in the
“Form and Vessel Category” column.
In order to assess the assemblage with regard to form and function, the
unidentifiable ceramics (n=224) are excluded from the summaries of the three major
categories of ceramics that follow.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 75
�Table 5.3
Ceramic Assemblage by Ware Type, Foodways Group
Ware Type
COARSE EARTHENWARE
Buckley
Coarse earthenware, unglazed
Coarse earthenware, lead-glazed
Colonoware
North Midlands/Staffordshire slipware
Red-bodied slipware/Redware
Staffordshire mottled glaze
PORCELAIN
Chinese porcelain
English soft-paste porcelain
Porcelain, unidentifiable
REFINED EARTHENWARE
Creamware
Delftware, Dutch/British
Jackfield
Pearlware
Tin-enameled ware
Whieldon-type ware
Refined earthenware, unidentifiable
STONEWARE
American stoneware
Fulham type
German stoneware
Westerwald/Rhenish
White saltglazed stoneware
Stoneware, unidentifiable
UNIDENTIFIED MATERIAL AND
WARE TYPE
Totals
Palace Lands Archaeology
N vessels
N sherds
Total
%
5
0
1
6
2
1
1
4
1
4
3
6
2
0
9
1
5
9
8
3
1
2.0
0.2
1.1
2.0
1.8
0.7
0.2
8
2
0
11
1
8
19
3
8
4.3
0.7
1.8
24
15
1
0
0
3
0
101
77
0
2
84
4
13
125
92
1
2
84
7
13
28.0
20.6
0.2
0.4
18.8
1.6
2.9
1
2
0
3
12
0
0
1
5
1
1
24
1
6
2
7
1
4
36
1
6
0.4
1.6
0.2
0.9
8.1
0.2
1.3
87
360
447
100.0
Page 76
�Table 5.4
Ceramic Vessels by Ware Type, Vessel Category and Form, Foodways Group
Ware Type
American Stoneware
Buckley
Chinese Porcelain
Coarse Earthenware, unidentifiable
Colonoware
Creamware
Delftware, Dutch/British
English Soft-Paste Porcelain
Fulham Type Stoneware
Jackfield Type Earthenware
North Midlands/Staffordshire Slipware
Redware
Staffordshire Mottled Glaze
Westerwald/Rhenish Stoneware
Whieldon-type Ware
White Salt-Glazed Stoneware
Palace Lands Archaeology
Vessel Category and Form
Tableware, hollow form
Milk pan
Utilitarian, hollow form
Bowl
Plate
Saucer
Tableware, hollow form
Teabowl
Teaware, flat form
Teaware, hollow form
Utilitarian, hollow form
Bowl
Plate
Porringer
Coffee pot
Jug
Plate
Platter
Saucer
Sugar bowl
Teabowl
Teaware, flat form
Teaware, hollow form
Teaware, unidentified
Bowl
Flat form, unidentified
Hollow form, unidentified
Plate
Punch bowl
Tableware, hollow form
Teaware, hollow form
Utilitarian, hollow form
Teaware, hollow form
Teaware, unidentified
Storage jar
Utilitarian, hollow form
Teapot
Mug/tankard
Tableware, flat form
Utilitarian, hollow form
Mug/tankard
Mug/tankard
Tableware, hollow form
Creamer
Platter
Saucer
Bowl
Bowl, large
Plate
Plate or platter
Slop bowl
Tableware, flat form
Tableware, hollow form
Teabowl
Teaware, hollow form
Total
N vessels
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
5
1
8
2
1
1
2
4
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
Total
1
%
1.1
5
5.7
8
1
9.2
1.1
6
6.9
24
27.6
15
17.2
2
2.3
2
1
2.3
1.1
2
1
1
2.3
1.1
1.1
3
3.4
3
3.4
12
87
13.8
100.0
Page 77
�Ceramic Tablewares
The ceramic tablewares constitute 6.8 percent of the Foodways Group. The
assortment of tablewares (n=89) includes serving dishes and wares for the
consumption of foods and beverages. Once the unidentifiable ceramics were excluded
from the analysis, the tablewares represent 39.9 percent of the identifiable, foodwaysrelated ceramic assemblage (Table 5.5).
One approach to the analysis of slave-related, ceramic assemblages is to
consider the ratio of hollow forms to flat forms in order to determine to what degree
African-influenced meals (e.g., stews or “one-pot” meals) were consumed by site
inhabitants (e.g., Otto 1984). Sixty-five of the 89 tableware sherds and vessels can be
identified with regard to vessel category (hollow or flat) or specific vessel form. Four
general categories were evident for this assemblage: hollow forms for consuming
liquid-based meals, flat forms for consuming “dry” meals such as roasted meat cuts,
vessels for beverage service and consumption, and vessels for serving meals (Table
5.6). The majority of the identifiable tablewares, including all of the tableware sherds,
consist of ceramics for individual servings of a meal. Of these, both flat forms (plates
and plates/platters) and hollow forms (bowls and a porringer) are about equally
represented (see Table 5.6). These include the six colonoware vessels represented in
the Foodways Group. The colonoware vessels include four bowls, one plate and one
porringer. One bowl (235-33AS) consists of an everted rim fragment with incised
decoration (Figure 5.1). The colonoware porringer (237-33AS) is represented by a
burnished handle (Figure 5.2). In terms of vessels used to serve and distribute food
(3.1 percent), there are two platters, one each of feather-edged creamware and
Whieldon-type ware (see Table 5.6). The fourth category, beverage service and
consumption wares (9.2 percent), includes four mugs/tankards and two punch bowls
(see Table 5.6).
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 78
�Table 5.5
Identifiable Ceramics by Vessel Function and Form, Foodways Group
Vessel Function
Vessel Form
Tablewares
Bowl
Mug/tankard
Plate
Plate or platter
Platter
Porringer
Punch bowl
Tableware, flat form
Tableware, hollow form
Tableware, unidentified
Coffee pot
Food Preparation
and Storage
Total
%
8
4
10
2
2
1
2
2
8
0
1
N
sherds
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
14
11
24
0
8
4
11
2
2
1
2
16
19
24
1
3.6
1.8
4.9
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.9
7.2
8.5
10.8
0.4
Creamer
Saucer
Slop bowl
Sugar bowl
Teabowl
Teapot
Teaware, flat form
Teaware, hollow form
Teaware, unidentified
Jug
1
4
1
1
7
1
2
13
3
1
0
2
0
0
3
0
4
32
38
0
1
6
1
1
10
1
6
45
41
1
0.4
2.7
0.4
0.4
4.5
0.4
2.7
20.2
18.4
0.4
Milk pan
Utilitarian, hollow form
Storage jar
Grand Total
Tea/Coffee
Service
N
vessels
2
7
1
84
0
10
0
139
2
17
1
223
0.9
7.6
0.4
100.0
Totals
%
89
39.9
113
50.7
21
223
9.4
100.0
Note: The ceramics listed in this table are identifiable with regard to vessel form. The ceramics excluded
from this table (n=224) can only be identified with regard to vessel category (hollow or flat), or are
unidentifiable with regard to vessel form and category.
Table 5.6
Identifiable Ceramic Tablewares, Foodways Group
Food consumption, flat form
Food consumption, hollow form
Beverage service and consumption
Food service
Totals
N vessels
14
17
6
2
39
N sherds
15
11
0
0
26
Total
29
28
6
2
65
%
44.6
43.1
9.2
3.1
100.0
Note: The ceramics excluded from this table (n=24) can only be identified by vessel form as
“tableware” but are unidentifiable with regard to vessel category (hollow or flat).
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 79
�Figure 5.1. Colonoware bowl, rim fragment
(235-33AS). Photo courtesy of the Digital
Archaeological Archive of Comparative
Slavery (http://www.daacs.org/)
Figure 5.2. Colonoware porringer handle (230-33AS).
Photo courtesy of the Digital Archaeological Archive of
Comparative Slavery (http://www.daacs.org/)
Tea and Coffee Service Wares
The tea and coffee service wares (n=113) constitute 8.7 percent of the Foodways
Group (see Table 5.2). This diverse assemblage includes pots for tea and coffee,
teabowls and saucers, a sugar bowl, creamer and slop bowl (see Table 5.5). Of the
identifiable foodways-related ceramics, the tea and coffee service wares represent 50.7
percent of the total (see Table 5.5). The ceramic vessels in this category were
produced in a variety of ware types including creamware, white salt-glazed stoneware,
Chinese and English soft-paste porcelains, Whieldon-type ware and Jackfield (see
Table 5.4). A selection of the tea/coffee service vessels is shown in Figure 5.3.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 80
�Figure 5.3. Tea/coffee service vessels, (a) Jackfield teapot lid (238-33AS), (b) creamware sugar bowl lid
(183-33AS), (c) creamware coffee pot lid (284-33AS)
Ceramic Food Preparation and Storage Wares
There are 11 vessels and ten sherds in this category, which constitute 16
percent of the Foodways Group (see Table 5.2). Of the identifiable foodways-related
ceramic assemblage, the food preparation and storage wares represent 9.4% of the
total (see Table 5.5). The vessels in this group include two Buckley milk pans and one
Fulham stoneware storage jug (Figure 5.4; see Table 5.4). There is also one
creamware jug. The rest of the assemblage (n=17) can only be identified as “utilitarian,
hollow form”.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 81
�Figure 5.4. Food preparation and storage vessels, (a) Buckley milk pan (201-33AS), (b) Fulham-type
stoneware storage jar (230-33AS)
Unidentifiable Ceramics
There are 224 ceramic vessels (n=3) and sherds (n=221) that are either flat or
hollow forms but their form types (e.g., tableware, teaware, utilitarian, etc.) cannot be
identified, or the artifact was unidentifiable by vessel category and form (see Table
5.2). This portion of the ceramic assemblage includes three delftware vessels (25333AS, 265-33AS and 269-33AS), two of hollow form and one of flat form (see Table
5.4), and 221 sherds.
Glass Assemblage
Of the glass, there are 16 vessels and 819 fragments from feature contexts
which constitute 64 percent of the Foodways Group (DAACS 2006b). There are glass
tablewares, beverage storage vessels and containers, and unidentified glass (see Table
5.2). The glass beverage storage and container category, with wine bottles prevailing,
represents the largest foodways-related category at 48.6 percent of the total. The 835
glass vessels and fragments are summarized by form, material and color in Table 5.7.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 82
�Table 5.7
Glass Assemblage, Foodways Group
Material and Color
Tablewares
Drinking glass
Tableware, unid
Beverage Storage
and Containers
Bottle, unid
N
vessels
Total
%
Totals
%
Container, unid
0
2
2
55
2
57
0.2
6.8
59
7.1
lead, colorless
non-lead, aqua
non-lead, green
non-lead, light green
non-lead, green
non-lead, green
non-lead, light green
lead, colorless
non-lead, aqua
non-lead, green
non-lead, light green
0
0
0
0
2
12
0
0
0
0
0
3
7
19
10
0
540
4
14
18
1
4
3
7
19
10
2
552
4
14
18
1
4
0.4
0.8
2.3
1.2
0.2
66.1
0.5
1.7
2.2
0.1
0.5
634
75.9
lead, colorless
non-lead, aqua
non-lead, colorless
non-lead, green
non-lead, light green
non-lead, unid
Case bottle
Wine bottle
lead, colorless
lead, colorless
N
sherds
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
75
25
8
12
21
1
819
75
25
8
12
21
1
835
9.0
3.0
1.0
1.4
2.5
0.1
100.0
142
835
17.0
100.0
Unid Glass
Grand Total
Glass Tablewares
The two vessels and 57 glass fragments from this category constitute 4.5
percent of the Foodways Group (see Table 5.2). Glass tablewares include drinking
glasses and colorless lead glass that are probably fragments of either drinking glasses
or stemmed glasswares (see Table 5.7).
Glass Beverage Storage and Containers
There are 14 vessels and 620 glass fragments that in their original forms once
served to store beverages. This category constitutes 48.6 percent of the Foodways
Group (see Table 5.2) and includes case and wine bottles, unidentified bottles, and
unidentified containers (see Table 5.7).
While only two case bottles are represented in this category, 66.6 percent of the
glass foodways-related assemblage consists of non-lead, green or light green wine
bottles (see Table 5.7). The unidentified bottles and containers exhibit a greater range
of materials and colors (as compared to the wine bottles) from colorless, non-lead
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 83
�glass, to lead glass in aqua, green and light green. The category of “container”
consists of glass fragments that can only be identified as portions of hollow containers
but are otherwise too fragmentary to categorize as a bottle or more specific vessel form
(Aultman and Grillo 2003:5).
Unidentified Glass
The unidentified glass constitutes 10.9 percent of the Foodways Group (see
Table 5.2), and the 142 fragments of this group cannot be identified with regard to
form. There are fragments of lead and non-lead, colorless glass and non-lead glass
with colors ranging from aqua to green and light green which together represent 17
percent of the foodways-related glass assemblage (see Table 5.7).
Table Utensils
The 23 objects in this category amount to 18 percent of the Foodways Group
(see Table 5.2). All of the artifacts are incomplete, and just over half of the objects
cannot be identified with regard to specific form. There are 11 spoon fragments and
12 unidentified handle fragments (Table 5.8; DAACS 2006b). Although 18 objects are
listed in the DAACS “table utensils” query, five additional utensils can be found in the
DAACS “all other artifacts” query (1008-00012-NOS-00239 and 1008-00050-WTS00225; DAACS 2006b).
The majority of the utensils (47.8 percent) are molded spoon fragments of either
tin or lead alloy (see Table 5.8). Two of these are handle fragments with marks. The
first exhibits a maker’s mark of “H” (Figure 5.5), and the second has a postmanufacturing modification which consists of an incised Greek cross (Figure 5.6). The
unidentifiable two-piece utensil handles include eight bone fragments. One is a pistol
grip handle with evidence that the utensil once had a pointed tang. Two handles
exhibit a carved lattice design, and four handle fragments exhibit a cross-hatched
pattern. The last of the eight bone handles has a carved groove around the
circumference of the handle which may be a post-manufacturing modification. One
two-piece handle is tin plated (Figure 5.7). There are also three unidentifiable twopiece handles with rivet holes.
Table 5.8
Table Utensils, Foodways Group
Form
Spoon, one piece
Handle, two-piece, unidentified
Total
Palace Lands Archaeology
Description
Lead or tin alloy, molded
Bone, carved
Tin plating, molded
Unidentifiable
N
11
8
1
3
23
%
47.8
34.8
4.4
13.0
100.0
Page 84
�Figure 5.5. Table utensil, lead alloy spoon handle
with maker’s mark of “H” (63-33AS; 1008-00012NOS-00239). Illustration by Will Russell
Figure 5.6. Table utensil, lead alloy spoon handle
with incised Greek cross (20-33AS; 1008-00050WTS-00152). Illustration by Will Russell
Figure 5.7. Table utensil, tin-plated, two-piece handle (1008-00050-WTS-00154, 1008-00050-WTS00155, 1008-00050-WTS-00156 and 1008-00050-WTS-00157)
Architectural Group
The artifacts within the Architectural Group account for 42.19 percent of the
total number of artifacts (DAACS 2006b; see Table 5.1). This group is subdivided into
two major categories: building materials and door and window hardware (Table 5.9).
Of the Building Materials, most of the artifacts are either nails (54.55 percent) or
window glass fragments (31.65 percent). There are no whole artifacts represented in
the Door and Window Hardware category. The two window leads were retrieved from
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 85
�Feature 1 (sub-floor pit) and there are no impressed dates evident. One of the 34 iron
hinge fragments has a maker’s mark of N&I (1008-00019-DRS-00166).
Although structural remains were nearly absent at the site, the architectural
finds add a little more physical evidence to what the lone dwelling may have once
looked like. Based entirely upon the absence of postholes and builder’s trenches, the
dwelling is interpreted as having been a loghouse (see Chapter 6). The brick
fragments and shell mortar were used in the construction of the chimney that once
heated one room of the house. The window glass and window leads suggest that the
dwelling also had casement windows. It is possible that the lock part once served to
secure the front door. The relatively low number (n=14) of plaster fragments indicate
that the walls were plastered, although this does seem unlikely for a loghouse once
occupied by enslaved individuals.
Table 5.9
Architectural Group
Door and Window
Hardware
Form
Nail, iron
Window glass
Brick/daub
Mortar, shell
Plaster
Hinge, unid, iron
N
1308
759
153
126
14
34
%
54.55
31.65
6.38
5.25
0.58
1.42
Window came, lead
Latch, iron
Lock part, iron
Grand Total
Building Materials
2
1
1
2398
0.08
0.04
0.04
100.00
Totals
%
2360
98.42
38
2398
1.58
100.00
Sewing Equipment Group
There are 262 artifacts in this group comprising 4.61 percent of the artifact
assemblage (see Table 5.1; DAACS 2006b). All of the artifacts were recovered from the
sub-floor pit (Feature 1). The majority of the artifacts (96.9 percent) are straight pins,
which were produced in iron, copper alloy, and tinned copper alloy (Table 5.10). There
are also two iron alloy needle fragments; one is a shank fragment and the other is a
needle eye. The remainder of the assemblage includes two iron alloy scissor fragments
and four complete copper alloy thimbles (Figure 5.8). Two of the thimbles are small
and were most likely used by young girls.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 86
�Table 5.10
Sewing Equipment Group
Form and Material
Pin, straight, copper alloy
Pin, straight, iron
Pin, straight, tinned copper alloy
Thimble, copper alloy
Needle, iron
Scissors, iron
Total
N
240
9
5
4
2
2
Totals
%
254
4
2
2
262
96.9
1.5
0.8
0.8
100.0
Figure 5.8. Sewing Equipment Group; (a) copper alloy thimble (97-33AS; 1008-00054-WTS-00048), (b)
copper alloy thimble (24-33AS; 1008-00050-WTS-00190), (c) copper alloy thimble (83-33AS; 1008-00053WTS-00108), (d) copper alloy thimble (98-33AS; 1008-00054-WTS-00049).
Medicinal and Hygiene Group
The Medicinal and Hygiene Group includes objects that were once used for
personal grooming and hygiene/sanitation, and for health and healing (Table 5.11;
DAACS 2006b). The 118 objects in this group constitute 2.08 percent of the artifact
assemblage (see Table 5.1).
In terms of toiletries, there are three mirror fragments and two bone lice comb
fragments (1008-00050-WTS-00232 and 1008-00129-WTS-00106; see Table 5.11).
There is also one creamware chamber pot (292-33AS).
The bulk of the assemblage consists of health-related artifacts, including
pharmaceutical bottles which account for 89 percent of the group. The three vessels
and 102 fragments include leaded and non-lead glass (Table 5.12). Although most of
the pharmaceutical bottles are represented by small fragments, one nearly-complete
bottle and a base fragment were recovered from Feature 1 (sub-floor pit; Figure 5.9).
There are drug jars/salve pots represented by five delftware vessels (254-33AS, 255-
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 87
�33AS, 256-33AS, 258-33AS and 260-33AS) and one delftware sherd (1008-00050-FLT00003). A mended salve pot (254-33AS) is shown in Figure 5.10. The last object in
this group is a hollow bone nozzle portion of an enema syringe (50-33AS; 1008-00050WTS-00231). One end would have been encased in a gasket for a friction fit into the
rest of the syringe. The other end is pierced on both sides for internal irrigation in
multiple directions.
Table 5.11
Medicinal and Hygiene Group
Form
Pharmaceutical bottle
Drug jar/salve pot
Chamber pot
Mirror
Lice comb
Enema syringe
Total
N
105
6
1
3
2
1
118
%
89.0
5.1
0.8
2.5
1.7
0.8
100.0
Table 5.12
Pharmaceutical Bottle Assemblage, Medicinal and Hygiene Group
Material
Non-lead glass
Non-lead glass
Non-lead glass
Lead glass
Non-lead glass
Grand Total
Color
Aqua
Light Green
Gray/Smoky
Colorless
Colorless
Palace Lands Archaeology
N vessels
1
1
0
1
0
3
N fragments
50
26
16
9
1
102
Total
51
27
16
10
1
105
%
48.6
25.7
15.2
9.5
1.0
100.0
Page 88
�Figure 5.9. Medicinal and Hygiene Group, (a) non-lead glass, light green pharmaceutical bottle, base
fragment (1008-00050-WTS-00001) (b) non-lead glass, light green pharmaceutical bottle (1008-00050WTS-00053)
Figure 5.10. Medicinal and Hygiene Group, delftware salve pot (254-33AS). Photo courtesy of the Digital
Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (http://www.daacs.org/)
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 89
�Personal Group
The 32 artifacts in the Personal Group constitute 0.56 percent of the artifact
assemblage (see Table 5.1). The Personal Group is a catch-all group that includes
objects associated with leisure activities and childrearing (Table 5.13; DAACS 2006b).
There are three objects related to past participation in the market economy.
Two are coins: one is a Virginia halfpenny minted in 1773 (19-33AS; 1008-00050WTS-00244) and the other is a George II halfpenny minted in 1748 (79-33AS; 100800053-WTS-00128). The third object is a small, round lead alloy weight stamped with
the Roman numeral “1” (68-33AS; 1008-00019-DRS-00185; Figure 5.11). The rest of
the assemblage includes artifacts that can loosely be described as leisure-related
objects. The artifacts related to childrearing include two doll parts. One is a fragment
of a white porcelain doll’s head with one black eye intact (1008-00054-FLT-00014).
The other is a tear-shaped, white glass “eye” with a black dot painted in the center
(70-33AS; 1008-00053-WTS-00134). There are also eight toy marbles that could have
been used by both adults and children. A slate pencil fragment (1008-00277-DRS00070) is also present; the fragment measures 1.25 inches in length and has a
tapered end. The majority of the artifacts in this group, at 56.2 percent of the total,
are bone fan blade fragments, all of which were found within Feature 1.
Table 5.13
Personal Group
Form
Coin
Doll
Fan
Toy marble
Weight, unidentified
Writing slate
Total
N
2
2
18
8
1
1
32
%
6.3
6.3
56.2
25.0
3.1
3.1
100.0
Figure 5.11. Personal Group, lead alloy weight with the numeral “1” (68-33AS; 1008-00019-DRS00185). Illustration by Will Russell
Furniture Group
There are only six objects in the Furniture Group, which represents 0.11
percent of the artifact assemblage (see Table 5.1). The six objects are all copper alloy
upholstery tacks (DAACS 2006e).
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 90
�Tobacco Group
There are 105 artifacts in this group which constitute 1.85 percent of the
artifact assemblage (see Table 5.1; DAACS 2006b). The tobacco pipes, all of which
were imported, amount to 99.05 percent of the group (Table 5.14). There is also one
green, non-lead glass snuff bottle (220-33AS; 1008-00019-DRS-00117, 1008-00019DRS-00118, 1008-00278-DRS-00050 and 1008-00019-DRS-00119) that accounts for
0.95 percent of the group (see Table 5.14).
Of the 104 tobacco pipe fragments, there are 53 (51 percent) that have
indeterminate bore diameters. The bore diameters for the remaining 51 pipe
fragments are provided in Table 5.14. There are seven bowl fragments which exhibit
either a maker’s mark or some form of decoration (Table 5.15). The identifiable
maker’s marks include “SH” and “BU.”
Table 5.14
Tobacco Group
Form
N
Tobacco pipe
Tobacco pipe
Tobacco pipe
Tobacco pipe
diameter)
Total Pipes
Snuff bottle
Grand Total
(4/64; 1740-1770)
(5/64; 1710-1740)
(6/64; 1680-1710)
(indeterminate bore
37
13
1
53
104
1
105
% of Total Pipes
(n=104)
35.6
12.5
1.0
51.0
% of Total Artifacts
(n=105)
100.0
99.05
0.95
100.00
Table 5.15
Maker’s Marks and Decorative Elements, Tobacco Pipes
Maker's Mark or Decoration
SH
SH
BU
Geometric, unidentifiable
Rouletted
Punctated dots
Unidentifiable maker's mark
Artifact ID
1008-00053-FLT—00001
1008-00053-WTS—00008
1008-00050-WTS—00020
1008-00132-DRS—00001
1008-00275-WTS—00002
1008-00129-WTS—00016
1008-00012-NOS—00103
Tool Group
There are five tools (Table 5.16; DAACS 2006b) representing 0.09 percent of the
artifact assemblage (see Table 5.1). One tool (1008-00050-WTS-00205) cannot be
identified. There is one iron alloy handle that may be a pocket corkscrew fragment
(1008-00275-WTS-00023). The rake (1008-00050-WTS-00227) is represented by three
prongs of a rake head. The assemblage also includes a whetstone (1008-00276-DRS00003) and a fragment of a draw knife (1008-00050-WTS-00203).
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 91
�Table 5.16
Tool Group
Form and Material
Knife, draw, iron alloy
Rake, iron alloy
Tool, unidentified, iron alloy
Whetstone, sandstone
Handle, possible pocket corkscrew, iron alloy
Total
N
1
1
1
1
1
5
%
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
Native American Group
The Native American Group includes 11 artifacts (Table 5.17; DAACS 2006b), or
0.19 percent of the artifact assemblage (see Table 5.1). The prehistoric artifacts
collected from feature contexts are included in this chapter for several reasons. First,
these objects were probably found and curated by the site’s inhabitants as simple
curiosities or as objects that were given special meaning. For example, at the Nash
Site in Manassas, Virginia, an unearthed cache of six quartz crystals, a piece of
galena, and a quartz projectile point were interpreted as having ritual significance
(Jones 2001). The site was once occupied by an African-American family during the
late nineteenth century. It is also possible that objects like scrapers with functional
edges were re-used as tools by the site’s inhabitants. Finally, although the firecracked rock is categorized here as “Native American”, enslaved blacks also cooked
outdoors and it is possible that these artifacts were instead used and discarded by the
site’s inhabitants.
There are seven fragments of fire-cracked rock, one chert percussion flake, and
one quartzite scraper (see Table 5.17). There are also two quartz projectile points.
One is possibly a Savannah River Stemmed point (1008-00012-NOS-00223) dating to
the Archaic Period, and the other point fragment is unidentifiable (1008-00314-DRS00003).
Table 5.17
Native American Group
Form
Fire-cracked rock
Flake, percussion, chert
Point, quartzite
Scraper, quartzite
Total
N
7
1
2
1
11
%
63.6
9.1
18.2
9.1
100.0
Other Hardware Group
In this group, 29 artifacts are represented (Table 5.18; DAACS 2006b)
constituting 0.51 percent of the artifact assemblage (see Table 5.1). The majority of
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 92
�the assemblage (58.6 percent) consists of barrel hoop fragments. The singular items
include an iron hook, an iron pintle, an iron brace/angle fragment, a copper alloy
screw, and a modern washer that made its way into a ditch (F04). There are also two
iron tacks: one is complete and the other is a head and shank fragment. The three
wrought-iron staples include two round staples and one square staple. The last two
objects in this group are wrought-iron spikes.
Table 5.18
Other Hardware Group
Form
Barrel Hoop
Brace/Angle
Hook, unidentifiable
Pintle
Screw, unidentifiable
Spike
Staple
Tack, unidentifiable
Washer
Total
N
17
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
29
%
58.6
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
6.9
10.3
6.9
3.4
100.0
Arms Group
There are 12 artifacts in this group (Table 5.19; DAACS 2006b) which
constitute 0.21 percent of the artifact assemblage (see Table 5.1). The group includes
four lead alloy bullets and five lead alloy shot. The three gunflints include one
incomplete English gunflint of grey flint (1008-00053-WTS-00041) and two flakes (one
honey flint and one unidentifiable flint).
Table 5.19
Arms Group
Form and Material
Bullet, lead
Shot, lead
Gunflint, flint
Total
Palace Lands Archaeology
N
4
5
3
12
%
33.3
41.7
25.0
100.0
Page 93
�Clothing and Adornment Group
This group consists of 99 artifacts which account for 1.74 percent of the artifact
assemblage (see Table 5.1). The artifacts in this group include clothing hardware such
as buttons and shoe buckles, and adornment-related artifacts (Table 5.20; DAACS
2006b).
The clothing-related artifacts include one iron alloy clothing hook, four shoe
buckle fragments, and 59 buttons (see Table 5.20). The four shoe buckles include one
complete frame and three frame fragments with their tongues, hooks and pins
missing. The objects are cast copper alloy, single-framed, square/rectangular
buckles. Three of the four shoe buckles are shown in Figures 5.12 and 5.13. The
buttons account for 59.6 percent of the Clothing and Adornment Group (see Table
5.20; DAACS 2006e). The assemblage is fairly diverse with regard to size, material,
type and face decoration. In terms of type, most of the buttons are two-piece buttons
(n=42), and these include two two-piece, domed buttons, and one two-piece, semidomed button (Table 5.21). There are also three bone blanks/molds each with a
single hole. Two copper alloy buttons are flat discs with concave backs, and there are
also seven copper alloy flat-disc buttons and three pewter, flat-disc buttons. A single
one-piece, mother-of-pearl button has a copper shank. One button is represented by
a button shank only. With regard to material of manufacture (see Table 5.21), the
majority of the buttons have copper alloy faces (n=32) or are entirely made of copper
alloy (n=13). A selection of the buttons is shown in Figures 5.14, 5.15 and 5.16.
Table 5.20
Clothing and Adornment Group
Form
Bead
Button
Earring
Hook, clothing
Jewel, glass
Ring, finger
Shoe buckle
Total
Palace Lands Archaeology
N
23
59
1
1
8
3
4
99
%
23.2
59.6
1.0
1.0
8.1
3.0
4.0
100.0
Page 94
�Figure 5.12. Clothing and Adornment Group, (a) copper
alloy shoe buckle (25-33AS; 1008-00050-FLT-00020), (b)
copper alloy shoe buckle (81-33AS; 1008-00053-WTS00036). Illustration by Will Russell
Figure 5.13. Copper alloy shoe buckle
(123-33AS; 1008-00129-WTS-00002).
Illustration by Will Russell
Table 5.21
Button Assemblage, Clothing and Adornment Group
Button Type
One-piece
Two-piece
Two-piece, domed
Two-piece, semi-domed
Blank/Mold
Flat disc w/concave back
Flat Disc
Unid (shank only)
Total
Palace Lands Archaeology
Face Material
Shell
Cu Alloy
Missing
Cu Alloy
Cu Alloy
Cu Alloy
Missing
Cu Alloy
Cu Alloy
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Material
Not Applicable
Bone
Bone
Cu Alloy
Missing
Unidentifiable
Wood
Cu Alloy
Cu Alloy
Bone
Cu Alloy
Cu Alloy
Pewter
Unidentifiable
N
1
6
5
1
25
1
1
2
1
3
2
7
3
1
59
%
1.7
10.2
8.5
1.7
42.4
1.7
1.7
3.4
1.7
5.1
3.4
11.9
5.1
1.7
100.0
Page 95
�Figure 5.14. Clothing and Adornment Group; (a) copper alloy two-piece button with molded decoration
and bone back (33-33AS; 1008-00050-WTS-00141 and 1008-00050-WTS-00142), (b) copper alloy twopiece button with molded decoration and bone back (36-33AS; 1008-00050-WTS-00147 and 100800050-WTS-00148). Illustration by Will Russell
Figure 5.15. Clothing and Adornment Group; (a) copper
alloy, two-piece button with molded decoration and
missing back (34-33AS; 1008-00050-WTS-00143), (b)
copper alloy two-piece button with molded decoration and
bone back (87-33AS; 1008-00053-WTS--00081).
Illustration by Will Russell
Figure 5.16. Clothing and Adornment
Group; (left) tin alloy finger ring with a
silver wash (76-33AS; 1008-00053-WTS00130), (right) copper alloy flat-disc
button with missing shank (102-33AS).
Illustration by Will Russell
The adornment-related artifacts include beads and various forms of jewelry.
There are 23 beads (7 bead fragments and 16 complete beads) comprising 23.2
percent of the Clothing and Adornment Group (see Table 5.20; DAACS 2006e). One is
a wound, copper alloy bead, 15 are drawn glass beads and seven are wound glass
beads (Table 5.22). The colors listed under the “basic color group” entry in Table 5.22
are “the common English color names associated with the Munsell color ranges” used
by DAACS to catalog bead colors (DAACS 2006f). The discernable bead colors include
green, light green, gray and black. The majority of the beads (39.1 percent) are black,
barrel-shaped, drawn glass beads.
Of the jewelry, there is one small copper alloy ring that is probably an earring
fragment (1008-00050-WTS-00239), three finger rings, and eight glass jewels (see
Table 5.20). The finger rings include two carved bone rings (1008-00054-WTS-00061
and 1008-00129-WTS-00144) and a tin alloy ring with a silver wash (see Figure 5.16).
The latter ring was recovered from context 53 within Feature 1 (sub-floor pit) attached
to two other small copper alloy rings (Figure 5.17). The eight multi-faceted, glass
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 96
�jewels are without their cufflink settings; seven are blue and one is colorless. Seven of
the eight jewels were retrieved from Feature 1 (sub-floor pit) and are shown in Figure
5.18.
Table 5.22
Bead Assemblage, Clothing and Adornment Group
Material and Manuf Tech
Copper/copper alloy, wound
Glass, drawn
Glass, wound
Total
Shape
Sub-Spherical
Barrel
Barrel
Barrel
Barrel
Unidentifiable
Collared Spheroid
Spherical
Sub-Spherical
Sub-Spherical
Basic Color Group
Not applicable
Black
Green
Light green
Unidentifiable
Light green
Unidentifiable
Unidentifiable
Gray
Black
N
1
9
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
23
%
4.3
39.1
4.3
4.3
8.7
8.7
4.3
8.7
8.7
8.7
100.0
Figure 5.17. Clothing and Adornment Group; tin alloy ring with a silver wash (center; 1008-00053-WTS00130) as recovered from excavation attached to two copper alloy rings (photo taken prior to conservation)
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 97
�Figure 5.18. Clothing and Adornment Group, glass cufflink jewels/pastes (1008-00050-WTS-00223;
1008-00054-WTS-00064; 1008-00054-WTS-00065)
Horse and Transport Group
The eight objects in this group (Table 5.23; DAACS 2006b) amount to 0.14
percent of the artifact assemblage (see Table 5.1). The artifacts in this group are
evidence that draft animals were used at the site and that a horse or horses were
stabled there. The harness-related artifacts that were once used to attach either a
cart or equipment to a draft animal (or possibly for a horse and carriage) include two
copper alloy harness buckles. One buckle (1008-00053-WTS-00035) is a complete
double-framed, D-shaped buckle and the other (82-33AS; 1008-00053-WTS-00037) is
a fragment of a double-framed buckle (see Figure 5.12). There are also two harness
hooks. The first hook (1008-00275-WTS-00021) was attached to a whiffletree hook
and the second was a hook on the end of a whiffletree (1008-00302-DRS-00021).
There are two bits in the assemblage, and also a fragment of a saddle tree and a
stirrup fragment.
Table 5.23
Horse and Transport Group
Form and Material
Bit, harness, iron
Bit, snaffle, iron
Harness buckle, copper alloy
Harness hook, iron
Saddle tree, iron
Stirrup, iron
Total
Palace Lands Archaeology
N
1
1
2
2
1
1
8
%
12.5
12.5
25.0
25.0
12.5
12.5
100.0
Page 98
�Unidentified Artifact Group
There are 1,294 unidentified artifacts (Table 5.24; DAACS 2006b) that comprise
22.77 percent of the artifact assemblage (see Table 5.1). The majority of this group
(24.57 percent) consists of unidentifiable metal hardware. Although most of the
artifacts are either too fragmented or too poorly preserved to identify with certainty,
there are a small number of artifacts that have possible identifications. There is one
fragment of a bone handle (1008-00050-WTS-00180) and two iron alloy handle
fragments (1008-00012-NOS-00234 and 1008-00129-WTS-00117) that are probably
table utensil fragments. Of the ten unidentifiable metal rings, seven are made of
copper alloy; some of these could be curtain rings. The single, unidentified slate
fragment (1008-00054-FLT-00002) may be a portion of a writing slate. The fragment
has two or three parallel marks which may have been made with the slate pencil
recovered from the site. One unidentified copper alloy hardware fragment (43-33AS;
1008-00050-WTS-00234) is possibly a decorative finial for a piece of furniture (Figure
5.19).
Table 5.24
Unidentified Artifacts Group
Form
Corrosion/Rust
Handle, unidentified
Hardware, unidentified
Pebble (4-64mm)
Ring, unidentified
Scrap/Waste
Shatter
Sheeting
Slag
Slate, unidentified
Stone, natural
Strapping
Unidentified
Vessel
Wire
Total
Palace Lands Archaeology
Material
Metal
Bone
Metal
Metal
Unidentifiable
Metal
Mineral
Metal
Metal
Stone
Metal
Composite
Stone
Stone
Metal
Ceramic
Bone, carved
Glass
Metal
Stone
Synthetic
Unidentifiable
Metal
Metal
N
278
1
2
318
1
251
2
10
20
3
120
14
1
1
1
1
1
97
129
25
2
1
7
8
1294
%
21.48
0.08
0.15
24.57
0.08
19.40
0.15
0.77
1.55
0.23
9.27
1.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
7.50
9.97
1.93
0.15
0.08
0.54
0.62
100.00
Page 99
�Figure 5.19. Unidentified Artifact Group, copper alloy hardware, possible finial (43-33AS; 1008-00050WTS-00234)
Other Notable Artifacts
As stated at the beginning of this chapter, the plowzone artifacts and organic
finds (e.g., charcoal and shells) were to be excluded from the descriptive analysis of
the artifact assemblage. There are, however, a small number of finds that are
nonetheless worth commenting on.
The first artifact is a bottle seal (12-33AS; 1008-00023-DRS-00055) recovered
from plowzone context 23. The bottle seal is complete and reads “T. Everard 1768”
(Figure 5.20). Thomas Everard was twice mayor of Williamsburg and he owned a
house on the Palace Green next to the Governor’s Palace. He was also a wealthy
planter and slaveowner (Samford 1999:81-82). The bottle seal is noted here since it
presents the intriguing possibility of an exchange network between Everard’s enslaved
blacks and those who belonged to John Coke.
Another unique artifact recovered from the plowzone (context 14) is a lead alloy
whirligig (8-33AS), a child’s toy. Ivor Noël Hume (1972:320-321) wrote that a whirligig
was “a serrated-edged disc with two holes through the middle and mounted on a loop
of string. By twisting the string and then pulling the ends tight the disc could be
made to saw the air, creating a buzzing noise.”
Finally, although ecofacts were excluded from the discussion of the artifact
assemblage, there are fossil shells that were recovered from feature contexts (including
Feature 1) that may have been used for adornment. Some of the shells have
wormholes centered near the hinge that would have allowed someone to string and
wear them (Figure 5.21). Archaeologists recovered similar shells from the Rich Neck
Slave Quarter site and the Utopia slave quarter site (Fesler 2004:383). This pattern
suggests that enslaved Africans curated and used the shells during the eighteenth
century, at least within the Williamsburg area.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 100
�Figure 5.20. Bottle seal, “T Everard 1768” (12-33AS; 1008-00023-DRS-00055). Illustration by Will
Russell
Figure 5.21. Selection of fossil shells recovered from the Palace Lands site
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 101
�Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 102
�Chapter 6 – Interpretations
Introduction
Excavations at the Palace Lands site exposed the remains of a single dwelling
and a number of landscape features associated with the tenure of enslaved Virginians
from circa 1747-1769. These individuals lived and worked at what was then
considered a middling plantation consisting of 200 acres on the margins of
Williamsburg. Their owner, John Coke, was a goldsmith who managed to increase his
wealth and earning potential by operating a plantation and tavern, as well as by
investing in Williamsburg property. In addition to his acreage, Coke held title to a
house and five lots in town that he leased. Along with the livestock and other items
listed in his 1768 probate inventory (see Appendix F), Coke held nine individuals in
bondage, more so than most of his neighbors at the time (see Chapter 3). As is so
often the case, the archival record stops short of revealing who these individuals were
beyond their name, relative age, and monetary value. While it was impossible to
determine which of them were Coke’s field hands, there are some clues regarding the
site’s inhabitants.
In addition to summarizing the evidence regarding the site’s built environment,
and the likely composition of the household that lived there, this chapter takes up the
research questions posed earlier (see Chapter 2) regarding whether and how domestic
life may have differed on Coke’s plantation when compared to what enslaved field
hands experienced on grander plantations. Given the relative dearth of archaeological
research on middling plantations, it was decided that a comparative study, rather
than one focused solely on the Palace Lands assemblage, would result in more
potentially useful interpretations of enslaved lifeways. Of course, many aspects of
everyday life, especially the drudgery of working in the fields, was shared across
plantations both large and small. Enslaved field hands on Virginia plantations worked
in teams from sun up to sundown and had to negotiate meeting their own needs and
desires with that of the enforced labor demands. Despite the enormous constraints on
household life imposed by slavery, we know that those living at plantations like
Monticello (Kelso 1986), Poplar Forest (Heath 1999a), Carter’s Grove (Walsh 1997),
and Mount Vernon (Schwarz 2001) managed to assert some degree of autonomy within
the domestic sphere. Did this hold true for the minority of field hands who labored on
the hundreds of middling plantations that dotted the colonial landscape?
This concluding chapter begins with a discussion of the evidence related to the
sole dwelling discovered at the site to try and determine how the house may have been
constructed. It considers the landscape features related to the site’s occupation as
well. Using both the historic sources and archaeological data, I then attempt to
address the question of who likely lived at the site. Finally, the bulk of this chapter’s
discussion focuses on the research questions that drove the artifact analysis. The
results of the comparative analysis of the Palace Lands artifacts with two other slave
quarter assemblages are presented.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 103
�The Built Environment
By the time John Coke purchased his 200 acres in 1747, previous owners had
already used the land for planting for at least 40 years prior. The Palace Lands site
was located on the southernmost portion of the parcel that was referred to in early
eighteenth-century land transactions as “Whaley’s Old Field,” where James and Mary
Whaley established their plantation home (see Chapter 2). Still, with the work of a
small number of enslaved field hands, the soil continued to yield subsistence and cash
crops. When advertised in 1769 for sale or lease, the property was described as
“…exceeding good land, and in order for cropping.” There was ample room for Coke’s
cattle, horses, and sheep, and most of the acreage was wooded at the time providing
lumber for sale and use on the plantation. Tributaries of Queen’s Creek wove through
the property providing fresh water, and Capitol Landing Road crossed through it,
which eased the transport of crops for sale, and the movement of people to and from
town. The site’s inhabitants had plenty of natural resources at hand to help
supplement their diet and clearly capitalized on their close proximity to woodlands
and nearby Queen’s Creek. Among the faunal remains there was evidence for the
consumption of raccoon, opossum, and turtle, and a range of freshwater fish
(including striped bass, catfish, and white perch).
Whether the dwelling that once stood on the site was already there when Coke
bought the land, or was built anew to house his enslaved blacks is unknown. There
were ceramics recovered from the site that were produced prior to 1747 (e.g.,
Delftwares, white salt-glazed stonewares), but these all have production dates that
overlap with or exceed the site’s occupation span. According to architectural historian
Willie Graham (personal communication, 2007), the house was likely a log structure
that sat on the ground. The house probably started out as a one-room dwelling with a
brick end chimney. A second room was then added and the dwelling’s inhabitants
subsequently dug a large root cellar into the new addition’s dirt floor. The dwelling
also had glass windows, shards of which were recovered from a number of feature
contexts, including a dense concentration from Feature 4. The house was somewhat
anomalous when compared to contemporaneous dwellings for enslaved Virginians
which typically had multiple root cellars and a mud-and-stick chimney. The single
root cellar suggests that the house was built to accommodate a family (Fesler 2004).
The feature TPQs (see Table 4.8, Chapter 4) indicate that the site’s ditches and
post-and-rail fences were constructed following occupation of the house. In all
likelihood, the fences were built first, probably to corral Coke’s livestock, and the
ditches were added along one fenceline to prevent rainwater from prematurely rotting
the wooden fence posts. Mottled clay and thin lenses of silt at the bottom of the
ditches indicate that these were regularly dug out to catch rainwater which inevitably
eroded ditch walls over time. Overlapping postholes and multiple postmolds in the
same postholes point to the replacement of fence posts as needed. This occurred
during the operation of Coke’s plantation and also during the subsequent occupation
near the site.
Although enslaved Virginians commonly kept subsistence gardens (Heath and
Bennett), no evidence of one was found at the site. The flotation samples (see
Appendix D) collected have yet to be processed, but likely contain the remains of
charred seeds of domesticated garden species. The site’s residents undoubtedly raised
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 104
�domestic fowl as among the faunal remains there were domesticated turkey and
chicken bones. The only other archaeological clues relating to landscape use were the
remnants of past activities scattered across the area in the form of debris. Discarded
pottery and container fragments, food remains and other refuse ended up in both
postholes and ditches, and were deliberately used to fill in the defunct root cellar.
Northwest of the house (in relation to the excavation grid), there was a deep ravine (see
Figure 4.6, Chapter 4) that excavators tested. Filled only with mid-eighteenth-century
artifacts, the ravine was a natural feature used to dispose of refuse.
Despite two intensive surveys of the site area, archaeologists identified the
remains of only one dwelling. The artifacts recovered from its related features confirm
that the dwelling’s inhabitants lived there during Coke’s ownership of the plantation.
The quarter’s likely social organization is addressed in the next section.
Social Organization at the Palace Lands Site
By the second half of the eighteenth century, field hands on Chesapeake plantations
increasingly raised corn, tobacco and wheat as the plantation economy shifted
towards crop diversification. The number of field hands varied, but the wealthiest
planters usually kept a minimum of ten full hands and their family members at each
of their satellite plantations (Walsh 1993). Thus, it was common to find 15 to 20 fulland part-time field hands, including adults and children of varying ages, residing at
any one quarter. Their communities were most often composed of multiple
households which relied on one another both within the fields and the domestic
sphere. Ties of kinship, both fictive and real, and the shared experiences of
deprivation and enslavement fostered close-knit communities.
Coke’s plantation quarter housed a much smaller population of field hands who
bore the responsibility of raising his crops and livestock. Coke’s probate inventory
(see Chapter 3 and Appendix F) is the best historical source that can shed some light
on who may have occupied the site. Its date of 1768 closely coincides with the end of
occupation at the quarter around 1769, when his heirs put the plantation, livestock,
and several enslaved individuals up for sale. There were five adult males – Tom,
Squire, Debford, James, and Phill – three adult females – Lucy, Alice, Sylvia, and a
child, Judith, listed in Coke’s probate. Although it is not known for certain which of
these individuals lived at Coke’s plantation, the artifacts suggest that a woman and
her female child were residing there at some point. Among the assemblage are doll
fragments and two child-sized thimbles, presumably used by a young girl learning to
sew. Since enslaved women were the primary caretakers of their children, the girl’s
mother was almost certainly living with her.
The mother’s possessions included the sewing implements, a possible earring
fragment, and portions of a fan recovered from the site. Enslaved households
consisting of women with their children were not uncommon in colonial Virginia, but
the evidence of firearms and metal buttons more often used for men’s clothing
suggests that at least one adult male lived at the site (Fesler 2004:378-384; Galle
2010). This individual(s) was more than likely related to the mother and daughter. By
the time the quarter was occupied, it was common practice among slaveowners to
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 105
�assign individual houses to families. Whether he was a spouse and father, or another
child that reached adulthood on the plantation, will never be known.
Based on the evidence, it is proposed that a household composed of kin-related
family members, including at least two females and one male, resided at Coke’s
plantation. However, given the twenty-year occupation span of the quarter, it’s
possible that different groups lived at the site over time, including ones composed of
unrelated, single men. Garrett Fesler’s (2004:95) study of household formation
patterns across small (less than eight enslaved individuals present) and large
plantations indicated that for the former, co-resident families of any kind were less
frequent than for the latter. Thus, the presence of a household at Coke’s was not the
norm for middling plantations.
The handful of individuals assigned to live and work on Coke’s plantation were
responsible for a multitude of tasks. In addition to planting, his field hands tended
Coke’s cattle, sheep, and horses. With ample wooded acreage, the male(s) living there
undoubtedly felled trees for use at Coke’s various properties and for sale. There is
also the strong possibility that the field hands were required to work from time to time
off the plantation. Although he owned eight adults at the time of his death, Coke’s
various business interests coupled with maintaining a gentile home life with live-in
domestics likely kept his enslaved workers constantly busy. One can imagine people
filling in as needed at Coke’s tavern, or doing miscellaneous chores at his home, shop,
and rental properties. It was also common practice to hire out enslaved laborers.
Thus, the range and scheduling of tasks for Coke – some of which required time away
from the quarter – may have made it more difficult to balance institutional labor with
household needs. Moreover, the cooperative network that typified slave quarter
communities on grand plantations was absent at Coke’s quarter. Its sole household
would have shouldered the burden of the daily and weekly tasks deemed necessary for
creating and maintaining a home life.
Comparative Analysis of Household Assemblages
The Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) facilitates a
comparative analysis of assemblages by standardizing artifact identification and
cataloging for the sites within its archive. In addition to the Palace Lands site, two
other sites were chosen for this analysis based on their periods of occupation,
location, and factors related to planter wealth: the demographic of the slave quarters,
labor management, and likely provisioning system. The sites in question are the Rich
Neck (44WB52) and Utopia IV (44JC787) slave quarters. It must be noted that
previous publications on both sites are referenced in this chapter (Fesler 2004;
Franklin 2004). Since the authors did not use DAACS-generated inventories to
perform their analyses, and also included artifacts from a higher number of contexts
for their research, there are discrepancies between their results and in what follows.
The Rich Neck and Utopia IV Slave Quarters
Situated on the outskirts of Williamsburg, the Rich Neck slave quarter dates
from circa 1700 to the 1770s with abandonment sometime after 1773. Rich Neck was
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 106
�one of nine tobacco plantations owned by Phillip Ludwell III and operated as a
“satellite,” or outlying, plantation consisting of 3,865 acres. The land had been in the
family and used for tobacco planting since the 1660s. During the seventeenth
century, Rich Neck was home to the slaveowning family, indentured servants, and
enslaved Africans (Muraca et al. 2003). The Ludwells later removed to Green Spring
plantation and a manager was hired to oversee work. In 1760, Ludwell III and his
family departed to England where he died in 1767. Rich Neck is the only one of the
three sites for which there is firm evidence, in the form of Ludwell’s 1767 probate, of
who lived at the site at the time of his death. The quarter was home to 21 enslaved
individuals of varying ages and genders; there were small children and women and
men of advanced age. Given that the site was continuously occupied by field hands
belonging to the same wealthy family over decades, its inhabitants undoubtedly
formed multiple kin-related households with generational depth. The quarter’s
occupation consisted of two dwellings, with the earliest (68AP) dating to circa 17001740 (Agbe-Davies 1999). The second dwelling (68AL), a two-room duplex with a
central hearth, was inhabited between 1740 to the 1770s. Two households once
resided in this duplex, and only the artifacts associated with their tenure were
included in the analysis. Upon Ludwell III’s death, trustees controlled the property
until his daughter Lucy Paradise inherited Rich Neck in 1770. Lucy and her husband,
John, were also absentee slaveowners.
The second site, Utopia, was once part of the 1,280-acre Littletown/Utopia
plantation located along the James River. Enslaved field hands occupied Utopia
beginning in the 1670s when the plantation was owned by Thomas Pettus (Fesler
2004:6). As ownership of Littletown/Utopia changed over time, four sequential groups
of enslaved laborers resided at the Utopia quarter until the 1770s. Archaeologists
numbered each occupation phase and their related features ending with Utopia IV
(circa 1745-1775). In 1745, Lewis Burwell IV acquired a portion of the original tract
that included Utopia upon his marriage to James Bray III’s widow, Frances Thacker
Bray. At the time, Burwell was already a wealthy planter and resided nearby on his
1,500-acre Kingsmill Plantation (Kelso 1984). By the 1760s, Burwell owned about 100
enslaved Virginians (Fesler 2004:135) and hired a succession of overseers to supervise
his holdings. Fesler (2004:126) noted that 27 individuals, related through kinship and
marriage, lived at Utopia IV. They were almost certainly the same field hands
quartered there when their previous owner, James III, died. Utopia IV’s occupation
was represented by three dwellings, including a duplex. Like the Rich Neck dwelling,
two households occupied this duplex, referred to as Structure 140. Only the artifacts
associated with Structure 140 were considered for analysis.
All three of the quarters were located within four miles of the colonial capital of
Williamsburg. Coke’s plantation was less than a mile from town, Rich Neck within two
miles, and Utopia was about four miles southeast of town. Unlike John Coke, Burwell
and Ludwell were considered the elite of Virginia society, and possessed large
slaveholdings and multiple plantations. Coke was likely the only one of the three who
had direct and regular dealings with his field hands. His Williamsburg residence was
close to his plantation and within an easy horse ride up Capitol Landing Road, and
there is no evidence to suggest that he hired an overseer.
To summarize, the artifacts from the three quarters chosen for analysis date
mainly to the third quarter of the eighteenth century. All three quarters were occupied
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 107
�by field hands, and were located within a four-mile radius of Williamsburg. They
differed, however, with respect to their number of inhabitants and the status and
wealth of the planters who owned them. Coke owned nine enslaved individuals, of
which several composed a single household quartered on his plantation for a period of
20 years. Over 20 individuals lived at each Rich Neck and Utopia IV. These
communities were composed of multiple households whose members were kin-related,
with some generational depth present among them. The duplexes (Structure 140 and
68AL) at both quarters each served as the residence for two households for a period of
about 25-30 years.
The Artifact Assemblages
The Palace Lands assemblage was used as the starting point to determine
which artifact groups would be used for comparison (Table 6.1). As noted in Chapter
5, the assemblage is characteristic of those from Virginia slave quarter sites in general,
even though Coke’s plantation was a modest one. Thus, as expected, all of the artifact
groups for the Palace Lands were likewise represented by both the Rich Neck and
Utopia IV assemblages. Most of the specific artifact groups chosen for analysis reflect
eighteenth-century activities that crossed racial and class lines: tobacco smoking,
foodways, childrearing (including social reproduction), and health and hygiene. Some
tasks straddled plantation and household labor, including raising subsistence crops
and making repairs to fences and dwellings; artifacts within the Tools Group were
implicated in both. Thus, while the use of categories for analytical purposes is helpful
and necessary, they can simultaneously hinder interpretations if adhered to too
closely. For example, items from the Clothing and Adornment group blur the
boundaries between personal possession and individuality, and the role of the
household in socializing children into gendered subjects.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 108
�Table 6.1
Artifact Groups and Related Forms
Artifact Group
Arms
Forms
Bullet, Gunflint, Shot
Clothing and
Adornment
Foodways
Aiglet, Bead, Buckle, Button, Cufflink, Earring, Hook, Eye, Jewel, Pin,
Ring, Stud
Ceramic: Bowl, Coffee pot, Creamer, Cup, Jelly mold, Jug, Milk pan,
Mug/can, Mug/tankard, Plate, Platter, Porringer, Punch bowl, Saucer,
Slop bowl, Storage vessel, Sugar bowl, Teabowl, Tea pot, Unid:
Tableware, Unid: Teaware, Unid: Utilitarian, Unid: Ceramics
Glass: Case bottle, Stemware, Stopper, Tumbler, Unid:bottle, Wine bottle
Metal: Cork screw, Flesh fork, Hook, pot; Lid, Pot, Pan, Utensil
Bone: Utensil handle
Candlestick, Curtain ring, Furniture hardware, Heater insert, Upholstery
tack
Chamber pot, Drug jar/salve pot, Enema syringe, Lice comb, Mirror,
Pharmaceutical bottle
Coin, Cowrie shell, Doll, Fan, Fishing weight, Ice skate, Jaw harp,
Marble, Strike-a-light, Unid weight, Writing slate
Needle, Scissors, Straight pin, Thimble
Snuff bottle, Tobacco pipe
Auger, Axe, Chisel, Draw knife, Drill, Ferrule, File, Gimlet, Hammer,
Hoe, Folding knife, Rake, Saw, Scythe, Socket chisel, Tool handle, Unid
tool, Wedge, Whetsone
Furnishings
Medicinal and
Hygiene
Personal
Sewing
Tobacco
Tools
Most of the recovered finds were excluded from the analysis either because they
didn’t fall into one of the chosen artifact groups, or were not from archaeological
contexts associated with the enslaved households in question. Of the former, these
included architectural remains, horse and carriage hardware, miscellaneous hardware
such as bolts and screws, slag, ecofacts (faunal and botanical remains), lithics,
charcoal, and unidentified artifacts. There were also a number of artifacts with
ambiguous identifications, such as “unidentified knife,” “finial,” or “boss” that could
not easily be categorized into a specific group. Unidentifiable ceramics, however, were
retained and categorized with the Foodways Group since most of the ware types were
those commonly produced as tablewares and for tea service. The grand total of
artifacts and ecofacts from each site is represented in Table 6.2, which also indicates
the percentages of the finds that were ultimately considered for analysis.
Table 6.2
Total Number of Artifacts and Ecofacts by Site
Palace Lands
N artifacts used
for analysis
N artifacts and
ecofacts
excluded
Grand Totals
Str 140 Utopia IV
68AL Rich Neck
N
1802
%
5.5
N
2071
%
6.40
N
3026
%
1.00
30531
94.43
30307
93.60
301078
99.00
32333
100.00
32378
100.00
304104
100.00
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 109
�The much higher artifact count for Rich Neck (DAACS 2012a) is mainly due to
the flotation sampling protocol followed during excavations (Franklin 2004;
Mrozowski, Franklin, and Hunt 2008). While flotation samples were also collected
from Utopia and the Palace Lands, at Rich Neck nearly all of the feature fill underwent
flotation. The vast majority of the 304,104 finds were faunal specimens, fish, in
particular. With respect to the contexts chosen for analysis, the Palace Lands site
witnessed a later site occupation, thus only those artifacts associated with the
eighteenth-century site inhabitants (namely, from feature contexts) were included. For
Utopia IV, only artifacts retrieved from feature contexts (mainly subfloor pits)
associated with Structure 140 were included (Appendix L; DAACS 2012b). Likewise,
only artifacts recovered from Structure 68AL feature contexts (Appendix M) at Rich
Neck were considered.
It would have been ideal to compare single households across the sites,
however, ceramic crossmend evidence for Rich Neck precluded this possibility.
Contiguous crossmends linked the deposition of fill between features in both cabins of
the duplex there, as well as with plowzone contexts (Franklin 2004). It was clear that
as root cellars fell out of use over time, both households residing in the duplex used
refuse gathered from their communal midden to backfill their cabin’s subfloor pits.
Thus, it was impossible to associate any of the artifacts with specific households.
While there was no ceramic crossmend evidence for Utopia IV, it’s probable that the
inhabitants of Structure 140 likewise backfilled defunct subfloor pits in similar
fashion.
Research Questions
Each of the three research questions posed in Chapter 2 are considered in what
follows.
1. Since the number of field hands at Coke’s was lower than at large plantations, did
this have detrimental effects on their ability to balance institutional with household
labor?
More broadly speaking, this question is about how enslaved field hands on
small plantations coped without the social networks typical of larger slave quarter
communities that were crucial for a number of reasons. Inter-household dependence
was based on cooperation in domestic and agricultural work, and strengthened
through mutual obligations in sharing skills, knowledge, and resources. Moreover,
most of these large quarter communities, including Rich Neck’s and Utopia IV’s, were
related by blood and marriage (Kulikoff 1986; Walsh 1997). Parents could rely on
their relations to care for their children in their absence, and elders too old to labor in
the fields were often taken in by family members. This offered some sense of stability
and peace of mind to enslaved field hands. In addition, Burwell and Ludwell had at
their disposal a large labor force that included skilled artisans and domestics. Thus,
field hands at Utopia IV and Rich Neck mainly spent their time on the plantation
working. Coke’s management of his workforce may have varied, with his enslaved
men and women rotating between his different business interests as needed. If the
scheduling of tasks required his field hands to work in town, there would have been
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 110
�periodic disruptions in their home life. Unable to consistently invest time in the
chores that were essential for creating and maintaining a domestic life, one would
expect their assemblage to differ from that of Rich Neck’s and Utopia IV’s.
At first glance, the relative percentages of each artifact group, save for Tobacco,
and to a lesser extent, Foodways and Sewing, are similar (Table 6.3 and Figure 6.1).
Artifacts associated with foodways, especially wine bottles and ceramics, are typically
the first or second largest artifact group (behind architectural remains) for historic
dwelling sites owing to a number of factors including the use life and breakage
patterns of ceramics and glass, their post-depositional preservation, and the
predominance of food-related activities that took place at these sites. Other than the
regularity with which they appear in much smaller numbers than architectural and
foodways-related artifacts, there is not a well-defined pattern of relative frequencies for
the remainder of identifiable artifacts from slave quarters. This holds true for the
assemblages considered here. As mentioned previously, the assemblages are so alike
as to suggest that the domestic life of enslaved field hands was strikingly similar in
terms of the range of tasks they performed, their leisurely pursuits, and the material
culture they had at their disposal.
Yet, in practice, there was one potential, significant difference: the burden of
the workload, especially for gender-specific tasks. Enslaved women bore the
responsibility for much of the domestic work, including food preparation, sewing,
childrearing, laundering, and keeping house in general (Fesler 2004; Franklin 2001;
Galle 2004; Jones 1985:29-43; Schwartz 1996; Wilkie 2003; Yentsch 1994). The
female social networks of larger quarters helped to alleviate the stress of balancing
agricultural work with domestic chores, as women came together to perform a number
of these tasks (White 1985). The mother at Coke’s quarter managed to meet the
expectations of her household, but at what cost to herself? Without other women
residing nearby, she was charged with raising her daughter and tending to the needs
of her family while expected to work in the fields. There are two possible scenarios.
One is that if the gendered social norms of household labor was adhered to at Coke’s,
the matriarch there had a greater domestic burden but was still able to meet the
needs of her family. Alternatively, the adults of the household shifted to a more
flexible social organization of chores, crossing gender lines as needed to complete
tasks. Thus, it is important to consider the social organization of labor in addition to
the kinds of labor suggested by the results of the artifact analysis.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 111
�Table 6.3
Artifact Groups by Site
Artifact Group
Arms
Clothing and
Adornment
Foodways
Furnishings
Medicinal and Hygiene
Personal
Sewing
Tobacco
Tools
Totals
Palace Lands
N
%
12
0.7
99
5.5
1164
6
118
32
262
105
4
1802
64.6
0.3
6.5
1.8
14.5
5.8
0.2
100.0
Str 140 Utopia IV
N
%
4
0.2
126
6.1
1004
15
184
23
66
609
40
2071
48.5
0.7
8.9
1.1
3.2
29.4
1.9
100.0
68AL Rich Neck
N
%
52
1.7
169
5.6
1593
20
74
30
261
811
16
3026
52.6
0.7
2.4
1.0
8.6
26.8
0.5
100.0
Figure 6.1. Percentages of artifact groups by site
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 112
�2. Did Coke provision his enslaved field hands in similar ways to elite planters, and if
not, how might this have influenced their home life?
Wealthy slaveowners like Ludwell and Burwell provided field hands with food
rations, some clothing and shoes, a blanket, and a few basic provisions that included,
usually, an iron pot and/or frying pan for cooking, and tools (Walsh 1997:90-93). It
appears that Coke, although of more moderate means, followed suit. The
archaeological remains of iron cooking wares and tools are normally either absent, or
present in small numbers – almost always as fragments rather than whole – at slave
quarter sites. There were no recovered metal cooking wares from Palace Lands, while
small numbers were retrieved from Structure 140 at Utopia IV and Rich Neck (Table
6.4). Similarly, relatively low numbers of tools were recovered from all three sites (see
Tables 6.3 and 6.5).
Table 6.4
Metal Foodways-related Objects by Site
Form
Corkscrew
Hook, pot
Lid
Pan
Pot
Pot
Material
Iron
Iron
Iron
Copper alloy
Copper alloy
Iron
Totals
Palace Lands
N
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Str 140 Utopia IV
N
0
6
1
2
0
4
13
68AL Rich Neck
N
1
0
0
0
1
1
3
Table 6.5
Tools Group and Related Activities by Site
Palace Lands
Activity
Agriculture,
gardening
Woodworking
,
construction
Multipurpose
Blade
Sharpener
Unidentified
Form
Hoe, Rake, Scythe
N
1
%
25.0
Str 140
Utopia IV
N
%
10
25.0
68AL Rich
Neck
N
%
4
25.0
Adze, Auger, Axe, Chisel,
Drill bit, File, Gimlet,
Hammer, Draw Knife, Saw,
Socket chisel, Wedge
Folding Knife
1
25.0
11
27.5
8
50.0
0
0.0
10
25.0
0
0.0
Whetstone
1
25.0
4
10.0
3
18.8
Ferrule, Handle, Unid Tool
Totals
1
4
25.0
100.0
5
40
12.5
100.0
1
16
6.3
100.0
Cooking implements, in particular, seem to have been provisioned in low
quantities: one to two pots or pans per quarter, not per household (Fesler 2004:357358; Kern 2005:262). The 1767 probate inventory for Rich Neck lists axes, wedges,
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 113
�three harrow teeth, 23 hoes, a grindstone, and two iron pots. The two pots were
presumably shared by the quarter’s three to four households. What Burwell
provisioned for Utopia is unknown, but the 1726 probate for one former owner, James
Bray II, lists one iron pot each for most of his outlying plantation quarters (Fesler
2004:427-431). Coke’s 1768 probate does not distinguish between the various
properties inventoried. However, it may be that the quarter was inventoried first.
Nestled in between the itemization of livestock, including “24 head of cattle” and
horses, is a one-line entry for “1 iron pot, 1 frying pan [torn] oxen.” Near the bottom of
the probate is a list of tools likely provisioned for the quarter: “6 axes, 3 spades, 7
hoes, garden rake, 2 forks.” Not surprisingly, slaveowners ensured that field hands
had ample tools for labor, but felt that upwards of three to four households should
make do with one to two pots.
There are at least two reasons why metal tools and cook wares, though
regularly used, constitute relatively low percentages of assemblages. Their durability
was surely a factor, and they required less replacement over time. Thus, their discard
rate was much lower than for ceramics, for example. Second, the tools and iron cook
pots listed in probates, like people and livestock, were considered the property of
slaveowners (Gaynor et al. 1988:32). At the time of site abandonment, these items, if
still in working condition, were curated and re-used elsewhere or sold.
On a case-by-case basis, slaveowners provided firearms. Usually given to a
trusted male for hunting, rather than as a provision for a quarter, evidence for
firearms use is commonly recovered from slave quarter sites. As with tools and pots,
however, artifacts related to their use are small in number (see Table 6.3; Table 6.6).
It is important to note that the evidence of firearms use at slave quarters is almost
always in the form of lead shot or bullets, gunflints, and more indirectly, the faunal
remains of large game like white-tailed deer. Such was the case for the Palace Lands,
Utopia IV duplex, and Rich Neck. It is rare to find gun or rifle parts at these sites
(although seven fragments were discovered within other feature contexts at Utopia).
As with metal pots, this is due to their durability, the care that owners imparted to
firearms, that only one or two were used at a quarter, and curation.
Table 6.6
Arms Group by Site
Form
Bullet
Gunflint
Shot
Totals
Palace Lands
N
4
3
5
12
Str 140 Utopia IV
N
0
0
4
4
68AL Rich Neck
N
1
13
38
52
Finally, planters were known to distribute blankets, clothing, and shoes to field
hands. Clothing was usually of the roughest sort, as slaveowners were more
concerned with durability and cost rather than comfort, fit, and fashion for his
workforce (Baumgarten 1988; Kern 2005:274-275; Walsh 1997:187-191). In fact,
since clothing was rationed to enslaved field hands once or twice a year on average,
mainly one set each for summer and winter wear, most of the clothing-related artifacts
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 114
�from slave quarters was likely acquired via purchase, not as provisions or hand-medowns. Wealthy slaveowners in Virginia tended to dole out second-hand clothing to a
domestic or groom, likely following the English practice of gifting old clothing to
personal servants (Baumgarten 1988:12). This was usually an enslaved individual
who stood high in the planter’s hierarchy, who lived in close proximity to, or within,
the mansion, and had frequent interactions with him. If second-hand clothing made it
into the quarters, it was probably through bartering between enslaved individuals.
Thus, in the case of these three slave quarters, slaveowners’ routine provisions
seem not to have varied. Each quarter was provisioned with one or two metal cook
pots, tools, and a trusted male or males living at each was given a firearm. The
discard rate for these items was relatively low (and in the case of firearms, completely
absent) despite their heavy use since these items were durable, and if still usable by
the time of site abandonment, were curated. Slaveowners provisioned material
resources like tools and pots, unlike clothing and food, per slave quarter, not per
household, and the practice was likely the same regardless of plantation/quarter size.
Although the tools, pots and firearms provided were few in number at each
quarter, they nonetheless played a significant role in enslaved domestic life. The iron
kettles and frying pans were probably the main implements used for cooking since the
vast majority of the foodways-related artifacts from the three assemblages were for
food and beverage service, consumption, or storage. The various tools were used for
both plantation and household labor. One can imagine a hoe being used to plant both
cash crops and for subsistence gardening. With firearms, hunting game also put
additional food on the table. Thus, the relatively low percentages of these items tend
to mask their centrality to enslaved households.
3. To what extent were Coke’s field hands able to participate in the consumer revolution
that characterized the period?
Enslaved consumerism is an important line of inquiry for addressing how
households sought to improve their standard of living (Walsh 1997:183-186), and
demonstrated preferences for particular kinds of goods. If slaveowners of both small
and large plantations provisioned quarters with few material resources beyond tools
and iron pots, and were unlikely to bestow hand-me-downs to field hands, then
consumerism must have accounted for much of what is represented in the
assemblages. Enslaved men and women earned cash through a variety of means, and
coinage is regularly recovered from slave quarter contexts. Coins, undoubtedly lost by
their owners, were found at all three of the sites: two each at the Palace Lands site,
and from Structure 140 at Utopia, and 15 at Rich Neck. Importantly, there is stronger
evidence for shopping versus provisioning or hand-me-downs to help explain how
goods made their way into slave quarters.
Enslaved consumers included men and women, and those who worked at
trades, in the big house, and in the fields. Virginia store ledgers and account books
document their purchases, providing clues as to what kinds of items they favored.
Chief among them were ready-made clothing, including hats and stockings, textiles,
and adornment-related items (Heath 2004; Gaynor et al. 1988:33-36; Martin
2008:174-185). People also purchased buttons, dyes, ribbons, and sewing supplies:
needles, pins, thread, and scissors. Sewing implements were recovered from all three
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 115
�quarters (see Table 6.3; Table 6.7), and sewing and working with textiles in general
was considered women’s work (Fry 1990; Galle 2004; Jones 1985:30-31). Females
labored as seamstresses and spinners for wealthy slaveowners, and were responsible
for making, altering, and mending clothes for their families. Two small thimbles
recovered from the Palace Lands site were the likely possessions of a young female
who learned to sew from her mother. There was clearly a demonstrated need to
supplement their meager clothing rations, yet there were additional motivations for
purchasing items related to dress.
Table 6.7
Sewing Group by Site
Palace Lands
N
%
2
0.8
254
96.9
2
0.8
4
1.5
262
100.0
Form
Needle
Pin, straight
Scissors
Thimble
Totals
Str 140 Utopia IV
N
%
0
0.0
55
83.3
6
9.1
5
7.6
66
100.0
68AL Rich Neck
N
%
0
0.0
259
99.2
1
0.4
1
0.4
261
100.0
Two related observations stand out regarding the artifacts from the Clothing
and Adornment group. First, most of the items must have been store-bought, being
too ornate or superfluous for everyday wear for field hands to have been part of their
rationed clothing. Second, enslaved men and women used clothing as a means to
differentiate themselves and to work against the homogenizing effects of provisioned
clothing (Galle 2010:28; Heath 1999b; Hunt 1996; Martin 2008:183-184; Thomas and
Thomas 2004; Walsh 1997:187-191). Provisioned clothing was not only plain and
cheaply made, but field hands of the same sex received the same items (Baumgarten
1988; Hunt 1996:229). Adding ribbons and fancy buttons to clothing, dyeing clothes,
and accessorizing with a hat or scarf were forms of self-expression (Hunt 1996).
Table 6.8
Clothing and Adornment Group by Site
Palace Lands
Category
Adornment
68AL Rich
Neck
N
%
78
46.2
Shoe
hardware
Other
clothing
Unid
clothing
N
27
%
27.3
68
68.7
68
54.0
87
51.5
4
4.0
0
0.0
2
1.2
Aiglet
0
0.0
4
3.2
1
0.6
Buckle
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.6
Totals
Clothes
fastener
Form
Bead, Jewelry (Earring,
Finger Ring)
Button, Hook and Eye,
Stud, Cufflink (Sleeve
button), Jewel for
Cufflink, Stock Buckle
Buckle
Utopia IV Str
140
N
%
54
42.9
99
100.0
126
100.0
169
100.0
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 116
�Among the clothing-related artifacts from all three sites are those once attached
to ready-made garments, and clothing women made or embellished. Clothes fasteners
constitute the majority of each assemblage (see Table 6.8). Most are buttons, with
metal buttons, used mainly for men’s clothing (Galle 2010:25; White 2005:57-59),
predominating. Although wood and bone buttons were common during the eighteenth
century, fewer of these were recovered from each site. The buttons from the Rich Neck
duplex are represented in Table 6.9 (see also Franklin 2004:125-127; DAACS 2012a).
Nearly half of the buttons, 49 percent, from Structure 140 are copper alloy. Similarly,
of the 59 buttons recovered from the Palace Lands, nearly all (n=45) have copper alloy
faces or are entirely made of copper (see Chapter 5). More than a few of these buttons
were cast or stamped with ornate designs. Stock buckles were another clothing item
used by men. It was common for males to wear a neck handkerchief fastened with a
stock buckle (White 2005:45). Four of these, made of copper alloy, were recovered
from Structure 140. Artifacts related to adornment, namely beads and jewelry, were
more than likely worn by women (see Table 6.8). Most of the beads are made of drawn
or wound glass in a range of shapes and colors, including blues, greens, white, red,
gray, and black. Some of the beads are colorless. Though fewer in number, there are
also copper and porcelain beads. An individual(s) at the Rich Neck quarter also carved
faceted and square-shaped beads from shell.
Table 6.9
Buttons by Material and Manufacturing Technique, 68AL Rich Neck
Form
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
Button,
1 Piece
1 Piece, domed
2 Piece
2 Piece
2 Piece
2 Piece
2 Piece, domed
2 Piece, semi-domed
2 Piece, semi-domed
Blank/Mold
FD concave back
FD concave back
FD concave back
Flat Disc
Flat Disc
Flat Disc
Flat Disc
Not Recorded
Unidentifiable
Unidentifiable
Material
Copper Alloy
Pewter
Bone
Copper Alloy
Missing
Missing
Missing
Copper Alloy
Copper Alloy
Bone
Copper Alloy
Copper Alloy
Pewter
Copper Alloy
Copper Alloy
Copper Alloy
Pewter
Not Recorded
Copper Alloy
Unidentifiable
Manufacturing Technique
Cast
Cast
Cut/Carved
Stamped
Not Applicable
Unidentifiable
Unidentifiable
Cast
Stamped
Cut/Carved
Cast
Spun Back, cast
Cast
Cast
Spun Back, cast
Stamped
Cast
Not Recorded
Stamped
Not Applicable
Total
N
1
1
8
2
5
4
1
1
2
2
4
3
1
7
4
4
5
10
1
14
80
The remainder of the clothing artifacts, including hooks and eyes (White
2005:74-75), was not used for gender-specific dress. Cufflinks, referred to more
commonly in the past as “sleeve buttons,” were worn by men and women to dress up
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 117
�clothing (White 2005:61-62). These were two buttons attached with either a metal
chain link or bar. Colored glass jewels, or “pastes”, once used as insets for cufflinks
were recovered from all three sites. Individuals used these fasteners for sleeves, at the
neckline of shirts, and for women’s waistcoats (Cofield 2012:99, 102-106). Since
cufflinks could be moved from garment to garment it was a convenient way to
accessorize and personalize clothing. Their cost varied depending on the kind of metal
and inset used, making them affordable for most (Cofield 2012:102-103; White
2005:61-62). Someone residing at the Rich Neck quarter, however, managed to buy a
set of expensive silver sleeve buttons and a silver shirt stud.
If the artifacts are representative of what people regularly purchased in terms of
clothing and adornment, then their choices were driven by desires to broadcast their
gender subjectivities and as a means of self-expression (Heath 1999b; Thomas and
Thomas 2004; White 2005). Rather than save money by buying cheaper buttons or
making their own simply for functional purposes, people bought stock buckles, beads,
finger rings, cufflinks, and fashionable buttons. Most of these were non-essential for
everyday wear. In her comparative regional study of enslaved consumer practices,
Jillian Galle (2010) found that certain men purchased expensive metal buttons at a
higher rate than others in order to signal desirable traits (e.g., skills, mobility, earning
potential) in their search for prospective spouses, or to solidify existing abroad
marriages. Regardless of whether there were single men or men in abroad marriages
at any of the three slave quarters considered here, the higher quantities of metal
buttons relative to other kinds of fasteners does not mean that male consumers
invested more in their appearance than women. Women were accustomed to using
non-durable goods like ribbons, head scarves, or applied dyes to plain fabrics to stand
out.
Other items that enslaved consumers purchased included tools, knives, lead
shot and gunpowder, ceramics, cooking vessels, alcohol and food (e.g., sugar,
molasses), mirrors, hardware, and drinking vessels (Heath 1999a:51-52, 2004:29;
Katz-Hyman 2000:I-3; Martin 2008:174-175). Most of these are commonly recovered
from slave quarter sites. Men probably purchased the folding knives recovered from
Utopia IV, and undoubtedly the lead shot found at all three sites. Save for the food
and beverages, enslaved consumers mainly purchased items that were portable and
that they intended to take with them. It follows that sewing implements and clothingand adornment-related artifacts, being small finds, likely made their way into the
archaeological record through loss rather than discard.
It is possible that some of the ceramics from the Palace Lands site were handme-downs from John Coke. In comparing the ceramics, specific to the Palace Lands,
there is a higher proportion of wares for tea and coffee service (50.7 percent) relative to
tablewares and vessels for food preparation and storage (Table 6.10). Not only is there
a higher frequency of tea and coffee wares for the Palace Lands, but a more diverse set
of forms identified for this category and for tablewares (Table 6.11). The household at
Coke’s quarter discarded fragments of a teapot, coffee pot, slop bowl, sugar bowl,
creamer, teabowls, and saucers (see also Chapter 5). This is quite an array, and more
diverse than the tea and coffee ceramics for the duplexes at the Rich Neck and Utopia
IV sites combined. Although this could represent a purchasing pattern favoring
teawares (Franklin 2004:224-228), it’s more likely that Coke’s enslaved field hands
received second-hand ceramics from his tavern operation.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 118
�Table 6.10
Foodways-related Ceramics by Site
Category
Tableware
Tea and Coffee Service
Food Preparation and
Storage
Totals
Palace Lands
N
%
89
39.9
113
50.7
21
9.4
223
100.0
Str 140 Utopia IV
N
%
132
55.9
63
26.7
41
17.4
236
100.0
68AL Rich Neck
N
%
137
47.1
99
34.0
55
18.9
291
100.0
Table 6.11
Vessel Forms, Ceramic Tea/Coffee and Tableware by Site
Form
Bowl
Coffee pot
Creamer
Cup
Mug, can, tankard
Plate
Platter
Porringer
Punch bowl
Saucer
Slop bowl
Sugar bowl
Teabowl
Teapot
Palace Lands
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Str 140 Utopia IV
x
x
x
x
x
x
-
68AL Rich Neck
x
x
x
x
x
-
In their research of Southall’s Quarter (44JC969) in James City County,
archaeologists raised the question of whether the quarter’s location on a busy
thoroughfare used for trade, and its distance from the manor house, allowed the field
hands residing there to participate more freely and frequently in the local market
economy (Pullins et al. 2003:7-10). The assemblage included pastry/pudding pans,
platters, a possible sauceboat, tureen, and tureen stand, all vessels that are unusual
for a slave quarter. Rather than suggest that these items were purchased, the authors
concluded that these were second-hand items from James Southall’s successful
Williamsburg tavern (Pullins et al. 2003:171-173). As Southall ordered new wares for
his business, he distributed the older ceramics to his field hands. John Coke
probably did the same as the enslaved men and women who lived and worked in his
home and tavern likely had less need for used ceramics. Chipped but still usable
vessels and out-of-fashion wares probably ended up at Coke’s quarter (see also Kern
2005:267). Thus, it may be that Coke’s status as a tavern owner, and not just factors
concerning his wealth or plantation management, had a direct influence on the
materiality of domestic life within the quarter.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 119
�To date, there is little evidence to suggest that there were major constraints that
generally kept enslaved field hands from participating in the local and regional market
economies, both as producers and consumers. The authors of one study noted that,
“Market regulations, by their very quantity in Virginia towns, imply a strong African
American presence…Later eighteenth-century regulations of Virginia towns did not
prohibit slave activity but tried to regulate it, most commonly through the requirement
of written permission by owners to prevent the sale of stolen foods” (Walsh et al.
1997:88-89). Moreover, wealthy planters encouraged the practice since it benefitted
their bottom line, going so far as to purchase produce and game from their enslaved
workers (Heath 2004; Walsh 1997:183-186). Virginia planter Landon Carter wrote in
his diary that, “My people always made things to sell and I oblige them to buy linnen
to make their other shirt instead of buying liquor with their fowls” (Greene 1965:484).
Proximity to markets does not appear to have dampened enslaved consumerism
either. Heath’s (2004) study of enslaved producers and consumers at Poplar Forest
included an analysis of store ledgers and daybooks from merchants in seven counties,
indicating how widespread the practice was. Even enslaved individuals living in
frontier areas of Virginia, like the Shenandoah Valley, found the means to shop
(Martin 2008). Thus, the opportunities to participate in local markets were open to
enslaved laborers from both small and large plantations, and those in both urban and
remote locales. Still, it may have been easier for those living in large slave quarter
communities to raise garden crops and chickens, to hunt and fish, and partake in
other activities as a means of earning cash or to barter goods for store purchases.
They had the benefit of pooling their labor with others for household-related chores,
freeing up their time.
A comparison of the three assemblages demonstrates that households at all
three sites made very similar consumer choices, favoring sewing implements, and
items to dress up their appearance. Even artifacts from the Personal Group (Table
6.12), unique as they are (and often why they’re included in this category of
miscellanea), suggest some consumer patterns. Toys and other items are represented
in at least two of the three assemblages. With regard to who did the shopping, Heath
(2004) observed that single men and women, and older adults whose children were no
longer dependents, were most often consumers (see also Martin 2008:175). People
often bartered or sold produce, eggs, and game, and those with young children needed
all of the food they produced to feed themselves and their family. If this was the case
at Coke’s quarter, the adults residing there may have delayed participating in the
market system until their child was older.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 120
�Table 6.12
Personal Group by Site
Form
Coin
Fan Blade/Part
Fishing weight
Jews/Jaw Harp
Strike-a-light
Toy
Weight, unid
Writing Slate
Totals
Palace Lands
N
%
2
6.3
18
56.3
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
10
31.3
1
3.1
1
3.1
32
100.0
Str 140 Utopia IV
N
%
2
8.7
0
0.0
2
8.7
1
4.3
0
0.0
16
69.6
2
8.7
0
0.0
23
100.0
68AL Rich Neck
N
%
15
50.0
0
0.0
2
6.7
1
3.3
1
3.3
7
23.3
1
3.3
3
10.0
30
100.0
Conclusion
Archaeological research of the Palace Lands site provided an opportunity to
investigate a slave quarter on a middling plantation. Since the majority of slave
quarters excavated so far were once part of much larger holdings, it was hoped that
this project could contribute to writing a more inclusive and holistic narrative of
Virginia slavery. Did differences in demographics and planter wealth influence the
dynamics of domestic life? Were there contrasts in plantation management, especially
with regard to regular and special provisions doled out, that might have differentially
impacted the materiality of everyday life? Was participation in the local market
economy same for field hands on small and large plantations? These questions were
best addressed via a comparative analysis, and a summary of the results follows
below.
With regard to the first question: wealthy planters typically kept at least ten
full hands at each of their outlying plantations, while middling planters like Coke had
as little as two field hands but usually no more than eight. For the former, multiple
kin-related households residing at a single quarter was the norm. With the interhousehold cooperation in plantation work and domestic chores that this enabled, it
was expected that those residing at Coke’s found it more difficult to balance the two.
Their artifact assemblage, however, was comparable in artifact types and the relative
frequencies of artifact groups to those from Rich Neck and Utopia IV. The activities
represented across the assemblages included food preparation and communal dining,
hunting, and sewing. Socialization and childrearing at the Palace Lands were
indicated by toys, including fragments of a doll, a miniature creamware saucer, and
two complete thimbles. The implication is that there were two possible responses from
the household. First, the elder female at Coke’s plantation had a greater domestic
workload than was typical of her peers on large plantations. Since women were
responsible for many of the daily household chores, she likely struggled more so than
her counterparts on large quarters to balance fieldwork, childrearing, and the upkeep
of her domicile. Second, the male or males at the quarter helped with childrearing,
food preparation, and other chores normally reserved for females.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 121
�The second question addressed provisions. Although wealthy slaveowners
supplied few material provisions to field hands, these items proved to be essential to
them beyond plantation work. At a minimum, enslaved households used provisioned
tools for raising subsistence gardens, chopping wood for the fireplace, and for repairs
to dwellings. Building a chicken coop, digging out a root cellar, crafting a bed or
adding a loft to one’s house are other likely possibilities for which tools were put to
use. Access to provisioned tools also opened up opportunities to produce items and
foodstuffs for local markets. The metal pots and pans were also essential household
items. These are typically the only items once used for cooking that archaeologists
recover from slave quarter sites. Based on the probate inventories, pots were
provisioned per quarter rather than per household, with one or two pots being the
norm. Cost certainly factored into the decisions slaveowners made regarding outfitting
a quarter. It may also be that they were aware that enslaved households often shared
chores, and decided that one or two pots would suffice for multiple families.
In terms of the three quarters considered here, the provisions were probably
comparable even though John Coke was not as wealthy as Ludwell or Burwell.
Although the assemblage from Coke’s quarter did not include the remains of metal
cookwares or tools typically provisioned to field hands (with the exception of a rake
fragment), his probate inventory suggests that his field hands had the same range of
implements for labor and cooking as did those residing at Utopia and Rich Neck. The
allocation of tools is not surprising, nor is their absence from the Palace Lands
assemblage. The practice of curating usable tools and iron pots, which remained the
property of slaveowners, means that few if any of these will be recovered from slave
quarter sites. In terms of irregular provisions, Coke entrusted firearms to at least one
individual and his field hands were probably given second-hand goods, especially
ceramics, from his tavern. This would help to explain the higher quantities of tea and
coffee wares from the site. While enslaved field hands relied heavily on these
provisions which helped to sustain their household economy, it was through
participation in local markets where they acquired the bulk of their movable
possessions.
Despite the archaeological and historical evidence suggesting that enslaved
individuals were active consumers, this is a topic for which there are few sources
compared to others regarding enslaved lifeways. Moreover, slave quarter assemblages
so often include “high end” goods that archaeologists tend to assume that wealthy
slaveowners were in the habit of doling out their old clothes and household goods to
their field hands. Yet planters like Jefferson and Ludwell owned dozens of field hands,
making this unlikely. With regard to the Palace Lands case study, might factors such
as higher workloads for Coke, or other constraints he might have imposed on his
laborers circumscribed their ability to participate in Williamsburg’s marketplace? The
evidence suggests not.
Since field hands occupied the bottom rung of slaveowners’ social order,
minimal expenditures went into their clothing and food rations despite their
overwhelming importance to the plantation economy and a slaveowner’s prosperity.
Given few material provisions by slaveowners, whatever possessions enslaved
households managed to acquire was a result of their own efforts, and rather than an
idiosyncratic or irregular activity, shopping must have played an integral role in their
household economy. The artifacts retrieved from their former living spaces represent
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 122
�only a partial record of their material world, and yet it’s enough to demonstrate that
consumerism as a goal influenced decisions regarding household production and
consumption that enslaved field hands made on a regular basis (Heath 2004). What
garden crops could they grow in abundance to ensure that there was surplus to barter
or sell? What kinds of wild game should they target for sale, and would their time and
energies be better spent fishing or hunting on a Sunday? Could they spare a dozen
eggs to purchase much-needed sewing supplies?
Although shopping gave enslaved men and women the opportunity to buy a
range of goods, the existing literature reveals a pronounced pattern with respect to the
kinds of items enslaved shoppers purchased. Even taking into consideration
individuals’ preferences for specific styles of cufflinks or buttons, or bead colors and
shapes, altogether there is uniformity in the categories of goods that enslaved
consumers invested in at all three quarters. Folding knives, toys, jaw harps, alcohol,
sewing implements, and myriad clothing- and adornment-related objects were
represented across nearly all of the assemblages. Some items were undoubtedly
purchased based on need, but they all speak to self-determination and a motivation to
establish some semblance of a home life.
The comparative study of the Palace Lands, Rich Neck, and Utopia IV sites
suggests that the social organization of those who occupied slave quarters was a
significant criterion in terms of how everyday lifeways played out in these settings.
The comparability between all three assemblages was largely due to their association
with households made up of kin, and their domestic chores. The individuals who
resided at Coke’s plantation were socially organized as a kin-related household with at
least one child, a female, present. This family lived within a social and material world
that would have resonated with other enslaved households across Virginia’s colonialera landscape, most of whom lived on large plantations. In contrast, the number of
enslaved Africans working on small plantations was often as low as one to two
individuals who were mainly adults, and oftentimes male. While they may have
formed households of their own, this is an issue that needs to be addressed and not
something to be assumed. Thus, what was revealed about the enslaved household at
Coke’s plantation, specifically the range of domestic activities, may not apply to other
small plantations where households did not form.
Where there were quarters for enslaved field hands, regardless of the size of the
plantation, they probably received similar provisions: tools and a cook pot. The
amount of food and the number of clothing rations varied even between wealthy
slaveowners, and it is unknown what Coke rationed on a regular basis. Still, the
enslaved family who resided at Coke’s were clearly active as producers and consumers
in the local market economy, and purchased items that underscored their
determination to be seen as individuals, and to realize some domestic normalcy away
from the fields. Meeting the high demands of institutional labor while undertaking
labor that enabled one to participate in the consumer revolution would have been a
tremendous challenge, and was one of the major obstacles to shopping. More so for
families with children to rear. With dependents to care for, parents were less likely to
shop (Heath 2004; Martin 2008). Yet some archaeological evidence for market
consumerism can be expected at slave quarter sites both large and small, regardless of
distance to markets and the presence of households. In general, where enslaved field
hands formed households, there were shared norms in the acquisition of, and
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 123
�investment in, household and personal possessions and the roles that material culture
played in daily life.
Finally, while the discussion in this chapter has revolved around households
and the “everyday”, it’s important to emphasize that what’s been referred to as
“domestic” was never an autonomous, bounded space. The artifact categories used,
while necessary for analytical purposes, also had the unintended effect of
compartmentalizing activities and practices into domestic versus other. However, as
previously mentioned, artifacts can and often do represent the overlapping spheres of
daily life and plantation labor: a woman smoking a pipe filled with tobacco that she
harvested months ago, a man repairing a fence on the plantation with a hammer that
he will soon use to install a loft in his family’s cabin. Extending the observation to
other practices, one can more easily realize how entangled the institution of slavery
was with everyday life: a family consuming their weekly ration of corn from bowls they
purchased in town, a wife brings out her sewing kit to mend a shirt her spouse
received as part of his provisioned clothing. In the end, questions concerning enslaved
lifeways, including the ones raised by this research, must continue to be
contextualized within the broader structures and processes of slavery that enslaved
Africans and creoles variously contested, negotiated or managed to live with.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 124
�References
Primary Sources
Special Collections, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Humphrey Harwood Account Book (HHAB), 1776-1794, MS 33.01, folio 7 and
folio 25
Palace Lands Papers (PLP), 1815-[1866]1904, reel M-1552
Virginia Gazette
Williamsburg People File (WPF)
York County Deeds and Bonds (YCDB)
York County Project-Biographical File (YCP-BF)
York County Wills & Inventories (YCWI)
Department of Historical Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
York County Project - Rent Roll (YCP-RR): Maps and summary cards.
Secondary Sources
Agbe-Davies, Anna
2015 Tobacco, Pipes, and Race in Colonial Virginia: Little Tubes of Mighty Power. Left
Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.
1999 Archaeological Excavation of a Small Cellar on Rich Neck Plantation. Department
of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Aultman, Jennifer and Kate Grillo
2003 DAACS Cataloging Manual: Glass Vessels, accessed June 28, 2006. The Digital
Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (http://www.daacs.org/).
Aultman, Jennifer, Kate Grillo and Nick Bon-Harper
2003 DAACS Cataloging Manual: Ceramics, accessed June 28, 2006. The Digital
Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (http://www.daacs.org/).
Baumgarten, Linda
1988 Clothes for the People, Slave Clothing in Early Virginia. Report 0407, Collections
Division, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Colonial Williamsburg’s Digital
Library, accessed June 30, 2006,
http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/research-reports/.
Berlin, Ira
2003 Generations of Captivity: A History of African-American Slaves. Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 125
�Breen, Eleanor E.
2013 The revolution Before the Revolution?: A Material Culture Approach to
Consumerism at George Washington’s Mount Vernon, VA. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee at Knoxville.
Brown, David
2014 An Enslaved Landscape: The Virginia Plantation at the End of the Seventeenth
Century. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, College of William
and Mary.
Buchanan, Paul
1961 Coke-Garrett House Historical Report, Block 27, Building 1, Lot 279-280.
Originally entitled: Coke-Garrett House Block 27, Building 1. The Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation Library Research Report Series, 1506. Colonial
Williamsburg’s Digital Library, accessed June 30, 2006,
http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/research-reports/.
Bullock, Helen
1931 Coke-Garrett House Historical Report, Block 27, Building 1, Lot 279-280.
Originally entitled: Lottie Garrett or Coke House Block 27 - #1. The Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation Library Research Report Series, 1508. Colonial
Williamsburg’s Digital Library, accessed June 30, 2006,
http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/research-reports/.
1930 College and Capitol Landings. Unpublished report on file at the Dept. of
Historical Research, Colonial Williamsburg, VA.
Carr, Lois Green and Lorena S. Walsh
1988 The Standard of Living in the Colonial Chesapeake. The William and Mary
Quarterly 45(1):135-159.
Cofield, Sara Rivers
2012 Linked Buttons of the Middle Atlantic, 1670-1800. Journal of Middle Atlantic
Archaeology 28:99-116.
Cooper, Margaret W.
1997 Phase II Archaeological Investigations: Site 44WB90, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Crader, Diana C.
1990 Slave Diet at Monticello. American Antiquity 55(4):690-717.
Custis, John
2005 The Letterbook of John Custis IV of Williamsburg, 1717-1742. Josephine Little
Zupan, editor. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS)
2006a Context Query 1, June 7, 2006. The Digital Archaeological Archive of
Comparative Slavery
(http://daacsrc.org/homepage/query_context_one_results).
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 126
�2006b Artifact Query 2, May 25, 2006. The Digital Archaeological Archive of
Comparative Slavery (http://daacsrc.org/homepage/aq_two_results#).
2006c Glossary, June 15, 2006. The Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative
Slavery (https://www.daacs.org/about-the-database/glossary/).
2006d Palace Lands Quarter: Chronology. The Digital Archaeological Archive of
Comparative Slavery, June 7, 2006 (http://www.daacs.org/).
2006e Artifact Query 3, June 1, 2006. The Digital Archaeological Archive of
Comparative Slavery (http://daacsrc.org/homepage/aq_three_results).
2006f DAACS Color Data, June 29, 2006. The Digital Archaeological Archive of
Comparative Slavery (https://www.daacs.org/about-the-database/daacs-colordata/).
2007 Mean Ceramic Dates – Type File, May 29, 2007. The Digital Archaeological
Archive of Comparative Slavery (https://www.daacs.org/query-thedatabase/meanceramicdate-queries/).
2012a Artifact Query 2, May 15, 2012. The Digital Archaeological Archive of
Comparative Slavery (http://daacsrc.org/homepage/aq_two_results).
2012b Artifact Query 2, May 15, 2012. The Digital Archaeological Archive of
Comparative Slavery (http://daacsrc.org/homepage/aq_two_results).
Daniel, Anne L.
1946 Coke-Garrett House Historical Report, Block 27, Building 1, Lot 279-280.
Originally entitled: Coke-Garrett House (Block 27 - Colonial Lots 279-280). The
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library Research Report Series, 1505.
Colonial Williamsburg’s Digital Library, accessed June 30, 2006,
http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/research-reports/.
Deetz, James
1993 Flowerdew Hundred: The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation, 1619-1864.
University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
Department of Research, Colonial Williamsburg
1930 Governor’s Palace Historical Notes, Block 20, Building 3A. Originally entitled: The
Governor’s Palace: Historical Notes. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library
Research Report Series, 219. Colonial Williamsburg’s Digital Library, accessed
June 8, 2006, http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/research-reports/.
Desandroüins, Jean-Nicolas
1781 Map of the Environs of Williamsburg, in Virginia, oversize MP/00/1781/61.222.
John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 127
�Edwards, Ywone D.
1995 "Trash" Revisited: A Comparative Approach to Historical Descriptions and
Archaeological Analyses of Slave Sites. In "Keep your Head to the Sky":
Cosmology, Ethics, and the Making of African American Home Ground, edited by
Grey Gundaker and Judith McWillie. University Press of Virginia,
Charlottesville.
Fesler, Garrett R.
2004 From Houses to Homes: An Archaeological Case Study of Household Formation at
the Utopia Slave Quarter, ca. 1675 to 1775. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Virginia.
2000 Back to Utopia: An Interim Report on Renewed Archaeological Excavations at the
Utopia Quarter, Field Seasons 1993-1996. Period 2 Occupation, ca. 1700-1730.
Volume II. James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.
Franklin, Maria
2004 An Archaeological Study of the Rich Neck Slave Quarter and Enslaved Domestic
Life. Colonial Williamsburg Research Publications. Dietz Press, Richmond, VA.
2001 The Archaeological and Symbolic Dimensions of Soul Food: Race, Culture, and
Afro-Virginian Identity. In Race, Material Culture, and the Archaeology of
Identity, edited by J. Charles E. Orser, pp. 88-107. University of Utah Press,
Salt Lake City.
Fry, Gladys-Marie
1990 Stitched From the Soul: Slave Quilts in the Ante-Bellum South. Museum of
American Folk Art, New York.
Galle, Jillian E.
2010 Costly Signaling and Gendered Social Strategies among Slaves in the
Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake: An Archaeological Perspective. American
Antiquity 75(1):19-43.
2006 Strategic Consumption: Archaeological Evidence for Costly Signaling Among
Enslaved Men and Women in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia.
2004 Designing Women: Measuring Acquisition and Access at the Hermitage
Plantation. In Engendering African American Archaeology: A Southern
Perspective, edited by Jillian E. Galle and Amy Young, pp. 39-72. The University
of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Gaynor, Jay, Martha Katz-Hyman, and Alecia Tucker
1988 Material Goods Associated with Rural Blacks in the Eighteenth Century. Report
0407, Collections Division, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Gibbs, Patricia A.
1980 The Palace Lands, 1700-1790. Unpublished report on file at the Department of
Historical Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 128
�Goodwin, Mary
1951 Walthoe Storehouse Historical Report, Block 17, Lot 58E. The Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation Library Research Report Series, 1379. Report on file
at the John D. Rockefeller Library, Colonial Williamsburg, VA.
Greene, Jack P.
1965 The Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778. University Press
of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Heath, Barbara J.
2004 Engendering Choice: Slavery and Consumerism in Central Virginia. In
Engendering African-American Archaeology: A Southern Perspective, edited by
Jillian E. Galle and Amy L. Young, pp. 19-38. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville.
1999a Hidden Lives: The Archaeology of Slave Life at Thomas Jefferson’s Poplar Forest.
University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
1999b Buttons, Beads, and Buckles: Contextualizing Adornment Within the Bounds of
Slavery. In Historical Archaeology, Identity Formation, and the Interpretation of
Ethnicity, edited by Maria Franklin and Garrett Fesler, pp. 49-71. The Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation Research Publications, Williamsburg.
Heath, Barbara J. and Amber Bennett
2000 “The little spots allow’d them”: The Archaeological Study of African-American
Yards. Historical Archaeology 34(2):38-55.
Higgins, Thomas F. and Dennis B. Blanton
2000 Wilton Speaks: Archaeology at an Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-century
Plantation: Data Recovery at Site 44HE493, Associated with the Proposed Route
895 Project, Henrico County, Virginia. William & Mary Center for Archaeological
Research for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Hillman, Benjamin J. (editor)
1966 Extract from 20 April 1768 Council meeting. In Executive Journals of the
Council, 6, pp. 288-289. Richmond, VA.
Hood, Graham
1991 The Governor's Palace in Williamsburg: A Cultural History. The Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg.
Hunt, Patricia K.
1996 The Struggle to Achieve Individual Expression Through Clothing and
Adornment: African American Women Under and After Slavery. In Discovering
the Women in Slavery: Emancipating Perspectives on the American Past, edited
by Patricia Morton, pp. 227-240. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 129
�Jones, Jacqueline
1985 Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, Work, and the Family, from
Slavery to the Present. Vintage Books, Random House, New York.
Jones, Lynn
2001 Crystals and Conjuring at the Charles Carroll House, Annapolis, Maryland.
African American Archaeology Newsletter 27, accessed July 3, 2006,
http://www.diaspora.uiuc.edu/A-AAnewsletter/newsletter27.html.
Katz-Hyman, Martha
2000 Keeping Body and Soul Together: Consumption at the Lowest Levels of Society.
In Buying Respectability: The Consumer Revolution in Colonial Virginia, compiled
by Mark Howell, Emma L. Powers and Betty C. Leviner, pp. I1-I6. Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation Resource Manual.
Kelso, Gerald K.
1991 Interdisciplinary Research in Historic Landscape Management. CRM
Supplement 14(6):2-11.
Kelso, William
1986 Mulberry Row: Slave Life at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello. Archaeology
39(5):28-35.
1984 Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial
Virginia. Academic Press, New York.
Kern, Susan A.
2005 The Jeffersons at Shadwell: The Social and Material World of a Virginia
Plantation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of History, College of William &
Mary.
Kulikoff, Allan
1986 Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake,
1680-1800. Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture,
Williamsburg, Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Martin, Ann Smart
2008 Buying Into the World of Goods: Early Consumers in Backcountry Virginia. Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Metz, John, Jennifer Jones, Dwayne Pickett and David Muraca
1998 "Upon the Palisido" and Other Stories of Place from Bruton Heights. Colonial
Williamsburg Research Publications, Williamsburg.
Mrozowski, Stephen A., Maria Franklin, and Leslie Hunt
2008 Archaeobotanical Analysis and Interpretations of Enslaved Virginian Plant Use
at Rich Neck Plantation (44WB52). American Antiquity 73(4):699-728.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 130
�Muraca, David, Philip Levy, and Leslie McFaden
2003 The Archaeology of Rich Neck Plantation (44WB52): Description of the Features.
Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Neiman, Fraser D., Leslie McFaden, and Derek Wheeler
2000 Archaeological Investigation of the Elizabeth Flemings Site (44AB438). Monticello
Department of Archaeology Technical Report Series #2. Thomas Jefferson
Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Nicholls, Michael L.
1990 Aspects of the African American Experience in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg
and Norfolk. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library Research Report
Series – 330, accessed June 1, 2006,
http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/research-reports/.
Noël-Hume, Ivor
1972 Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Knopf, New York.
Otto, John S.
1984 Cannon's Point Plantation 1794-1860: Living Conditions and Status Patterns in
the Old South. Academic Press, Orlando.
Pickett, Dwayne W.
1997 Phase I/II Archaeological Investigations of the Palace Pasture: Lot 178 in Block 34
of Colonial Williamsburg's Historic Area. Department of Archaeological Research,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Piperno, Dolores R.
1988 Phytolith Analysis: An Archaeological and Geological Perspective. Academic
Press, San Diego.
Pogue, Dennis J.
2003 The Domestic Architecture of Slavery at George Washington’s Mount Vernon.
Winterthur Portfolio 37(1): 3-22.
Pullins, Stevan C., Joe B. Jones, John R. Underwood, Kimberly A. Ettinger, David W.
Lewes, Justine W. McKnight and Gregory J. Brown
2003 Southall’s Quarter: Archaeology at an Eighteenth-Century Slave Quarter in James
City County, Data Recovery at Site 44JC969 Associated with the Proposed Route
199 Project, James City County, Virginia. Prepared for Virginia Department of
Transportation, VDOT Project: 0199-047-110, PE101, PPMS: 18972. William
and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, The College of William & Mary,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
Reeves, Matthew, and Matthew Greer
2012 Within View of the Mansion: Comparing and Contrasting Two Early Nineteenthcentury Slave Households at James Madison’s Montpelier. Journal of MidAtlantic Archaeology 28:69-79.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 131
�Samford, Patricia M.
2007 Subfloor Pits and the Archaeology of Slavery in Colonial Virginia. University of
Alabama Press, Birmingham.
1999 Archaeological Investigations at the Brush-Everard Site, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Colonial Williamsburg Research Publications, Williamsburg.
Sanford, Douglas W.
1994 The Archaeology of Plantation Slavery in Piedmont Virginia: Context and
Process. In The Historic Chesapeake, edited by Paul Shackel and Barbara Little,
pp. 115-130. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Schwarz, Philip J. (editor)
2001 Slavery at the Home of George Washington. Mount Vernon Ladies' Association,
Mount Vernon, VA.
Schwartz, Marie Jenkins
1996 “At Noon, Oh How I Ran”: Breastfeeding and Weaning on Plantation and Farm
in Antebellum Virginia and Alabama. In Discovering the Women in Slavery:
Emancipating Perspectives on the American Past, edited by Patricia Morton, pp.
241-259. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Stephenson, Mary A.
1990[1953] Coke-Garrett House, Block 27, Building 1, Colonial Lots 279, 280, 281, 282
and 361. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library Research Report
Series, 1504. Report on file at the John D. Rockefeller Library, Colonial
Williamsburg, VA.
1955 Block 27 Lots 272-273 Historical Report, Block 27 Lot 272 & 273. Originally
entitled: Colonial Lots 272 & 273 Block 27 - Nicholson Street. The Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation Library Research Report Series, 1520. Colonial
Williamsburg’s Digital Library, accessed July 21, 2006,
http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/research-reports/.
Tate, Thad W.
1965 The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg. The Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation, Williamsburg.
Thomas, Brian W. and Larissa Thomas
2004 Gender and the Presentation of Self: An Example from the Hermitage. In
Engendering African American Archaeology: A Southern Perspective, edited by
Jillian E. Galle and Amy L. Young, pp. 101-131. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville.
Tyler, Lyon G. (editor)
1915 Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography, five volumes. Lewis Historical Publishing
Co., New York.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 132
�Tyler, J.
1895 Grammar and Mattey Practice and Model School. William and Mary Quarterly,
Series 1, 4(1):3-14.
Walsh, Lorena S.
2010 Motives of Honor, Pleasure, and Profit: Plantation Management in the Colonial
Chesapeake, 1607-1763. Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early
American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
1997 From Calabar to Carter's Grove. The University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
1993 Slave Life, Slave Society, and Tobacco Production in the Tidewater Chesapeake,
1620-1820. In Cultivation and Culture, edited by Ira Berlin and Phillip D.
Morgan, pp. 170-199. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Walsh, Lorena S., Ann Smart Martin and Joanne Bowen
1997 Provisioning Early American Towns. The Chesapeake: A Multidisciplinary Case
Study. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library Research Report Series, 0404.
Colonial Williamsburg’s Digital Library, accessed July 10, 2006,
http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/research-reports/.
White, Carolyn L.
2005 American Artifacts of Personal Adornment, 1680-1820: A Guide to Identification
and Interpretation. Alta Mira Press, Lanham, MD.
White, Deborah Gray
1985 Ar'n't I a Woman? Female Slaves in the Plantation South. W. W. Norton, New
York.
Wilkie, Laurie A.
2003 The Archaeology of Mothering: An African-American Midwife's Tale. Routledge,
New York.
William and Mary Quarterly (WMQ)
1898 Historical and Genealogical Notes. William and Mary Quarterly, series I,
7(2):126-131.
Willis, Anne, Ywone Edwards-Ingram, Conny Graft, Arthur Johnson, Martha KatzHyman, Michael Lord, Christy S. Matthews, Ann Parker, Kelly Ray, Julie Richter,
Lorena S. Walsh and Christopher Wyckoff
1998 Enslaving Virginia Resource Book. Research Division, The Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation, Williamsburg.
Yentsch, Anne
1994 A Chesapeake Family and Their Slaves. University Press, Cambridge.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 133
�Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 134
�Appendices
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 135
�Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 136
�Appendix A. Dryscreen and Wetscreen Samples, Features 1, 4, and 5 (F01, F04,
and F05)
Feature No.
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F05
Feature Type
Pit, subfloor
Pit, subfloor
Pit, subfloor
Pit, subfloor
Pit, subfloor
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Palace Lands Archaeology
Context
12
50
129
53
54
19
204
205
206
207
277
278
213
221
279
211
214
217
234
295
298
275
Recovery Method
Dryscreened 50 liters; wetscreened 20 liters
Wetscreened 100%
Wetscreened 100%
Wetscreened 100%
Wetscreened 100%
Dryscreened; wetscreened 20 liters
Wetscreened 100%
Dryscreened north half; wetscreened south half
Wetscreened 100%
Dryscreened north half; wetscreened south half
Dryscreened; wetscreened 20 liters
Dryscreened; wetscreened 20 liters
Wetscreened 100%
Dryscreened north half; wetscreened south half
Dryscreened; wetscreened 10 liters
Dryscreened north half; wetscreened south half
Wetscreened 100%
Dryscreened north half; wetscreened south half
Dryscreened north half; wetscreened south half
Dryscreened; wetscreened 10 liters
Dryscreened; wetscreened 10 liters
Wetscreened 100%
Page 137
�Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 138
�Appendix B. Soil Chemistry Samples
Feature No.
Feature Type
Context
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F05
F05
F05
F05
F05
F05
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F12
F12
F13
F13
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
204
205
206
207
277
278
318
213
221
211
214
217
234
279
295
298
51
310
274
319
275
296
248
299
300
301
302
303
304
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
325
228
336
68
340
Palace Lands Archaeology
Sample (N
boxes)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Page 139
�Feature No.
Feature Type
F14
F14
F15
F15
F15
F16
F17
F17
F18
F18
F20
F20
F21
F21
F22
F22
F23
F23
F24
F24
F25
F25
F27
F27
F27
F28
F28
F29
F31
F31
F32
F32
F33
F33
F34
F34
F35
F36
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Postmold
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Palace Lands Archaeology
Context
33
257
35
251
253
41
43
44
45
268
21
255
38
342
323
344
107
125
82
198
76
194
94
297
309
92
193
235
293
327
291
330
289
329
287
332
283
335
Total
Sample (N
boxes)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
79
Page 140
�Appendix C. Phytolith and Pollen Samples
Feature
No.
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F05
F05
F05
F05
F05
F05
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
F06
Feature Type
Deposit Type
Context
Pit, subfloor
Pit, subfloor
Pit, subfloor
Pit, subfloor
Pit, subfloor
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
12
50
129
53
54
19
204
205
206
207
277
278
318
213
221
211
214
217
234
279
295
298
51
310
274
319
275
296
248
299
300
301
302
303
304
311
312
313
314
315
316
320
325
Palace Lands Archaeology
Sample Size
(cups)
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Column
Sample
Page 141
�Feature
No.
F08
F12
F12
F13
F13
F14
F14
F15
F15
F15
F16
F17
F17
F18
F18
F20
F20
F21
F21
F22
F22
F27
F27
F27
F29
F31
F31
F32
F32
F33
F33
F34
F34
F35
F35
F36
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Feature Type
Deposit Type
Context
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Postmold
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
Posthole
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Postmold
Fill
Postmold
Fill
Postmold
Fill
Postmold
Fill
Postmold
Fill
Postmold
Fill
Cut/Depositional Basin
Fill
Postmold
Fill
Postmold
Fill
Postmold
Fill
Postmold
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Postmold
Fill
Postmold
Fill
Postmold
Fill
Postmold
Fill
Postmold
Fill
Plowzone
Plowzone
Plowzone
Plowzone
Plowzone
Plowzone
Plowzone
Plowzone
Plowzone
307
228
336
68
340
33
257
35
251
253
41
43
44
45
268
21
255
38
342
323
344
94
297
309
235
293
327
291
330
289
329
287
332
283
321
335
37
62
158
159
161
162
164
165
170
Palace Lands Archaeology
Sample Size
(cups)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Column
Sample
Page 142
�Feature
No.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Feature Type
Deposit Type
Context
Sample Size
(cups)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Plowzone
Modern layer
Plowzone
Plowzone
Plowzone
Plowzone
Plowzone
171
180
182
183
241
246
259
NA
NA
Plowzone
260
NA
NA
Plowzone
261
NA
NA
Plowzone
262
2
2
1
2
2
1
1 - modern control;
surface sample
1 - modern control;
surface sample
1 - modern control;
surface sample
1 - modern control;
surface sample
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
263
263
263
263
263
263
263
263
263
NA
NA
NA
NA
Topsoil
Ravine fill
Ravine fill
Ravine fill
Ravine fill
Ravine fill
Ravine fill
Ravine fill
Possible 18th-century
topsoil
Sterile subsoil
Ravine fill
NA
NA
Plowzone
265
NA
NA
Plowzone
270
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
271
271
271
271
271
271
0-6 cm
6-10 cm
10-20 cm
20-30 cm
30-38 cm
38-46 cm
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Topsoil
Ravine fill
Ravine fill
Ravine fill
Ravine fill
Possible 18th-century
topsoil
Transition to subsoil
Sterile subsoil
Plowzone
271
271
272
46-52 cm
52-57 cm
Palace Lands Archaeology
263
264
Column
Sample
0-6 cm
6-10 cm
10-20 cm
20-30 cm
30-40 cm
40-50 cm
50-60 cm
60-70 cm
70-78 cm
78-86 cm
1 - modern control;
surface sample
1 - modern control;
surface sample
1 - modern control;
surface sample
1 - modern control;
surface sample
Page 143
�Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 144
�Appendix D. Flotation Samples
Feature Type
Pit, subfloor
Pit, subfloor
Pit, subfloor
Pit, subfloor
Pit, subfloor
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Ditch, other
Context
12
50
129
53
54
19
204
205
206
207
277
278
318
213
221
211
214
217
234
279
295
298
51
274
275
248
299
300
301
302
303
304
311
312
313
314
315
316
320
317
Total
Palace Lands Archaeology
Sample Volume
(liters)
15
20
50
20
5
5
15
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12
5.5
14
11
11.5
10
11
10
10
14
11
10
11
10
12
10
10
8.5
401.5
Stratigraphic Group
(SG)
SG01
SG02
SG02
SG03
SG04
SG07
SG07
SG07
SG07
SG07
SG07
SG07
SG07
SG09
SG09
SG11
SG11
SG11
SG11
SG11
SG13
SG15
SG16
SG17
SG18
SG20
SG20
SG20
SG20
SG20
SG20
SG20
SG21
SG21
SG21
SG21
SG21
SG21
SG21
SG25
Total Vol
Per SG
15
70
20
5
55
10
25
5
5
12
5.5
14
77.5
74
8.5
401.5
Page 145
�Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 146
�Appendix E. Ceramic Vessels
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 147
�CW Object No.
(ends w/33AS)
189
190
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
191
192
193
194
Artifact ID (DAACS)
1008-00012-NOS--00121
1008-00019-DRS--00061
1008-00012-NOS--00131
1008-00012-NOS--00137
1008-00012-NOS--00138
1008-00012-NOS--00139
1008-00012-NOS--00140
1008-00012-NOS--00141
1008-00012-NOS--00142
1008-00012-NOS--00143
1008-00012-NOS--00144
1008-00012-NOS--00145
1008-00012-NOS--00146
1008-00012-NOS--00147
1008-00012-NOS--00148
1008-00012-NOS--00149
1008-00012-NOS--00150
1008-00012-NOS--00151
1008-00012-NOS--00152
1008-00012-NOS--00153
1008-00012-NOS--00154
1008-00012-NOS--00155
1008-00012-NOS--00156
1008-00012-NOS--00157
1008-00012-NOS--00158
1008-00012-NOS--00159
1008-00012-NOS--00211
1008-00012-NOS--00212
1008-00277-DRS--00031
1008-00277-DRS--00032
1008-00277-DRS--00033
1008-00277-DRS--00034
1008-00295-DRS--00014
1008-00298-DRS--00005
1008-00129-WTS--00060
1008-00012-NOS--00175
1008-00050-WTS--00158
Palace Lands Archaeology
Other
ID**
Context
Feature
12
19
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
277
277
277
277
295
298
129
12
50
F01
F04
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F01
F01
F01
N sherds
N vessels
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ware
1
1
1
1
1
1
Redware
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Page 148
Form and Vessel Category
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Milk Pan
Teaware, flat
Teabowl
�CW Object No.
(ends w/33AS)
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
196
197
197
198
199
199
200
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
202
202
203
204
204
205
206
207
207
208
208
209
Artifact ID (DAACS)
1008-00012-NOS--00176
1008-00050-WTS--00105
1008-00050-WTS--00106
1008-00050-WTS--00107
1008-00050-WTS--00109
1008-00050-WTS--00112
1008-00053-WTS--00026
1008-00129-WTS--00071
1008-00129-WTS--00072
1008-00129-WTS--00003
1008-00054-WTS--00029
1008-00054-WTS--00030
1008-00050-WTS--00159
1008-00012-NOS--00122
1008-00012-NOS--00123
1008-00050-WTS--00065
1008-00012-NOS--00203
1008-00012-NOS--00204
1008-00050-WTS--00108
1008-00050-WTS--00110
1008-00050-WTS--00111
1008-00050-WTS--00127
1008-00053-WTS--00039
1008-00129-WTS--00004
1008-00129-WTS--00005
1008-00129-WTS--00006
1008-00012-NOS--00116
1008-00012-NOS--00117
1008-00012-NOS--00118
1008-00053-WTS--00017
1008-00053-WTS--00018
1008-00278-DRS--00036
1008-00012-NOS--00120
1008-00019-DRS--00059
1008-00278-DRS--00037
1008-00019-DRS--00060
1008-00221-DRS--00001
1008-00278-DRS--00038
Palace Lands Archaeology
Other
ID**
Context
Feature
12
50
50
50
50
50
53
129
129
129
54
54
50
12
12
50
12
12
50
50
50
50
53
129
129
129
12
12
12
53
53
278
12
19
278
19
221
278
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F04
F01
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
N sherds
N vessels
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ware
Form and Vessel Category
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
Buckley
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Saucer
Plate
Plate
Teaware, hollow
Saucer*
Saucer*
Tableware, hollow
Milk Pan
Milk Pan
Milk Pan
Milk Pan
Milk Pan
Milk Pan
Milk Pan
Milk Pan
Milk Pan
Milk Pan
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Teabowl*
Bowl*
Bowl*
Teaware, hollow
Plate or platter
Tableware, flat
Tableware, flat
Slop bowl, teaware*
Slop bowl, teaware*
Tableware, hollow
Page 149
�CW Object No.
(ends w/33AS)
210
211
211
211
211
211
211
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
227
228
230
230
230
230
230
Artifact ID (DAACS)
1008-00053-WTS--00019
1008-00012-NOS--00125
1008-00019-DRS--00066
1008-00053-WTS--00020
1008-00205-DRS--00007
1008-00206-WTS--00008
1008-00234-DRS--00001
1008-00019-DRS--00090
1008-00019-DRS--00091
1008-00019-DRS--00092
1008-00019-DRS--00093
1008-00050-WTS--00088
1008-00050-WTS--00089
1008-00050-WTS--00090
1008-00050-WTS--00091
1008-00050-WTS--00092
1008-00050-WTS--00093
1008-00050-WTS--00094
1008-00050-WTS--00095
1008-00050-WTS--00096
1008-00050-WTS--00097
1008-00050-WTS--00098
1008-00050-WTS--00099
1008-00050-WTS--00100
1008-00050-WTS--00101
1008-00050-WTS--00102
1008-00050-WTS--00103
1008-00129-WTS--00058
1008-00129-WTS--00059
1008-00318-DRS--00019
1008-00012-NOS--00168
1008-00012-NOS--00167
1008-00050-WTS--00175
1008-00050-WTS--00176
1008-00050-WTS--00177
1008-00050-WTS--00178
1008-00050-WTS--00179
Palace Lands Archaeology
Other
ID**
Context
Feature
53
12
19
53
205
206
234
19
19
19
19
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
129
129
318
12
12
50
50
50
50
50
F01
F01
F04
F01
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F04
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
N sherds
N vessels
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ware
Form and Vessel Category
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Plate
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Plate or platter
Teaware, hollow
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Page 150
�CW Object No.
(ends w/33AS)
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
231
232
233
233
234
235
235
236
236
236
236
236
236
237
238
238
238
238
238
238
Artifact ID (DAACS)
1008-00053-WTS--00027
1008-00053-WTS--00028
1008-00053-WTS--00029
1008-00053-WTS--00030
1008-00053-WTS--00031
1008-00053-WTS--00093
1008-00053-WTS--00094
1008-00053-WTS--00095
1008-00053-WTS--00096
1008-00053-WTS--00097
1008-00053-WTS--00098
1008-00053-WTS--00099
1008-00053-WTS--00100
1008-00053-WTS--00101
1008-00053-WTS--00102
1008-00053-WTS--00103
1008-00129-WTS--00101
1008-00318-DRS--00018
1008-00019-DRS--00078
1008-00050-WTS--00124
1008-00129-WTS--00001
1008-00019-DRS--00077
1008-00050-WTS--00082
1008-00278-DRS--00045
1008-00019-DRS--00074
1008-00019-DRS--00075
1008-00019-DRS--00076
1008-00030-DRS--00010
1008-00278-DRS--00043
1008-00278-DRS--00044
1008-00050-WTS--00113
1008-00012-NOS--00183
1008-00033-DRS--00005
1008-00035-NOS--00013
1008-00045-DRS--00019
1008-00050-WTS--00114
1008-00050-WTS--00115
Palace Lands Archaeology
Other
ID**
Context
Feature
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
129
318
19
50
129
19
50
278
19
19
19
30
278
278
50
12
33
35
45
50
50
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F04
F04
F01
F01
F04
F01
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F01
F01
F14
F15
F18
F01
F01
N sherds
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N vessels
Ware
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Form and Vessel Category
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Fulham Type
Colonoware
Colonoware
Colonoware
Colonoware
Colonoware
Colonoware
Colonoware
Colonoware
Colonoware
Colonoware
Colonoware
Colonoware
Colonoware
Jackfield Type
Jackfield Type
Jackfield Type
Jackfield Type
Jackfield Type
Jackfield Type
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Storage jar
Utilitarian, hollow
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Plate*
Bowl*
Bowl*
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Porringer*
Teapot
Teapot
Teapot
Teapot
Teapot
Teapot
Page 151
�CW Object No.
(ends w/33AS)
239
240
240
240
240
240
241
242
242
243
244
245
246
246
246
246
246
246
246
247
248
249
249
249
250
251
251
251
251
251
251
251
251
252
252
252
252
Artifact ID (DAACS)
1008-00012-NOS--00119
1008-00012-NOS--00184
1008-00012-NOS--00185
1008-00012-NOS--00186
1008-00012-NOS--00187
1008-00012-NOS--00188
1008-00295-DRS--00013
1008-00012-NOS--00189
1008-00012-NOS--00190
1008-00012-NOS--00191
1008-00030-DRS--00009
1008-00012-NOS--00124
1008-00012-NOS--00192
1008-00012-NOS--00193
1008-00012-NOS--00194
1008-00053-WTS--00032
1008-00053-WTS--00033
1008-00053-WTS--00034
1008-00129-WTS--00062
1008-00050-WTS--00116
1008-00277-DRS--00050
1008-00045-DRS--00016
1008-00045-DRS--00017
1008-00045-DRS--00018
1008-00129-WTS--00057
1008-00019-DRS--00103
1008-00019-DRS--00105
1008-00035-NOS--00014
1008-00045-DRS--00023
1008-00045-DRS--00024
1008-00049-DRS--00005
1008-00050-WTS--00121
1008-00279-DRS--00027
1008-00019-DRS--00071
1008-00019-DRS--00072
1008-00035-NOS--00010
1008-00068-NOS--00008
Palace Lands Archaeology
Other
ID**
Context
Feature
12
12
12
12
12
12
295
12
12
12
30
12
12
12
12
53
53
53
129
50
277
45
45
45
129
19
19
35
45
45
49
50
279
19
19
35
68
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F04
F01
F01
F01
F04
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F04
F18
F18
F18
F01
F04
F04
F15
F18
F18
F04
F01
F04
F04
F04
F15
F13
N sherds
N vessels
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ware
Form and Vessel Category
Slipware, North Midlands/Staffordshire
Slipware, North Midlands/Staffordshire
Slipware, North Midlands/Staffordshire
Slipware, North Midlands/Staffordshire
Slipware, North Midlands/Staffordshire
Slipware, North Midlands/Staffordshire
American Stoneware
Westerwald/Rhenish
Westerwald/Rhenish
Westerwald/Rhenish
Whieldon-type Ware
Whieldon-type Ware
Whieldon-type Ware
Whieldon-type Ware
Whieldon-type Ware
Whieldon-type Ware
Whieldon-type Ware
Whieldon-type Ware
Whieldon-type Ware
Staffordshire Mottled Glaze
Porcelain, English Soft Paste
Porcelain, English Soft Paste
Porcelain, English Soft Paste
Porcelain, English Soft Paste
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Tableware, flat
Mug/tankard*
Mug/tankard*
Mug/tankard*
Mug/tankard*
Mug/tankard*
Tableware, hollow
Mug/tankard*
Mug/tankard*
Mug/tankard*
Platter*
Saucer*
Creamer*
Creamer*
Creamer*
Creamer*
Creamer*
Creamer*
Creamer*
Mug/tankard
Teaware, unidentifiable
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Punch bowl*
Punch bowl*
Punch bowl*
Punch bowl*
Punch bowl*
Punch bowl*
Punch bowl*
Punch bowl*
Punch bowl*
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Page 152
�CW Object No.
(ends w/33AS)
253
253
253
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
Artifact ID (DAACS)
1008-00012-NOS--00160
1008-00012-NOS--00161
1008-00012-NOS--00162
1008-00019-DRS--00134
1008-00019-DRS--00135
1008-00019-DRS--00136
1008-00019-DRS--00137
1008-00019-DRS--00138
1008-00019-DRS--00139
1008-00019-DRS--00140
1008-00019-DRS--00141
1008-00019-DRS--00142
1008-00019-DRS--00143
1008-00019-DRS--00144
1008-00019-DRS--00145
1008-00019-DRS--00146
1008-00019-DRS--00147
1008-00019-DRS--00148
1008-00019-DRS--00149
1008-00019-DRS--00150
1008-00019-DRS--00151
1008-00019-DRS--00152
1008-00019-DRS--00153
1008-00019-DRS--00154
1008-00019-DRS--00155
1008-00019-DRS--00156
1008-00019-DRS--00157
1008-00019-DRS--00158
1008-00019-DRS--00159
1008-00019-DRS--00160
1008-00019-DRS--00161
1008-00019-DRS--00162
1008-00019-DRS--00163
1008-00019-DRS--00164
1008-00277-DRS--00057
1008-00277-DRS--00058
1008-00277-DRS--00059
Palace Lands Archaeology
Other
ID**
Context
Feature
12
12
12
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
277
277
277
F01
F01
F01
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
N sherds
N vessels
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ware
Form and Vessel Category
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Unidentifiable, hollow
Unidentifiable, hollow
Unidentifiable, hollow
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Page 153
�CW Object No.
(ends w/33AS)
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
254
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
256
256
256
256
256
256
257
257
257
257
257
257
258
258
258
Artifact ID (DAACS)
1008-00277-DRS--00060
1008-00277-DRS--00061
1008-00277-DRS--00062
1008-00277-DRS--00063
1008-00277-DRS--00064
1008-00277-DRS--00065
1008-00278-DRS--00051
1008-00279-DRS--00032
1008-00279-DRS--00033
1008-00279-DRS--00034
1008-00279-DRS--00035
1008-00279-DRS--00036
1008-00050-WTS--00072
1008-00050-WTS--00073
1008-00050-WTS--00074
1008-00050-WTS--00075
1008-00050-WTS--00132
1008-00050-WTS--00133
1008-00050-WTS--00134
1008-00050-WTS--00135
1008-00050-WTS--00136
1008-00050-WTS--00137
1008-00012-NOS--00130
1008-00012-NOS--00132
1008-00012-NOS--00133
1008-00012-NOS--00134
1008-00012-NOS--00135
1008-00012-NOS--00136
1008-00050-WTS--00066
1008-00050-WTS--00067
1008-00050-WTS--00068
1008-00050-WTS--00069
1008-00050-WTS--00070
1008-00050-WTS--00071
1008-00050-WTS--00128
1008-00050-WTS--00129
1008-00050-WTS--00130
Palace Lands Archaeology
Other
ID**
Context
Feature
277
277
277
277
277
277
278
279
279
279
279
279
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
12
12
12
12
12
12
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
N sherds
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N vessels
Ware
1
1
1
1
Form and Vessel Category
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Page 154
�CW Object No.
(ends w/33AS)
258
258
258
258
258
258
258
258
258
258
258
258
258
258
258
259
259
259
259
259
259
259
259
259
259
259
260
260
261
262
262
262
263
264
265
266
266
Artifact ID (DAACS)
1008-00050-WTS--00131
1008-00129-WTS--00073
1008-00129-WTS--00074
1008-00129-WTS--00075
1008-00129-WTS--00076
1008-00129-WTS--00077
1008-00129-WTS--00078
1008-00129-WTS--00079
1008-00129-WTS--00080
1008-00129-WTS--00081
1008-00129-WTS--00082
1008-00129-WTS--00083
1008-00129-WTS--00084
1008-00129-WTS--00085
1008-00129-WTS--00086
1008-00012-NOS--00195
1008-00012-NOS--00196
1008-00012-NOS--00197
1008-00012-NOS--00198
1008-00012-NOS--00199
1008-00012-NOS--00200
1008-00045-DRS--00020
1008-00045-DRS--00021
1008-00045-DRS--00022
1008-00050-WTS--00122
1008-00050-WTS--00123
1008-00012-NOS--00169
1008-00012-NOS--00205
1008-00050-WTS--00104
1008-00012-NOS--00164
1008-00012-NOS--00165
1008-00012-NOS--00166
1008-00012-NOS--00163
1008-00298-DRS--00006
1008-00053-WTS--00021
1008-00019-DRS--00079
1008-00019-DRS--00080
Palace Lands Archaeology
Other
ID**
Context
Feature
50
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
12
12
12
12
12
12
45
45
45
50
50
12
12
50
12
12
12
12
298
53
19
19
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F18
F18
F18
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F04
F01
F04
F04
N sherds
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N vessels
Ware
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Form and Vessel Category
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Plate*
Plate*
Plate*
Plate*
Plate*
Plate*
Unidentifiable, flat
Bowl
Bowl
Page 155
�CW Object No.
(ends w/33AS)
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
267
267
267
267
Artifact ID (DAACS)
1008-00019-DRS--00081
1008-00019-DRS--00082
1008-00019-DRS--00083
1008-00019-DRS--00084
1008-00019-DRS--00085
1008-00019-DRS--00086
1008-00050-WTS--00076
1008-00050-WTS--00077
1008-00050-WTS--00078
1008-00050-WTS--00079
1008-00050-WTS--00080
1008-00050-WTS--00081
1008-00277-DRS--00035
1008-00277-DRS--00036
1008-00277-DRS--00037
1008-00277-DRS--00038
1008-00277-DRS--00039
1008-00277-DRS--00040
1008-00277-DRS--00041
1008-00277-DRS--00042
1008-00277-DRS--00043
1008-00277-DRS--00044
1008-00277-DRS--00045
1008-00277-DRS--00046
1008-00279-DRS--00018
1008-00279-DRS--00019
1008-00279-DRS--00020
1008-00279-DRS--00021
1008-00279-DRS--00022
1008-00279-DRS--00023
1008-00279-DRS--00024
1008-00298-DRS--00007
1008-00298-DRS--00008
1008-00019-DRS--00104
1008-00050-WTS--00118
1008-00050-WTS--00119
1008-00050-WTS--00120
Palace Lands Archaeology
Other
ID**
Context
Feature
19
19
19
19
19
19
50
50
50
50
50
50
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
279
279
279
279
279
279
279
298
298
19
50
50
50
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F01
F01
F01
N sherds
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N vessels
Ware
1
Form and Vessel Category
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Page 156
�CW Object No.
(ends w/33AS)
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
267
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
268
269
269
269
Artifact ID (DAACS)
1008-00050-WTS--00163
1008-00050-WTS--00164
1008-00050-WTS--00165
1008-00050-WTS--00166
1008-00050-WTS--00167
1008-00050-WTS--00168
1008-00050-WTS--00169
1008-00050-WTS--00170
1008-00050-WTS--00171
1008-00050-WTS--00172
1008-00050-WTS--00173
1008-00050-WTS--00174
1008-00053-WTS--00091
1008-00053-WTS--00092
1008-00129-WTS--00100
1008-00277-DRS--00051
1008-00019-DRS--00088
1008-00035-NOS--00011
1008-00045-DRS--00012
1008-00045-DRS--00013
1008-00045-DRS--00014
1008-00050-WTS--00083
1008-00050-WTS--00084
1008-00050-WTS--00085
1008-00050-WTS--00086
1008-00050-WTS--00087
1008-00053-WTS--00023
1008-00053-WTS--00024
1008-00054-WTS--00032
1008-00054-WTS--00033
1008-00129-WTS--00063
1008-00129-WTS--00064
1008-00129-WTS--00065
1008-00129-WTS--00067
1008-00019-DRS--00073
1008-00206-WTS--00009
1008-00234-DRS--00002
Palace Lands Archaeology
Other
ID**
Context
Feature
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
53
53
129
277
19
35
45
45
45
50
50
50
50
50
53
53
54
54
129
129
129
129
19
206
234
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F04
F04
F15
F18
F18
F18
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F04
F04
F04
N sherds
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N vessels
Ware
1
1
Form and Vessel Category
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Page 157
�CW Object No.
(ends w/33AS)
270
270
270
270
271
271
272
273
273
273
273
274
274
275
275
275
276
277
277
277
277
277
278
278
279
280
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
286
288
288
289
Artifact ID (DAACS)
1008-00012-NOS--00170
1008-00019-DRS--00087
1008-00045-DRS--00015
1008-00205-DRS--00008
1008-00019-DRS--00089
1008-00030-DRS--00012
1008-00205-DRS--00009
1008-00012-NOS--00172
1008-00053-WTS--00025
1008-00054-WTS--00026
1008-00230-NOS--00001
1008-00054-WTS--00028
1008-00129-WTS--00008
1008-00129-WTS--00068
1008-00129-WTS--00069
1008-00129-WTS--00070
1008-00012-NOS--00173
1008-00019-DRS--00094
1008-00206-WTS--00011
1008-00206-WTS--00012
1008-00207-DRS--00004
1008-00279-DRS--00025
1008-00012-NOS--00206
1008-00012-NOS--00207
1008-00230-NOS--00002
1008-00206-WTS--00013
1008-00318-DRS--00020
1008-00295-DRS--00015
1008-00054-WTS--00031
1008-00129-WTS--00056
1008-00050-WTS--00117
1008-00129-WTS--00007
1008-00278-DRS--00048
1008-00278-DRS--00049
1008-00019-DRS--00095
1008-00035-NOS--00012
1008-00050-WTS--00125
Palace Lands Archaeology
Other
ID**
Context
Feature
12
19
45
205
19
30
205
12
53
54
230
54
129
129
129
129
12
19
206
206
207
279
12
12
230
206
318
295
54
129
50
129
278
278
19
35
50
F01
F04
F18
F04
F04
F04
F04
F01
F01
F01
F11
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F01
F01
F11
F04
F04
F04
F01
F01
F01
F01
F04
F04
F04
F15
F01
N sherds
N vessels
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ware
Form and Vessel Category
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Coarse Earthenware, unidentifiable
Coarse Earthenware, unidentifiable
Creamware
Creamware
Delftware, Dutch/British
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teabowl
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Jug*
Jug*
Jug*
Jug*
Jug*
Plate
Plate
Teaware, flat
Plate*
Plate*
Plate*
Teaware, hollow
Sugar bowl*
Coffee Pot
Teaware, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Unidentifiable, hollow
Page 158
�CW Object No.
(ends w/33AS)
289
289
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
290
291
291
291
291
291
291
291
291
291
291
291
291
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
Artifact ID (DAACS)
1008-00050-WTS--00126
1008-00054-WTS--00027
1008-00012-NOS--00213
1008-00012-NOS--00214
1008-00012-NOS--00215
1008-00012-NOS--00216
1008-00012-NOS--00217
1008-00012-NOS--00218
1008-00012-NOS--00219
1008-00012-NOS--00220
1008-00012-NOS--00221
1008-00019-DRS--00106
1008-00019-DRS--00107
1008-00019-DRS--00108
1008-00019-DRS--00109
1008-00019-DRS--00110
1008-00019-DRS--00111
1008-00019-DRS--00112
1008-00019-DRS--00113
1008-00019-DRS--00114
1008-00019-DRS--00115
1008-00019-DRS--00116
1008-00204-WTS--00019
1008-00012-NOS--00174
1008-00019-DRS--00097
1008-00019-DRS--00098
1008-00019-DRS--00099
1008-00019-DRS--00100
1008-00019-DRS--00101
1008-00019-DRS--00102
1008-00019-DRS--00121
1008-00019-DRS--00122
1008-00019-DRS--00123
1008-00019-DRS--00124
1008-00019-DRS--00125
1008-00019-DRS--00126
1008-00019-DRS--00127
Palace Lands Archaeology
Other
ID**
Context
Feature
50
54
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
204
12
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F01
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
N sherds
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N vessels
Ware
1
1
1
Form and Vessel Category
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Unidentifiable, hollow
Unidentifiable, hollow
Platter
Platter
Platter
Platter
Platter
Platter
Platter
Platter
Platter
Saucer
Saucer
Saucer
Saucer
Saucer
Saucer
Saucer
Saucer
Saucer
Saucer
Saucer
Saucer
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Page 159
�CW Object No.
(ends w/33AS)
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
292
Artifact ID (DAACS)
1008-00019-DRS--00128
1008-00019-DRS--00129
1008-00019-DRS--00130
1008-00019-DRS--00131
1008-00019-DRS--00132
1008-00049-DRS--00004
1008-00049-DRS--00006
1008-00207-DRS--00005
1008-00277-DRS--00047
1008-00277-DRS--00048
1008-00277-DRS--00049
1008-00277-DRS--00052
1008-00277-DRS--00053
1008-00277-DRS--00054
1008-00277-DRS--00055
1008-00279-DRS--00026
1008-00279-DRS--00029
1008-00279-DRS--00030
1008-00279-DRS--00031
1008-00086-DRS--00005
1008-00183-DRS--00014
1008-00084-DRS--00003
1008-00084-DRS--00006
1008-00084-DRS--00021
1008-00084-DRS--00022
1008-00159-DRS--00003
1008-00159-DRS--00004
1008-00085-DRS--00003
1008-00085-DRS--00004
1008-00159-DRS--00007
1008-00159-DRS--00008
1008-00086-DRS--00001
1008-00086-DRS--00002
1008-00086-DRS--00003
1008-00086-DRS--00004
1008-00159-DRS--00025
1008-00159-DRS--00026
Palace Lands Archaeology
Other
ID**
a
a
aa
aa
bb
bb
c
c
cc
cc
d
d
dd
dd
dd
dd
e
e
Context
Feature
19
19
19
19
19
49
49
207
277
277
277
277
277
277
277
279
279
279
279
86
183
84
84
84
84
159
159
85
85
159
159
86
86
86
86
159
159
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N sherds
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N vessels
Ware
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Form and Vessel Category
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Porcelain, Chinese
Porcelain, Chinese
Creamware
Creamware
Whiteware
Whiteware
Whiteware
Whiteware
Whiteware
Whiteware
Whiteware
Whiteware
Porcellaneous/English Hard Paste
Porcellaneous/English Hard Paste
Porcellaneous/English Hard Paste
Porcellaneous/English Hard Paste
Ironstone/White Granite
Ironstone/White Granite
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Chamberpot
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Tableware, flat
Tableware, flat
Tableware, flat
Tableware, flat
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, flat
Tableware, flat
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Bowl
Tableware, flat
Tableware, flat
Page 160
�CW Object No.
(ends w/33AS)
Artifact ID (DAACS)
1008-00159-DRS--00027
1008-00073-DRS--00006
1008-00073-DRS--00007
1008-00161-DRS--00002
1008-00161-DRS--00003
1008-00164-DRS--00002
1008-00164-DRS--00003
1008-00164-DRS--00004
1008-00164-DRS--00031
1008-00164-DRS--00032
1008-00164-DRS--00033
1008-00170-DRS--00020
1008-00170-DRS--00021
1008-00182-DRS--00011
1008-00182-DRS--00012
1008-00183-DRS--00018
1008-00183-DRS--00019
1008-00184-DRS--00003
1008-00184-DRS--00004
1008-00184-DRS--00005
1008-00184-DRS--00006
1008-00184-DRS--00007
1008-00184-DRS--00008
1008-00184-DRS--00009
1008-00184-DRS--00010
1008-00184-DRS--00011
1008-00184-DRS--00012
1008-00184-DRS--00013
1008-00184-DRS--00014
1008-00277-DRS--00003
1008-00277-DRS--00004
1008-00277-DRS--00005
1008-00318-DRS--00005
1008-00318-DRS--00006
1008-00002-DRS--00014
1008-00002-DRS--00015
1008-00003-DRS--00009
Palace Lands Archaeology
Other
ID**
e
ee
ee
f
f
g
g
g
h
h
h
i
i
j
j
k
k
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
o
o
o
p
p
q
q
r
Context
Feature
159
73
73
161
161
164
164
164
164
164
164
170
170
182
182
183
183
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
184
277
277
277
318
318
2
2
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
F04
F04
F04
F04
F04
N/A
N/A
N/A
N sherds
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N vessels
Ware
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Form and Vessel Category
Ironstone/White Granite
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
Creamware
Creamware
Whiteware
Whiteware
Whiteware
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Ironstone/White Granite
Ironstone/White Granite
Redware
Redware
Ironstone/White Granite
Ironstone/White Granite
Ironstone/White Granite
Ironstone/White Granite
Ironstone/White Granite
Ironstone/White Granite
Ironstone/White Granite
Ironstone/White Granite
Ironstone/White Granite
Ironstone/White Granite
Ironstone/White Granite
Ironstone/White Granite
Ironstone/White Granite
Ironstone/White Granite
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Creamware
Creamware
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
Coarse Earthenware, unidentifiable
Tableware, flat
Teabowl
Teabowl
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Tableware, flat
Tableware, flat
Tableware, flat
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Tableware, flat
Tableware, flat
Flower Pot
Flower Pot
Tableware, flat
Tableware, flat
Cup
Cup
Cup
Cup
Cup
Cup
Cup
Cup
Cup
Cup
Cup
Cup
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Teaware, unidentifiable
Teaware, unidentifiable
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Utilitarian, hollow
Page 161
�CW Object No.
(ends w/33AS)
Artifact ID (DAACS)
1008-00003-DRS--00010
1008-00012-NOS--00017
1008-00012-NOS--00018
1008-00012-NOS--00019
1008-00012-NOS--00021
1008-00012-NOS--00022
1008-00017-DRS--00001
1008-00017-DRS--00002
1008-00026-DRS--00011
1008-00026-DRS--00012
1008-00027-DRS--00004
1008-00027-DRS--00005
1008-00028-DRS--00005
1008-00028-DRS--00006
1008-00068-NOS--00001
1008-00068-NOS--00002
1008-00073-DRS--00001
1008-00073-DRS--00005
Total
Other
ID**
r
s
s
s
t
t
u
u
v
v
w
w
x
x
y
y
z
z
Context
Feature
3
12
12
12
12
12
17
17
26
26
27
27
28
28
68
68
73
73
N/A
F01
F01
F01
F01
F01
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
F13
F13
N/A
N/A
N sherds
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
537
N vessels
Ware
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Form and Vessel Category
Coarse Earthenware, unidentifiable
Creamware
Creamware
Creamware
Westerwald/Rhenish
Westerwald/Rhenish
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
Porcellaneous/English Hard Paste
Porcellaneous/English Hard Paste
Porcellaneous/English Hard Paste
Porcellaneous/English Hard Paste
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
Delftware, Dutch/British
White Salt Glaze
White Salt Glaze
Utilitarian, hollow
Teaware, unidentifiable
Teaware, unidentifiable
Teaware, unidentifiable
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Bowl
Bowl
Teaware, hollow
Teaware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Drug Jar/Salve Pot
Tableware, hollow
Tableware, hollow
Teabowl
Teabowl
116
Notes:
**Letter notations in this column were provisionally assigned to vesselized sherds by the report's author since none were previously assigned by CW or DAACS.
*This vessel form was originally assigned by CW and was used for all descriptions and analyses in this report.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 162
�Appendix F. Inventory of Estate of John Coke, February 15, 1768
Item
1 Bay Mare
24 Head of Cattle
10 Yearlings
1 Iron Pot, 1 frying Pan [torn] Oxen
3 Horses £20 [torn] Wheel Barrow 7/6
1 Sow £3 [torn]
14 Silver [torn] Spoons 55/
[torn]
1 Punch Ladle 20/. 1 Walnut Cupboard 17/6
1 Do. 5/. 1 Pine Do. 12/6. 1 Looking Glass 20/
1 Oval Black Walnut Table 30/. 2 Pine Tables 15/
22 Knives 48 Forks 20/. 1 Corner Table 5/
1 Candle Stand 5/. 12 Leather Chairs 35/
1 old Mare 5/. 14 old Rush Bottom Chairs 14/
1 old Table 2/6. 4 pair flat Irons 20/
1 Warming Pan and Trivet 7/6. 1 Safe 15/
25 Candle Moulds and 2 Stands
1 Looking Glass 2/6. 3 Butter Pots 15/
2 Guns 25/. 1 Pr. Tarniers 1 Gimblet 1 Lanthorn 2/6
5 Reap Hooks 7/6. 1 Pr. Hand Irons & Tongs
1 Pr. Scales and Weights 12/6. 12 Tin Cannisters 3/
1 Pr. Cotton Cards 4 Brushes 1 Pr. Money Scales Parcel old Mats 1 Hammer
1 Case with 9 Bottles 3 Jugs 1 Pickle Pot Wheat Seive Butcher's Steel 4 Pr. Sheep Sheers
1 old Sword
1 Pair Garden Sheers 3/. Lime Squeezer 1/3
2 Sugar Canisters 4/. Sythe Stones 1/
1 Bed, Bedstead, Rug, Pillow, pr. Sheets & Pillow Case
1 Desk 50/. Parcel Books 30/. Walnut Table 12/6
1 Writing Desk 10/. 1 Close stool Chair 20/
1 old Trunk and Box
79 Barrels of [torn]
2 Pair Hand [Irons?] 1 Bed Q[uilt...Bla]nkets Counter[pain Beds]tead Pillow & Curtains
1 Pine Table [torn]
1 Bed Bedstead [torn] Pillows Rug Blanket
1 Bed Bedstead [torn]
1 Square Table [torn] £5
1 Spinning [Wheel...]
1 Spinning [Wheel...]
1 old Trunk [torn]
18 Pewter Dishes and 1 Cover
7 Pewter Basons 1 Water Plate.
7 Pewter Pots and Cullender
7 Dozn. Pewter Plates £7. Parcel old Pewter 10/
13 Brass Candlesticks & 4 Irons do. 40/. 4 Pr. Snuffers 15/
5 Copper Coffee Pots 50/. 3 Tea Kettles & 1 Chocolate Pot
Palace Lands Archaeology
Value
£4..0..0
45..0..0
6..5..0
0..15..0
28..7..6
23..0..0
15..15..0
1..17..6
1..17..6
1..17..6
2..5..0
1..5..0
2..0..0
0..19..0
1..2..6
1..2..6
1..17..6
0..17..6
1..7..6
0..12..6
0..15..6
0..15..0
1..15..0
0..4..3
0..5..0
6..0..0
4..12..6
1..10..0
0..5..0
35..0..0
7..10..0
0..12..6
6..0..0
6..0..0
5..2..6
0..10..6
1..8..0
1..10..0
5..0..0
1..0..0
1..0..0
7..10..0
2..15..0
1..0..0
Page 163
�Item
3 Chafing Dishes 1 Cheese Toaster
4 China Bowls 30/. 23 China Saucers 21 Cups and 8 Chocolate Cups 30/
7 Tea Pots 5 Milk Pots 2 Slop Bowls
2 Mahogany Tea Boards 7/3. Mugs 3/.
10 White Stone Dishes 15/. 12 Stone Plates 6/
6 Delph Dishes and 6 Plates 10/. 31 Custard Cups
2 Cruit stands 10/. 3 Butter boats 2/. 4 Glass Tumblers 4/
23 Wine Glasses 11/. 1 Glass Decanter 2/6
3 Sugar Dishes 1/. 4 Pair Glass Salts 5/
7 Butter Pots 20/. 23 Milk Pans 11/. 18 fat Pots 25/.
15 Tin Pattipans, Tin Toaster 1 Dish
2 Square Black Walnut Tables
1 large Oval Do. £4 1 smaller Do. 25/
1 Do. 15/. 2 Pine Do. 15/
1 Square Walnut do. 12/6. 1 Dozn. Walnut Chairs £6
2 Beds Bedsteads, 2 Rugs 2 Counterpains 2 Blankets 2 Hides 2 Pillows
2 Beds Bedsteads, 2 Coun[terpains...] Ruggs 2 Blankets [torn] Pillows
1 Bed Bedstead 2 Pillows 1 C[ounterpa]in in 1 Rugg
3 Pair hand Irons [torn]
1 Dozn. Rush Bottom [Chairs]
1 Square Pine [Table?]
1 Bed Beds[tead...] Mattress
3 Square [Tables?]
[...coun]terp[ain...ma]ttrass
1 Bedstead 5/. 28 Pair Sheets £28
10 Damask Table Cloaths £10. 6 Huckaback do. 4.10/
6 Ozenbrigs Table Cloaths 1 White Linnen do.
10 Ozbs. Towels, 16 Pillow Cases, 6 old Linnen Towels
2 Counterpains
1 Negro Man Tom
Squire
Debdford
James
Phill
Lucy
Alice
Sylvia
Judith
1 large Copper Kettle £7. Fish Kettle 40/
1 Pair large Hand Irons 35/. 6 Iron Pots £4
1 Copper Dutch Oven 40/. 3 Spits 15/
1 Skillet Stewpan Kettle and Saucepan
20 Water Tubs and Pales 30/. 3 frying Pans 7/6
5 Pair Pot-hooks 10/. Grid Iron 15/. 2 dripping Pans 7/6
1 Pair Tongs 2/6. Skimmer and Flesh fork 2/6
2 Mortars 7/6. 5 Wooden Trays 5/
4 Pot Racks 12/6. 6 Axes 17/6. 3 Spades 15/
7 Hoes 15/. Garden Rake 3/9. 2 Forks 3/9
Palace Lands Archaeology
Value
0..10..0
3..0..0
0..12..6
0..10..3
1..1..0
0..10..0
0..16..0
0..13..0
0..6..0
2..16..0
0..10..0
2..15..0
5..5..0
1..10..0
6..12..6
14..0..0
15..0..0
8..0..0
1..0..0
0..18..0
0..10..6
7..0..0
0..15..0
2..10..0
28..5..0
14..10..0
1..7..6
2..7..4
1..15..0
40..0..0
40..0..0
55..0..0
55..0..0
55..0..0
40..0..0
10..0..0
50..0..0
25..0..0
9..0..0
5..15..0
2..15..0
0..15..0
1..17..6
1..12..6
0..5..0
0..12..6
2..5..0
1..2..6
Page 164
�Item
A parcel old [torn] Tubbs 10/. 1 Iron Cleaver 7/6
3 old Saddles [torn] 2 Ox Chains [torn]
1 old Safe 7/6 [torn] 25/. Wooden Churn 4/
2 ½ Gros Bott[les]
1 Brass Kettle [torn]
Value
0..7..6
2..0..0
1..16..6
5..7..6
1..5..0
£772..18..1
We who[se names are under]written being first Sworn me[t and appraised the] Estate of John Coke
deceased in Current Money abovementioned
February 13th. 1768
Alexr. Craig
Blovet Pasteur
Peter Powell
Returned into York County Court the 15th. Day of February 1768 and Ordered to be Recorded
Examined Teste
Thos. Everard Cl. Cur:
Creation of machine-readable version: Riadeen De las Alas
Conversion to TEI.2-conformant markup: Wayne Graham
York County Wills & Inventories 21, 1760-1771, pp. 381-385 and
http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/view/index.cfm?doc=Probates\PB00241.xml&highlight=john%20coke
The digital version has been made from transcripts on file in the Department of Historical Research, CWF.
THIS DOCUMENT WAS TRANSCRIBED AND THEN EDITED FROM THE ORIGINAL. ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPTS ARE NOT
LEGAL RECORDS OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF YORK, VIRGINIA.
November 2000
Wayne Graham
Staff
Transcription editing
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 165
�Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 166
�Appendix G. Excavation and Test Units
Context No.
Grid Coord
Deposit Type
1
1004N/1005E
Plowzone
2×2
100
2
1006N/1005E
Plowzone
2×2
100
3
1004N/1003E
Plowzone
2×2
100
8
1002N/1003E
Plowzone
2×2
100
9
1002N/1007E
Plowzone
2×2
100
10
1002N/1005E
Plowzone
2×2
100
14
1006N/1003E
Plowzone
2×2
100
15
1004N/1007E
Plowzone
2×2
100
16
1008N/1003E
Plowzone
2×2
100
17
1000N/1007E
Plowzone
2×2
100
18
1000N/1005E
Plowzone
2×2
100
23
1000N/1009E
Plowzone
2×2
100
24
998N/1007E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
25
998N/1005E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
26
998N/1009E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
27
998N/1009E
Redep. sub
2×2
25
NE
28
998N/1003E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
29
1000N/1011E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
32
1000N/1011E
Redep. sub.
2×2
25
NE
37
998N/1001E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
52
1002N/1011E
Plowzone
2×2
25
SW
58
1000N/1003E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
59
1002N/1009E
Plowzone
2×2
25
SE
60
1004N/1009E
Plowzone
2×2
25
SE
61
1008N/1005E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
62
996N/1001E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
63
996N/1003E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
64
996N/1005E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
65
994N/1005E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
72
996N/1007E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
73
1006N/1009E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
80
1006N/1009E
Redep. sub.
2×2
73
81
1004N/1009E
Redep. sub.
4×4
60, 160, 163, 172, 173
84
994N/1007E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
85
996N/1009E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
86
998N/1011E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
87
998N/1011E
Redep. sub.
2×2
86
0
102
994N/1009E
Redep. sub.
2×2
120
25
NE
103
996N/1011E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
104
994N/1003E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NE
105
996N/1011E
Redep. sub.
2×2
103
106
994N/1003E
Silt layer
2×2
104
108
1002N/1013E
Plowzone
2×2
110
1002N/1013E
Redep. sub.
4×2
Palace Lands Archaeology
Size
Seals Context No.
26
29
Dryscreen Sample %
0
0
0
0
25
108, 197
Sample Area
NW
0
Page 167
�Context No.
Grid Coord
Deposit Type
Size
Seals Context No.
111
994N/1011E
Plowzone
2×2
120
994N/1009E
Silt layer
2×2
Sample Area
25
NE
25
126
994N/1011E
Silt layer
2×2
127
1000N/1013E
Redep. sub.
2×2
128
1000N/1013E
Plowzone
2×2
130
998N/1013E
Redep. sub.
2×2
131
998N/1013E
Plowzone
2×2
133
998N/1013E
Redep. sub.
2×2
131
0
134
996N/1013E
Redep. sub.
2×2
140
10
NW
135
994N/1013E
2×2
136
25
NE
136
994N/1013E
Unknown modern
layer
Redep. sub.
8×2
137, 184
0
137
994N/1013E
Plowzone
2×2
138
25
NE
138
994N/1013E
Silt layer
2×2
25
NE
139
996N/1013E
Silt layer
2×2
0
140
996N/1013E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
158
992N/1013E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
159
992N/1003E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
160
1004N/1011E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
161
992N/1007E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
162
992N/1009E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
163
1004N/1013E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
164
1002N/1001E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
165
1000N/1001E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
170
992N/1005E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
171
1004N/1001E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
172
1006N/1011E
Plowzone
2×2
2
NW
173
1006N/1013E
Plowzone
2×2
2
NW
180
992N/1011E
2×2
25
NW
2×
2a
126
Dryscreen Sample %
NE
0
128
NE
25
133
25
NE
0
25
139
NE
181
1004N/999E
Unknown modern
layer
Redep. sub.
25
NW
182
1008N/1001E
Plowzone
2×2
2
NW
183
994N/1001E
Plowzone
2×2
2
NW
184
992N/1011E
Silt layer
2×2
25
NW
185
1004N/1000E
Plowzone
1×1
100
186
1000N/999E
Plowzone
2 × 2a
25
NW
187
1006N/1001E
Plowzone
2×2
2
NW
188
1008N/999E
Plowzone
2 × 2a
25
NW
189
996N/999E
Plowzone
2 × 2a
25
NW
190
1008N/1000E
Plowzone
2×2
100
191
996N/1000E
Plowzone
1×1
100
192
1000N/1000E
Plowzone
1×1
100
197
1002N/1015E
Silt layer
2×2
25
NW
212
1006N/1007E
Plowzone
2×2
2
NW
218
998N/1000E
Plowzone
1×1
100
219
998N/999E
Plowzone
2 × 2a
25
NW
220
996N/993E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
Palace Lands Archaeology
184
Page 168
�Context No.
Grid Coord
Deposit Type
222
998N/993E
Plowzone
223
1000N/993E
Plowzone
227
1002N/993E
232
Size
Seals Context No.
Dryscreen Sample %
Sample Area
2×2
25
NW
2×2
25
NW
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
1004N/993E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
233
1006N/993E
Plowzone
1×2
100
239
994N/993E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
241
1002N/999E
Plowzone
2 × 2a
25
NW
242
1002N/1000E
Plowzone
1×1
100
243
994N/991E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
244
996N/991E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
245
1006N/1000E
Plowzone
1×1
100
246
1006N/999E
Plowzone
2 × 2a
25
NW
247
996N/989E
Plowzone
2×2
25
NW
250
992N/991E
Plowzone
1×2
100
259
1018N/999E
Plowzone
1×1
100
260
1023N/999E
Plowzone
1×1
100
261
1028N/998E
Plowzone
1×1
100
262
1033N/999E
Plowzone
1×1
100
263
1008N/974E
Plowzone
1×1
100
264
1008N/979E
Plowzone
1×1
100
265
1008N/983E
Plowzone
1×1
100
270
1008N/989E
Plowzone
1×1
100
271
1008N/969E
Plowzone
1×1
100
272
1008N/964E
Plowzone
1×1
100
Note:
All grid coordinates refer to the northwest corner of the unit.
aThis 2 × 2 m unit had a 1 × 1 m unit excavated first from the northeast quadrant of the unit and assigned a separate
context number.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 169
�Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 170
�Appendix H. Feature Elevations
Feature No.
F01
F01
F01
F01
F02
F02
F02
F02
F04
F04
F04
F05
F05
F05
F06
F06
F06
F07
F08
F09
F10
F11
F12
F13
F14
F15
F16
F17
F18
F19
F20
F21
F22
F23
F24
F25
F26
F27
F28
F29
F31
F32
F33
Top
0.114
0.167
0.200
0.136
0.004
0.005
0.017
0.029
0.047
0.094
0.135
0.137
0.070
0.028
0.441
0.513
0.691
0.086
0.124
0.271
0.088
0.077
0.066
0.022
0.045
0.020
0.037
0.026
0.033
0.022
0.014
0.094
0.042
0.009
0.011
0.004
0.028
0.015
0.097
0.590
0.548
0.472
Bottom
0.879
0.850
0.841
0.857
0.272
0.260
0.230
0.207
0.258
0.253
0.609
0.749
0.977
0.511
0.435
0.436
0.448
0.586
0.401
0.122
0.526
0.398
0.126
0.445
0.329
0.423
0.404
0.544
0.466
0.596
0.388
0.746
0.786
0.692
Palace Lands Archaeology
Feature Depth (meters)
0.765
0.683
0.641
0.721
0.225
0.166
0.095
0.070
0.188
0.225
0.168
0.236
0.286
0.425
0.311
0.348
0.371
0.564
0.356
0.102
0.489
0.372
0.093
0.423
0.287
0.414
0.393
0.540
0.438
0.581
0.291
0.156
0.238
0.220
Page 171
�Feature No.
F34
F35
F36
F39
Top
0.467
0.438
0.356
-
Bottom
0.737
0.650
0.768
-
Feature Depth (meters)
0.270
0.212
0.412
-
Note:
The elevation datum was located at grid point 996N/1011E. The prism height and the instrument height
were both 1.57m.
Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 172
�Appendix I. Summary of Features, North Fence
Feature No.
F07
F08
F09
F10
F11
F12
F13
F14
F15
F16
F17
F18
Context No.
305
306
74
75
307
308
141
142
143
144
145
146
280
281
338
339
230
231
336
337
228
229
340
341
68
69
257
258
33
34
251
252
253
254
35
36
41
42
266
267
43
44
268
269
45
46
Palace Lands Archaeology
Deposit Type
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
N artifacts
5
7
9
21
7
5
5
53
4
3
10
14
39
-
TPQ
nda
1762
1720
1775
1740
nda
1720
1762
nda
nda
nda
1762
1762
Page 173
�Feature No.
F19
F20
F21
F31
F32
F33
F34
F35
F36
F39
Context No.
56
57
255
256
21
22
342
343
38
39
327
326
293
294
330
331
291
292
329
328
289
290
332
333
287
288
321
322
283
284
335
334
66
67
Palace Lands Archaeology
Deposit Type
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Total
N artifacts
3
12
70
1
3
3
2
2
278
TPQ
nda
1762
1787
nda
nda
nda
nda
nda
Page 174
�Appendix J. Summary of Features, South Fence
Feature No.
F22
F23
F24
F25
F26
F27
F28
F29
F30
Context No.
344
345
323
324
125
240
107
109
198
199
82
83
194
196
76
77
100
101
94
297
309
95
193
195
92
225
226
93
237
238
235
236
152
153
Palace Lands Archaeology
Deposit Type
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Posthole fill
Posthole fill
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole fill
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Postmold fill
Postmold cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Posthole fill
Posthole cut
Total
N artifacts
1
1
4
1
1
21
7
6
6
55
8
1
112
TPQ
nda
nda
nda
nda
nda
nda
nda
1720
1671
1775
nda
nda
Page 175
�Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 176
�Appendix K. Summary of Other Features
Feature No.
F37
F38
F40
F41
F42
F43
F44
F45
F46
F47
F48
F49
F50
F51
F52
F53
F54
F55
F56
No feature no. assigned
Context No.
166
167
168
169
176
177
174
175
178
179
150
151
90
91
88
89
78
79
154
155
148
149
200
201
202
203
112
113
118
119
121
122
114
115
116
117
208
209
123
124
Palace Lands Archaeology
Deposit Type
Unidentified
Feature cut
Unidentified
Feature cut
Unidentified
Feature cut
Unidentified
Feature cut
Unidentified
Feature cut
Tree hole fill
Feature cut
Unidentified
Feature cut
Unidentified
Feature cut
Tree hole fill
Feature cut
Animal hole fill
Feature cut
Tree hole fill
Feature cut
Tree hole fill
Feature cut
Tree hole fill
Feature cut
Unidentified
Feature cut
Unidentified
Feature cut
Unidentified
Feature cut
Unidentified
Feature cut
Unidentified
Feature cut
Unidentified
Feature cut
Animal burrow fill
Animal burrow cut
Page 177
�Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 178
�Appendix L. Contexts, Structure 140, Utopia IV
Summary list of contexts associated with Structure 140 features.
Artifacts from these contexts were selected for the comparative analysis.
Feature Group
FG01
Context
9
10
12
13
30
05A
05B
05C
05D
05E
05F
05G
05H
05J
05K
05L
06A
06B
06B1
06B2
06C
06D
06E
06F
06G1
06G2
06H
06J
06K
06L
06M
06N
06P
06Q
06R
07A
07B
07C
07D
07E
07G
08A
Palace Lands Archaeology
Deposit Type
Clean-Up/Out-of-Stratigraphic Context
Clean-Up/Out-of-Stratigraphic Context
Clean-Up/Out-of-Stratigraphic Context
Clean-Up/Out-of-Stratigraphic Context
Clean-Up/Out-of-Stratigraphic Context
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Colluvium/Wash
Fill
Fill
Fill
Colluvium/Wash
Fill
Clean-Up/Out-of-Stratigraphic Context
Clean-Up/Out-of-Stratigraphic Context
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Feature Number
F09
F10
F11/12
F13
F30A/D
F05
F05
F05
F05
F05
F05
F05
F05
F05
F05
F05
F06A
F06B
F06B
F06B
F06C/K
F06C/K
F06C/K
F06C/K
F06G/H
F06G/H
F06G/H
F06C/K
F06C/K
F06L/M/N
F06L/M/N
F06L/M/N
F06P/Q
F06P/Q
F06R
F07
F07
F07
F07
F07
F07
F08
Page 179
�Feature Group
FG01
Context
09A
09B
10A
10B
11A
11B
11C
11C1
11C2
11D
11E
11F
11G
11H
11J
12A
12B
12C
12D
12E
12F
12G
12H
12J
12L
12M
12N
12P
12Q
12R
12S
12T
12U
12V
13A
13B
29A
29B
30A
30A1
30A2
30B
30C
30D
30E
30F
Palace Lands Archaeology
Deposit Type
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Clean-Up/Out-of-Stratigraphic Context
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Colluvium/Wash
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Clean-Up/Out-of-Stratigraphic Context
Fill
Fill
Fill
Colluvium/Wash
Fill
Fill
Fill
Feature Number
F09
F09
F10
F10
F11/12
F11/12
F11/12
F11/12
F11/12
F11D/E
F11D/E
F11/12
F11/12
F11/12
F11J
F12A/B
F12A/B
F11/12
F12D/L-N
F11/12
F11/12
F11/12
F11/12
F12J
F12D/L-N
F12D/L-N
F12D/L-N
F12P/W
F12P/W
F12P/W
F12P/W
F12P/W
F12P/W
F12P/W
F13
F13
F29
F29
F30A/D
F30A/D
F30A/D
F30A/D
F30A/D
F30A/D
F30E/F
F30E/F
Page 180
�Feature Group
FG01
Context
31A
31B
31C
31D
31E
36A
36B
36C
37B
37C
38B
40A
40B
40C
41A
Palace Lands Archaeology
Deposit Type
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Feature Number
F31A
F31B
F31B
F31B
F31B
F36
F36
F36
F37
F37
F38
F40
F40
F40
F41
Page 181
�Palace Lands Archaeology
Page 182
�Appendix M. Contexts, Site 68AL, Rich Neck Slave Quarter
Summary list of contexts associated with Structure 68AL features.
Artifacts from these contexts were selected for the comparative analysis.
Feature Group
FG01
Context
AC01241
AC01243
AC01245
AC01247
AC01249
AC01251
AL00021
AL00025
AL00029
AL00030
AL00031
AL00034
AL00035
AL00036
AL00037
AL00042
AL00044
AL00047
AL00051
AL00053
AL00055
AL00057
AL00061
AL00063
AL00064
AL00066
AL00067
AL00068
AL00071
AL00083
AL00086
AL00090
AL00091
AL00092
AL00093
AL00095
AL00097
AL00101
AL00102
AL00103
AL00105
AL00109
AL00110
Palace Lands Archaeology
Deposit Type
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Cut/Depositional Basin
Fill
Fill
Cut/Depositional Basin
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Cut/Depositional Basin
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Architecture
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Feature Number
F06
F06
F05
F06
F06
F10
F19
F06
F08
F08
F09
F10
F10
F10
F10
F21
F11
F18
F18
F11
F24
F23
F05
F06
F05
F15
F15
F21
F14
F16
F21
F05a
F15
F05a
F20
F20
F05
F06
F15
F05b
F05a
F10
F23
Page 183
�Feature Group
FG01
Not assigned
Context
AL00113
AL00117
AL00121
AL00122
AL00123
AL00124
AL00126
AL00127
AL00128
AL00130
AL00132
AL00133
AL00134
AL00136
AL00137
AL00141
AL00144
AL00158
AL00161
AL00162
AL00163
AL00164
AL00165
AL00166
AL00169
AL00170
AL00171
AL00173
AL00176
AL00177
AL00179
AL00181
AC01240
AC01242
AC01244
AC01248
AC01250
AC01255
AL00014
AL00016
AL00049
AL00074
AL00118
AL00150
AL00152
AL00174
Palace Lands Archaeology
Deposit Type
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Fill
Feature Number
F05c
F05a
F05b
F05b
F10
F12
F07
F10
F07
F21
F10
F10
F05a
F05b
F05b
F07
F17
F14
F07
F21
F21
F21
F21
F21
F21
F21
F21
F21a
F21a
F22
F23
F21a
-
Page 184
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Research Reports
Description
An account of the resource
<p>A collection of research reports from throughout the Foundation's history are available through this webpage. All Colonial Williamsburg research reports, whether in digital or hardcopy format, are discoverable through the Rockefeller Library's online catalog. Their contents reflect the evolution of scholarship over the decades. Given the long period over which these reports have been written, reports sometimes contradict or correct previous thinking due to the discovery of new evidence. Researchers should consult the full range of reports on a particular topic to ensure a thorough understanding of the most current interpretation.</p>
<p>Types of reports include:</p>
<p>Archaeological reports describe archaeological excavations. Reports predating 1960 share only the results of cross-trenching, rather than comprehensive excavation results.</p>
<p>Architectural reports discuss restored and reconstructed buildings.<br />Historical reports (house histories) incorporate primary and secondary sources into the discussion of individual properties and structures.</p>
<p>Interpretive reports clarify the way in which key buildings should be presented to visitors by Colonial Williamsburg's historical interpreters.</p>
<p>Topical reports outline specific areas of interest in 18th-century research.</p>
<p>Other research reports are discoverable at the following website that also has a keyword searchable option: <a href="https://research.colonialwilliamsburg.org/DigitalLibrary/research-reports/">Research Reports.</a></p>
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Archaeology and Enslaved Life on Coke's Plantation : An Early History of the Governor's Lands
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Franklin, Maria
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2017-08
Subject
The topic of the resource
African Americans--Virginia--Williamsburg
Slavery--Virginia--Williamsburg
Governor's Palace (Williamsburg, Va.)
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
pdf