Northeast Historical Archaeology

Volume 27 Article 9

1998 Domestic Masonry Architecture in 17th-Century Virginia David A. Brown

Follow this and additional works at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons

Recommended Citation Brown, David A. (1998) "Domestic Masonry Architecture in 17th-Century Virginia," Northeast Historical Archaeology: Vol. 27 27, Article 9. https://doi.org/10.22191/neha/vol27/iss1/9 Available at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha/vol27/iss1/9

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in Northeast Historical Archaeology by an authorized editor of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. Domestic Masonry Architecture in 17th-Century Virginia

Cover Page Footnote I would like to express great thanks to the many persons who shared their information and expertise with me. This includes Donald Linebaugh, Nicholas Luccketti, Daniel Mouer, Mary Beaudry, Jane Sundberg, Frasier Neiman, John Metz, Leverette Gregory, Willie Graham, John Coombs, Philip Levy, Marc Wenger, Edward Chappell, Andrew Edwards, Theodore Reinhart, Frank Farmer, John Mouring, Stephen Mrozowski, Lee Priddy, and Dennis Pogue. In particular I'd like to thank David Muraca for his sobering insight and good humor. Additional thanks are in order for John Roberts for his assistance with AutoCAD and to Thane Harpole for his review of this paper and many suggestions. I'm also grateful to my partners, Cory Judson and Erika Haubert, on the precursor to this project, an annotated bibliography of the 17th-century domestic brick architecture in Virginia and Maryland. I'm most indebted to Dwayne Pickett, who recently completed a Masters thesis focusing on the John Page house and including many of the buildings discussed in this article. Lastly, I would like to thank Professor James Kornwolf for his insight, guidance, and desire to have me think more like an art histroian than an anthropologist interested in architecture.

This article is available in Northeast Historical Archaeology: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha/vol27/iss1/9 Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. 27, 1998 85

Domestic Masonry Architecture in 17th-Century Virginia

David A. Brown

The focus of this study is to provide an easily accessible source of information on domestic masonry architecture in 17th-centun; Virginia. This includes buildings constructed entirely of brick or stone as well as framed structures, brick enders, and homes with brick-nagged walls. The few surviving examples of these buildings do not adequately represent the period and, until recently, literature pertaining to this subject has either been inaccurate or has concentrated far too heavily on a limited number of structures. Through research in the fields of history, historical archaeology, and architectural history, at least 24 structures have been found dating to the 17th century. This investigation has revealed that wealthy colonists throughout Virginia employed a diverse array of design and construction techniques. This study excludes Jamestown Island as its architecture has been addressed in more focused works, both in the contexts of town planning and urban design (Cotter 1958; Horning 1995). An equally important study of domestic masonry architec­ ture in 17th-century Maryland is now underway and will include a comparison with similar structures in Virginia. Cette etude vise a assurer une source pratique de renseignements portant sur /'architecture domes­ tique maronnee en Virginie au XVIIe siecle. II s'agit de biltiments construits entierement en brique ou en pierre ainsi que des biitiments a charpente de bois dotes de murs hourdes de briques. Les quelques exemples survivants de ces biitiments ne sont guere representatifs de cette l'epoque et, jusqu'a recemment, Ia bibliogra­ phie sur Ia question etait inexacte ou se concentrait beaucoup trap sur un nombre limite de biitiments. Grace a des recherches menees dans le domaine de l'histoire, de l'archeologie historique et de l'histoire architec­ turale, on a pu retrouver au mains 24 constructions datant du XVIIe siecle. Cette investigation a revele que les colons riches de Ia Virginie utiliserent une gamme variee de plans et de techniques de construction. Cette etude ne comprend pas Jamestown Island etant donne que son architecture a fait I'objet d' ouvrages plus par­ ticuliers, tant dans le domaine de Ia planification urbaine que dans celui de l'amenagement urbain (Cotter 1994, Horning 1995). De plus, une etude importante portant sur /'architecture domestique maronnee au Maryland au XVIIe siecle, etude qui comportera une comparaison avec des constructions semblables de Ia Virginie, est actuellement en cours.

Introduction Over the following three years, I began to search for more examples of masonry home In the summer of 1995, two other students construction from the 17th century. Using the and I compiled as many examples of 17th-cen­ earlier bibliography as a starting point, I tury brick and stone homes in Maryland and intended to both refine the list and expand it. Virginia as we could find (Brown, Judson, and Information about numerous structures was Haubert 1995). The resulting list was admit­ hidden in obscure, unpublished research tedly incomplete. We realized that to create reports and manuscripts. Also, many of the the most complete list possible would.. require previously included examples were found to a review of almost every historical, archaeo­ date to the 18th century, such as the Thomas logical, and architectural source available on Pate house in Yorktown (Pickett 1997). Here I have illustrated each foundation at the same the 17th-century Chesapeake. We discovered scale and the dimensions for the length and there were many more 17th-century domestic width of each building are provided in English structures, of both brick and stone construc­ and metric measurements. The width of the tion, however, than previously thought. foundations were drawn at the same scale. 86 Masonry Architecture in 17th-Century Virginia/Brown

Unfortunately, the locations of the entrances to which were of brick made on the spot by many of the buildings are unknown. In order brickmakers brought by Sir Thomas Gates to publish this material quickly, I decided to from England" (Harrington 1950: 17). divide this research into two reports. The second report will concentrate on Maryland. 1624-1660 These studies are intended to provide accurate and easily accessible sources of information The early Virginia Company settlement from which further research can be pursued became a royal colony in 1624, and a new but on the subject of domestic masonry architec­ familiar bureaucracy was installed during the ture in the 17th-century Chesapeake. late 1620s (Morgan 1975: 101). Governors and politicians were now sent from England to lead the colony. Members of the newly 1607-1624 appointed ruling class dreamed of profiting Over the last 20 years, research has estab­ from tobacco as did every other settler. Unlike lished that the typical English colonist arriving average small landowners Virginia's elite pos­ sessed the power and influence to obtain mas­ in Virginia did not simply choose a piece of sive profits through the control of tenant land, build a brick house, and start growing farmers, indentured servants, and slaves. tobacco (Carson et al. 1981; Kelso 1984; These profits were increased through the use Neiman 1993). When English settlers arrived of taxes and revenues collected by individuals at Jamestown during the first quarter of the with political appointments such as the 17th century, they were greeted by an environ­ County Sheriff and the Comptroller of ment radically different from Britain's (Horn Tobacco, an appointed official who inspected 1991: 89). The harsh weather, unrelenting the quality of the tobacco exported from the insects, and disease-infested marshes and low­ colony. lands were unaccommodating, and the result News and propaganda quickly circulated was an extremely high mortality rate during back to Europe of the economic success indi­ viduals could experience from growing the first years of colonization (Rutman and tobacco in Virginia. As emigration increased, Rutman 1976). Regardless of these dangers, the population of the colony continued to the lure of inexpensive, almost limitless land expand. Settlements quickly radiated out and quick fortunes kept thousands of colonists from Jamestown, spreading along the many sailing to Virginia throughout the century. navigable waterways flowing into the Chesa­ During this early period of settlement, no peake Bay. Plantations and smaller farm­ examples of masonry architecture have been steads initially appeared along the James found outside of Jamestown. Historical docu­ River. They soon expanded, though, to the mentation, however, suggests that the ability Eastern Shore and to the two upper peninsulas to construct masonry structures existed. Brick bounded by the present-day York, Rappahan­ makers and masons were among the first set­ nock, and Potomac rivers. By 1634, eight tlers not only at Jamestown but also at the ear­ counties existed within the colony, ranging lier failed settlement of Roanoke Island (Har­ from Charles River County in the north to rington 1950, 1967). Virginia's clay resources Warrisquyoake (Isle of Wight) County in the were well suited for brick and tile manufac­ south and Henrico County in the west (FIG. 1). turing, resulting in their being exported as During this period, Virginia's European early as 1621 (Bruce 1896: 137). While archae­ population consisted predominantly of ologists have yet to uncover a foundation from incoming English settlers and recently freed this period, documentary evidence suggests indentured servants from within the colony. that in 1611 there were multiple structures at They all possessed an eagerness to own their the town of Henricopolis. Located near pre­ own land, a rarity in England among the lower sent-day Richmond on the James River, docu­ class, and to make money from it. Some ments indicate that it consisted of "three became rich and prospered, some became poor streets with several houses, the first stories of or died, and others simply gave up and Northeast Historical ArchaeologyNol. 27, 1998 87

Key: 1.Jamestown 2. Piercey's Stone Honse (1626) 3. Mattm.'s Manor (1630s) 4. Thomas Harris's Honse at Curies Neck (1630s)

L

=~I I I I Atlantic ~ Ocean

Figure 1. Counties in Virginia after 1634 with the locations of contemporary masonry domestic structures. reh1rned to England. Still many maintained a endeavor was often restricted by the avail­ decent living, raised a family, and may have ability of both a mason and the money to pay dreamed of creating a foundation for their him. Under these conditions it is understand­ furore in Virginia. able that masonry architecture first appears For settlers intent on staying in Virginia, outside of Jamestown on the plantations of the their furores began with the initial settlement colony's elite. The earliest of these masonry but would need a succeeding generation to structures are along the James River, including successfully extend their family's fortunes. Abraham Peirsey's house (1626), Matthews Most individuals could not guarantee even the Manor (1630s), and Thomas Harris's house slightest inheritance of either money or land (1630s). for their descendants (Carson eta!. 1981: 170). Captain Samuel Mathews arrived in Vir­ The majority of farmsteads consisted of a ginia sometime before 1622 and quickly house, two or three smaller support buildings, became "one of the most prominent men in the a small garden area, and the surrounding cul­ colony" (Noel Hume 1966: 833)(FIG. 2). He tivated fields (Linebaugh 1994: 16-17). Build­ ings were of post-in-ground construction, the dominant building type within the colony, and lasted only a short time. While these initial "earthfast" houses may have been envisioned T as "temporary, improvised expedients," with more permanent structures intended for the 48ft (14.63 m) future, most buildings were simply repaired, repeatedly prolonging the impermanence of the strucrore (Carson eta!. 1981: 139). \ 1 Occasionally, a landowner would replace N his initial home with a building of brick or Figure 2. The foundation plan of Samuel stone construction. The feasibility of this Mathew's home, Warwick County. 88 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Century Virginia/Brown

1- 24.5 ft -1 structure, with offset central chimney and 8 x (7 .47 m) 10-12 ft (2.44 x 3.05-3.66 m) porch tower. They recovered evidence of a building with a "TN ceramic flat-tiled roof and "interior walls of H finished plaster and exterior walls of planking 41.5 ft (12.65 m) or clapboard" (Barka 1976: 49). During exca­ vations conducted byJames Deetz in 1989, three decorative bricks, carved in an "orna­ 1 mental style that would be more at home at Hampton Court than on the raw Virginia fron­ tier," were recovered (Deetz 1993: 38). The structure was abandoned and was probably Figure 3. The foundation plan of Abraham Peirsey's destroyed by fire before 1650. Stone House at Flowerdew Hundred in Prince In the 1630s, Thomas Harris, a member of George County. the General Assembly and leader of a militia was a member of both the General Assembly near the fall line, built his brick home further and Governor's Council and owned a large west along the James River. Its early appear­ plantation east of Jamestown along the James ance along the frontier of Virginia is peculiar River. During the 1630s, he built his home, yet demonstrates the colony's rapid expan­ Mathews Manor, here. The building was ini­ sion. Excavations conducted by L. Daniel tially a two-room hall-and-parlor structure Mouer and Virginia Commonwealth Univer­ with a central H-shaped chimney. A probable sity from 1990 to 1998 have uncovered Harris's porch tower and rear addition was added later home (FIG. 4) (Mouer 1998a: 6): It was initially giving the building a cross-patterned plan. built with a large brick-paved cellar measuring The rear addition measured 18 x 16 ft (5.49 x 18 x 24 ft (5.49 x 7.32 m) with a full room and 4.88 m) with a chimney along the east wall, garret above. It also had brick-nogged walls, a and the 12 ft2 (3.66 m) porch tower contained a construction technique seen earlier at both cellar with a brick and tile sump (Noel Hume Mathews Manor and Peirsey's stone house 1969: 228-229; Carson 1969: 142, 215). Excava­ (Mouer 1998a: 40). The lack of evidence for tions conducted by Ivor Noel Hume and the corner posts for the structure tentatively sug­ Colonial Williamsburg Foundation between gests that the gable ends were entirely built of 1963 and 1965 indicate that the structure was a brick. The main rooms had both plastered two-story, "English, Elizabethan nogged farm­ walls and ceilings and the roof was con­ house" resting on a 2-brick-wide foundation structed of wood shingles. (Noel Hume 1966: 834). The structure had a In 1640, Harris built a story-ap.d-a-half ceramic-tiled roof, glass windows, and a plas­ addition with a cellar on the west end of -his tered interior. Mathews Manor was vacated house. Excavations uncovered brick-paved and later damaged by fire between 1637 and cellar floors, an H-shaped chimney, and a 1639. It was reoccupied in the 1640s, but destroyed by fire during the early 1650s. Abraham Peirsey, a powerful merchant and member of the Governor's Council, made edgeof bric~ • T his home west of Jamestown at Flowerdew IJ Hundred in Prince George County. Built in l--Ie 55ft 1626, his one-and-a-half or two-story house conjectural (16.76 m) had brick-nogged walls resting on and -...... ·I I between a 2 ft wide (0.61 m) siltstone founda­ I I tion, using stone that may have been imported L-- J 1 from Bristol, England (FIG. 3) (Barka 1976: 8, N- 13; Deetz 1993: 35). During the early 1970s, Figure 4. The foundation plan Norman Barka and Southside Historical Sites, of Thomas Harris's House at Inc., excavated the two-room hall-and-parlor Curies Neck in Henrico County. Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 27, 1998 89

59.5 ft N gist. Waterman and Barrows state that the I- (1 8.14 rri) structure "bear[s] no resemblance to any sev­ I enteenth century plan [in Virginia]" (1932: 11). The house consisted of a wood-framed two­ story structure on a predominantly one- to T one-and-a-half-brick-wide foundation with a pan-tile roof (FIG. 5). The foundation of the southwest comer room consisted of a slightly 62ft wider iron sandstone base with multiple (1 8.90 m) courses of brickwork mortared directly on top. This sandstone, often referred to as bog iron or bog ore, is one of the few commonly found construction stones in southeastern Virginia. Mulholland explains that "local depos~ts of 1 bog iron, which were plentiful on the eastern seaboard, were sufficient to ensure a steady supply of ore" (1981: 70). In addition, "Exten­ sive surface ore deposits were found in the Figure 5. The foundation plan of Governor William unbroken forests that began only a few miles Berkeley's first house at Green Spring in James City inland from the coasts" (Mulholland 1981: 71). County. Mulholland's references apply broadly to the mid-Atlantic region, yet the use of bog iron large bake oven, constructed of brick, granite, throughout the 17th and 18th centuries in Vir­ and cobbles, adjacent to the central chimney ginia testifies to its usefulness as a construc­ (Mouer 1998a: 6). Analysis of the hall portion tion material. Occasional surface deposits of of this structure is limited because of the pres­ fieldstone were found in the lower Chesa­ ence of an early 18th-century foundation peake region (see Edmund Swaney house),·but directly above the cellar. Also, Nathaniel iron sandstone was evidently more ·accessible. Bacon Junior's renovations and fortifications Its infrequent use in the construction of foun­ during the 1670s seriously impacted this side dations in the 17th century, compared to use of the structure. The parlor room was of brick, suggests that, colonists, preferred destroyed by fire about mid-century, shortly building with the latter material. after Harris's death (Mouer n.d.: 40). Excavations revealed a number of peculiar The connection between masonry architec­ aspects concerning the house's construction ture and political office holders during this and function. Two very thick sections of period is unmistakable. Two of these individ­ brickwork were found along the east walls of uals, Governor William Berkeley and Secretary both the northeast and southeast corner of the Colony Richard Kemp, had access to rooms, presumably to compensate for the nat­ both masons and brick makers and the money ural terrain and drainage of the soil (Caywood to hire them. William Berkeley had arrived in 1955: 8). The majority of the foundation is nei­ the colony and purchased a 984-acre planta­ ther as deep nor as wide as these sections, fur­ tion called Green Spring by 1643. He con­ ther suggesting the use of wood framing for structed his first manor house there in 1646, the upper two floors of this structure. and the lavish entertainment offered to other Berkeley also seems to have placed a corne~ prominent gentlemen of the colony are fireplace in the northeast corner room, an recorded by 1649 (Caywood 1955: 3). innovation that Caywood claims was more Berkeley's first house is the lesser known common in Virginia after the late 17th century. of his two houses at Green Spring. Its pres­ It is also questionable whether the area ence was unknown until archaeological exca­ directly east of the hall was an enclosed room vations were undertaken, first by Jesse Dim­ or simply a terraced area flanked by towers to mick in 1928-9 and again in 1955 by Louis the north and south. The house would then Caywood, a National Park Service archaeolo- have an H-shaped plan, a form popular in 90 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Century Virginia/Brown

1-- 35ft dation of this hall-and-parlor structure had a (1 0.67 m) ----1 central chimney that was offset along the rear wall creating a 6 ft (1.83 m) deep lobby entrance (FIG. 6) (McFaden, Muraca, and Jones T 1994: np). Glass and turned lead fragments N recovered during excavations suggest the 20ft house had windows, but no other evidence of • • (6.1 m) roof type or interior or exterior embellishment I can be related to Kemp's occupation. 1 Presumably, Richard Kemp's structure stood at a story-and-a-half with access to the upper floor through a ladder stair located in Figure 6. The foundation plan of Richard Kemp's House at Rich Neck in James City County. the hall (McFaden, Muraca, and Jones 1994: np). Two contemporary structures, Mayflower Cottage in England and Fairbanks House in England but not yet seen in Virginia architec­ Dedham, Massachusetts, were constructed ture. One contemporary example of this in with similar floor plans and central, set-back England would be the birthplace of Sir Walter chimneys (Cummings 1979: 7, 23). Richard Raleigh in East Budleigh, Devon. Kemp's structure was acquired and subse­ The interior of the manor house included quently renovated by Thomas Ludwell in the "six great rooms, or apartments, as many 1660s. No other additions can be firmly dated closets, a spacious hall and two passages with to periods contemporary with Kemp's occupa­ garret rooms and dormer windows" as well as tion of Rich Neck. numerous cellars (Caywood 1955: 8). Multiple fireplaces existed within the structure, 1660-1676 including those found in the northeast and southwest corner rooms. Debris excavated During this period the colony was growing from within the structure's cellars and in sur­ at an astounding rate both in population and rounding areas hints that the interior was at geographic extent. By 1668, additional coun­ least partially plastered and had diamond­ ties had been formed, many from divided paned casement windows throughout. Burnt older counties, expanding the limits of the brick, plaster, and other artifacts recovered colony to Westmoreland County in the north during excavations indicate that the building and to Surry County in the south (FIG. 7). As was either partially or entirely consumed by the number of wealthier colonists increased fire sometime in the 1660s. It was later and individuals began investing in activities repaired or rebuilt and was at least tem­ other than growing tobacco, more permanent porarily incorporated into the second manor forms of construction began to appear along house. A plat map of 1683 shows a sketch of the Virginia landscape. Far from common, the first manor house with the second manor brick or stone construction was now visibly house constructed adjacent to it (William Salt associated with the houses of the political elite. Library 1683). Four prominent individuals, John Page, In 1636, another political leader, Secretary Arthur Allen, Edward Digges, and Thomas of the Colony Richard Kemp, acquired land Ludwell, either constructed or renovated brick north of Jamestown in Middle Plantation homes during the 1660s. which he named Rich Neck. He was living at John Page came to Virginia in 1650. He this plantation by the 1640s as evidenced by was a member of the House of Burgesses and the presence of two wine bottle seals bearing the Governor's Council, the High Sheriff of the initials "RK." These were found near a York County, and a commander of the Militia. brick foundation during excavations con­ He also obtained over 10,000 acres of land ducted by the Colonial Williamsburg Founda­ throughout Virginia, including 330 acres tion from 1992 to 1998. Constructed during within Middle Plantation, where he built his the 1640s, the two-and-a-half brick wide foun- home in 1662 (Pickett 1995: 9). The founda- Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. 27, 1998 91

Key: 1. Jamestown 7. Miles Cary ll House (1670s) 2. Governor Berkeley's Greeospring I (16406) + ll (1670-76) 8. Nathaniel Bacon Jr. House (1674) 3. Rlclmeck (Kemp/Ludwell) (1640sl1660s) 9. Edward Digges House (1650-1675) 4. Middle Plantation 10. Lewis Burwell House (1692) John Page Hoose (1662) 11. George Poindexter House (1690s) Francis Page House (1670s) 12. Joseph Foster House (1690s) Hoose l-lG (pre-1699) 13. Thomas Swann Hoose ((1650-1675) Thomas Jones Hoose (1680s) 14. John and Robert Carter Houses (1680sl1690s) Hornsby Property House (1650-1700) 15. Edmund Swaney Hoose (1675-1700) S. Arthur ADen Hoose (1665) 16. The Stone House 6. John Custis Hoose (1670-1676) 17. Nomlny Plnatatlon House

I ~ ' • Chesapeake F~' Bay a I I I

Atlantic Ocean

I I Nansemond : I I

Figure 7. Counties in Virginia after 1668 with the locations of contemporary masonry domestic structures. 92 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Century Virginia/Brawn

1- 22ft -1 by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation's (6.71 m) Department of Archaeological Research. No bulkhead N entr evidence of chimneys was found during the an~ - T excavations, suggesting that the house's two end chimneys, laid directly on the ground sur­ face, were destroyed by the construction of the 36.5 ft parking lot. Excavations revealed a brick­ "(11.13m) lined full cellar under the center hall and parlor. The porch and stair towers, each mea­ suring 13 ft 5.5 in x 13 ft 11 in (4.10 x 4.24 m), - l had ceramic-tiled floors. Throughout these cellars a sequence of sumps and contoured Figure 8. The foundation plan of John Page's House brickwork assisted in drainage. The construc­ in James City County. tion date for John Page's house was discov­ tion, located near the outskirts of the future ered on a set of carved bricks forming a dia­ planned city of Williamsburg, was first discov­ mond-shaped cartouche with the initials ered in the 1950s, when it was bisected with a P[age] and A[lice] (the I or J[ohn] was pipe trench and then covered by a parking lot missing), the date 1662, and a heart (FIG. 9). (FIG. 8). The cross-patterned foundation was The John Page house likely had an elaborately recently rediscovered and excavated in 1995 decorated exterior as well. The structure was covered by a ceramic tiled roof and probably stood at a story-and-a-half with two-story towers. It was abandoned and later destroyed by fire around 1730. Arthur Allen, Justice of the Peace for Surry County and member of the Governor's Council, built his home in 1665. Better known as Bacon's Castle for the role it played during Bacon's Rebellion, this structure is the only surviving building from this period in Vir­ ginia. Cary Carson states that "Bacon's Castle was abreast of the latest building innovations in mid-century England" (Carson 1969: 248). The three-brick-wide foundation supports an entirely brick building two stories tall with a full cellar and garret (FIG. 10). The house origi-

45ft t-- (13.72 m)

T 25ft (7.62 m) 1

Figure 9. A cartouche recovered from the John Page Figure 10 The foundation plan of Arthur House. Allen's House, Bacon's Castle, in Surry County. Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 27, 1998 93

1-- 35ft -; Archaeological Research between 1992 and (10.67m) 1998 revealed that Ludwell took Kemp's struc­ ture and introduced numerous renovations T and improvements during the 1660s (FIG. 11) (CWDAR Interim reports 1995, 1996, 1997). 30ft Ludwell's addition of at least two rooms to the (9.14 m) rear of the structure doubled the size of the N dwelling (McFaden, Muraca, and Jones 1994: I 1 np). Similar additions were made during the Figure 11. The foundation plan of Thomas Lud­ same period to two contemporary structures, well's House at Rich Neck in James City County. the Mayflower Cottage in England and the Fairbanks House in Dedham, Massachusetts nally had a hall-and-parlor layout with sym­ (Cummings 1979: 7, 23). The central chimney metrical porch and stair towers forming a was dismantled and two large end chimneys cross-patterned foundation. The building had were added, allowing for increased air circula­ leaded casement windows, plastered interior tion and interior space while maintaining an walls and a full English cellar with ceramic ample supply of heat. It is also likely that tiled floors. Between 1978 and 1987, Nicholas Ludwell replastered the interior while Luccketti and the Virginia Research Center for replacing the wooden-framed walls with brick Archaeology undertook excavations sur­ walls and leaded casement windows rounding the building, now owned by the (McFaden, Muraca, and Jones 1994: np). The Association for the Preservation of Virginia wood-shingled roof was replaced with pan­ Antiquities. They uncovered a bulkhead tiles, and decorative Dutch tiles were placed entrance to the cellar, evidence of the first roof around one of the new hearths on the struc­ that was made of imported rectangular sand­ ture's interior. An 18 x 10 ft (5.49 x 3.05 m) stone roofing tiles, and an extensive 1680s addition with a plastered and tiled full cellar garden (Luccketti 1984). was likely added to the northwest corner of The diagonally set chimney stacks and the the expanded structure well after the initial curvilinear Dutch gables of the Allen house renovation. The building was abandoned and exemplify an "English flare" seen on country destroyed before the end of the 17th century. houses of wealthy gentlemen in 16th-century Edward Digges, a member of the Gover­ England and throughout Europe during the nor's Council, Auditor General, and Receiver 17th century (Pickett 1995). Comparable struc­ General, was the interim Governor of the tures that still stand in England include "The colony in 1655. In addition to being one of the Old Swan and Salmon" in Huntingdonshire wealthiest planters in Virginia, his "E.D.'s and Crossways Farm in Surrey, both con­ Tobacco" brand was internationally known as structed during the second half of the 17th one of the best quality tobaccos in the world. century (Reiff 1986: 197, 200). The chim­ Between 1934 and 1935, the National Park Ser­ neystacks also have parallels within the vice conducted excavations at Digges's house, colony, including Fairfield in Gloucester Bellfield (FIG 12). Built during the third County and Winona, a standing early 18th­ century home, in Northampton County. Other N exterior embellishments include a stringcourse 47ft along the porch tower with a cut and molded (14.33 m) -I \ brick hood and pediment over the doorway T (Carson 1969: 248). Bukl head Entrance With Secretary Kemp's death at mid-cen­ ...... _ 34ft tury, Rich Neck plantation changed hands to (10.36 m) Thomas· Ludwell, another Secretary of the I ~ I I Colony and member of the Governor's ..!. Council. Excavations by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation's Department of Figure 12. The foundation plan of Edward Digges's home, Bellfield, in York County. 94 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Century Virginia/Brown quarter of the 17th century, its foundation plan 1-- 44ft reveals a massive, double-pile building with (14.41 m) four interior chimneys. The width of the foun­ T dation (28 in [0.71 m]) suggests that Digges's home was at least two-and-a-half stories tall. 20ft The height and double-pile plan of the house I (6.1 m) is substantiated by an extant 1692 inventory N for the structure that mentions more than ten 1 separate rooms (Hatch 1970a: 97). The house had an extensive brick-paved English cellar extending 6 ft (1.83 m) below ground surface and contained a brick-vaulted drain leading Figure 14. The foundation plan of Francis Page's directly into the York River. The roof type of house in James City County. the building is unknown but the exterior of the homes except for the partial offset relationship structure's foundation was laid in Flemish of the 10 ft (3.05 m) square porch and stair bond with glazed headers and tooled joints towers, creating an asymmetrical layout. The (Hatch 1970a: 142). Bellfield was destroyed by two-brick-wide foundation, which had a two­ fire in the 1750s. and-a-half-brick-wide spread footing, likely The construction of masonry architecture supported a brick-walled structure of one-and­ increased near the end of the third quarter of a-half stories with an undetermined roof type the 17th century. As the colony expanded so (Hudgins 1976: 34). did the availability orf positions within the Excavations in 1976 by Carter Hudgins of growing political structure. Masonry architec­ the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology ture continued to be associated with the polit­ uncovered a series of room partitions within ical and economic elite. Homes built by Miles the central cellar. One partition initially cre­ Cary II, Francis Page, Nathaniel Bacon Jr., ated two rooms out of a single large room. Thomas Swann, and John Custis are included Later, a divided hallway was made by the con­ in this period. Governor Berkeley may have struction of an additional partition within the also built his second home at Green Spring at center of the cellar. It is unclear exactly when the end of this time. these renovations were made to the structure Miles Cary II, Justice of the Peace, Sheriff, as it was destroyed shortly after the Civil War. Surveyor, and Naval Officer in Warwick Hudgins suggests that these divisions likely County, built his house in the early 1670s supported similar room divisions on the above using the cross-patterned style of construction floors (Hudgins 1976: 42-43). Excavations seen in the Page and Allen houses (FIG. 13). Its recovered little evidence of interior and exte­ form is strikingly similar to these earlier rior embellishment from the original construc­ tion of the house. Limits in funding have pre­ vented analysis of much of the material col­ J- 36ft (1 0.97 m) ~ lected. In the 1670s, Francis Page, a member and -N clerk of the House of Burgesses, built his Later house within sight of his father John's home in Addition T what would later become the city of Williams­ 20ft burg. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (6.1 m) partially excavated the foundation in 1940, l uncovering a hall-and-parlor-designed building with a partially brick-paved cellar (FIG. 14) (Knight 1942). The two-brick-wide foundation likely supported a one-and-a-half Figure 1_3. The f~undation plan of Miles Cary II's story brick-walled structure with interior end home, Rich Neck, m Warwick County. chimneys and a roof of flat ceramic tiles. At Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 27, 1998 95

24ft mitered and cut, Cyma, half- and three­ !-- (7.32 m) --4 quarter-round, and compass bricks. This evi­ dence suggests a possible water table course, barrel vault or massive relieving arch, a T parapet gable and other formal classical treat­ • 20.5 ft ments (Mouer n.d.: 36). Imported limestone • (6.25 m) fragments were also found indicating a pos­ I sible fireplace surround. N l Bacon may have constructed his small brick structure as a replacement for Harris's Figure 15. Nathaniel Bacon, Jr.'s house ruined parlor and then connected it with a at Curies Neck in Henrico County. post-in-ground addition. Evidence recovered during excavations between 1987 and 1998 least one of these chimneys heated the cellar. indicates that Bacon renovated the hall portion The use of leaded casement windows of Harris's home and at the very least replaced throughout the building was seen in the its roof with ceramic tiles identical to those of recovery of an in situ example found on the his new brick building (Mouer n.d.: 41). floor of the structure's cellar (Knight 1942: 2). Mouer attributes Bacon's design choices to his Excavation also revealed evidence of demoli­ knowledge of Renaissance architecture and tion near the turn of the century. With the landscape design as well as his experience founding of Williamsburg, a town plan was with military fortifications. Excavations have implemented based on the cardinal directions revealed an intricate military enclosure of the compass. Francis Page's house did not throughout Bacon's building complex, conform to this plan and became a victim of including a deep trench or tunnel leading from urban restructuring. Limited information is the parlor portion of Harris's 1630s home to available concerning its 1950s excavation but the cellar of Bacon's little brick house. Bacon's additional work on the structure is anticipated small brick home was abandoned after 1677, in the summer of 1999 (David F. Muraca, per­ and the buildings were destroyed by fire in sonal communication, 1998). 1680. The infamous Nathaniel Bacon, Jr., Gover­ Another structure within Middle Planta­ nor's Council Member and rebel, constructed tion was discovered in 1989 by Colonial his own brick home during his short, three­ Williamsburg's Department of Archaeological year life in Virginia. Coincidentally, he occu­ Research while surveying a lot owned by pied Thomas Harris's plantation at Curies Bruce Hornsby (Brown 1989; David F. Muraca, Neck. Documents that evaluated the estates of personal communication, 1998) (FIG. 16). Par­ individuals involved in Bacon's Rebellion refer tial excavation uncovered a two-brick-wide to his home as a "small, new, brick house" foundation, limited to the gabled ends of the (Colonial Records 1677). This two-brick-wide foundation, with a tiled cellar floor, leaded casement windows, and plastered walls and ceiling, was constructed near the ruins of the I- 41 ft Thomas Harris house in 1674 (FIG. 15). (12.5 m) Nathaniel Bacon, Jr. incorporated the standing hall portion of that structure into his own T domestic complex (Mouer n.d.: 36). Bacon's single-story home, with possible 26 ft. garret, was brick walled with a single extelior (7.92 m) end chimney and flat-tiled roof. The large amount of ornamental brickwork recovered I N during excavation suggests that size did not 1 correlate to the quality or level of design of the Figure 16. The foundation plan of Hornsby Property building. Mauer's excavations recovered house in James City County. 96 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Century Virginia/Brown

91 It rooms along the fa,.ade (FIG. 17). This room (27.74 m) -----1 placement is similar to the double-parlor plan

N wherein the central room is assigned the func­ tion of a hall while the flanking rooms become / parlors. Chimneys were constructed at the T east end of the house and along either side of the west partition wall. A 24.5 x 19.5 ft (7.47 x 24 It (7.32 m) 5.94 m) addition, possibly used as a kitchen, _L was later built along the northwest corner of the structure (Caywood 1955: 8). The relative I I I I I I I • size of the 2 ft 4 in (0.71 m) wide foundation ; and its L shape "falls into a familiar category, H although it is common to England rather than to this country" (Waterman and Barrows 1932: 11). It has been speculated that an additional Figure 17. The foundation plan of Governor matching wing was planned for the northeast William Berkeley's second house at Green Spring in corner, creating a U-shaped plan, but no evi­ James City County. dence for this was uncovered during excava­ tions. structure, that may have been constructed as The owner of the property in the late 18th early as mid-century. These two ends were century, William Ludwell Lee, contracted Ben­ connected by post-set wooden beams that jamin Latrobe to design renovations for the made up the front and rear of the house. manor house. The architect drew the second Referred to as brick enders, houses of this manor house when it was in ill repair. This form of architectural design are rare in Vir­ sketch captured the image of a three-story ginia during the 17th century. Thomas Har­ building with a double set of dormers on the ris's home may have used a similar technique roof. The exterior, while severely damaged, yet had front and rear walls constructed with showed evidence of ornate brickwork and a brick nogging. The one-and-a-half story hall­ decorative embellishment, possibly similar to and-parlor structure also had leaded casement the cartouche at John Page's home. Unfortu­ windows. No other comparable example has nately, Latrobe was not impressed with its been found from the 17th century in Virginia. design or potential and recommended its The building was probably abandoned destruction to make room for the new Lee between 1690 and 1710. The limited nature of mansion. He viewed the second manor house the initial excavation restricts interpretation of at Green Spring as "a brick building of great this dwelling, and the property owners opted solidity, but no attempt at grandeur" (Carter to preserve rather than excavate the remainder 1977: 181). The Lee's new home was con­ of the site (Brown 1989: 5). structed nearby soon after Green Spring was Sometime during the 1670s, Governor razed around 1806. Berkeley designed and built a new house next It may have been unimpressive at the time to his manor at Green Spring. This event may Latrobe viewed it but when it was initially have coincided with his marriage to his second constructed Berkeley's second manor house wife or possibly with repairs following could be rivaled by few structures in the Bacon's Rebellion. As with Bellfield and colonies. Waterman and Barrows comment Arlington (see below), this second manor that the "forecourt treatment unearthed before house combined massive construction tech­ the house [during excavation] is the most ambitious and monumental in Virginia" (1932: niques and contemporary English architec­ 12). Berkeley's new house incorporated both tural style. By 1683, the new brick-walled end and interior chimneys. This made .it pos­ house consisted of a series of three single-pile sible to heat the central room. Ventilation and Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 27, 1998 97

60.5 ft ---1 John Custis, a Justice of the Peace, Sheriff, (18.44 m) Vestryman, and a member of the Governor's Council, built his home on the Eastern Shore between 1670 and 1676. Its double-pile plan with central hall and stairway was one of the first of its kind in Virginia (FIG. 19). Custis must have known that having rooms stacked in such a manner would present a problem in N.--- the hot and humid Virginia summers. His use of four brick end chimneys and a central hall, Figure 18. The foundation plan of Thomas Swann's though, solved the ventilation problem and at house at Swann's Point in Surry County. the same time allowed for greeting and restricting visitors by combining the function interior space would not have played a factor of porch and stair towers into one room. In a in this design because of the already gargan­ document answering the suit of the heirs of tuan size of the structure, in comparison to the Daniel Parke by John Custis, a description of other structures in the colony, and the single­ the structure is given as follows: pile placement of the rooms. Thomas Swann, a Colonel in the militia, Dwelling house built of brick abt the year Tobacco Viewer, Sheriff and Justice of Surry 1676 of the Dimensions of upwards of 80 County, and member of the General Court, (30) foot [by] 60 three storys high besides House of Burgesses, and Governor's Council, garrets which House was commonly built his brick home directly across froni. called Arlington. (Emmett Collection, Jamestown during the third quarter of the 17th New York Public Library) century. Very limited excavations were The massive three-brick-wide foundations undertaken by the Virginia Historic Land­ support this description, and the remains of marks Commission in 1973 and 1974, two cellars, 22 x 17.5 ft (6.71 x 5.33 m) and 22 x revealing a two-brick-wide foundation 10ft (6.71 x 3.05 m), beneath the dwelling add approximately 60.5 x 23 ft (18.44 x 7.01 m) to the extravagant nature of the building. The wide (FIG. 18) (NRHP 1974). These dimen­ two cellars had paved floors, plastered walls, sions include a 15 x 23ft (4.57 x 7.01 m) brick­ and a sump for drainage. The foundations for lined cellar with tiled floor on the north end of these interior cellars were one-and-a-half the structure. The excavators concluded. that bricks wide. Excavations by the James River the foundation supported a two-story frame Institute for Archaeology also recovered frag­ dwelling. The building was destroyed some­ ments of a plaster heart and multiple recessed time between 1706 and 1707. motifs with complex shapes once laid against finished exterior brickwork (Chappell1996).· Governor Berkeley fled Jamestown and 54ft Green Spring and stayed with John Custis I-- (16.46m) ---i during Bacon's Rebellion. Arlington was destroyed sometime around the beginning of the 18th century. No evidence was found for its destruction by fire, leaving the possibility that neglect and poor upkeep caused its demise. Interestingly, Arlington's grand size and symmetrical design provoke images of the Georgian mansions of 18th-century Virginia. There are no parallels to this type of construc­ tion in the colony for the remainder of the 17th century. The only similar structures were Figure 19. The foundation plan of John Berkeley's first manor house at Green Spring Custis's home, Arlington, in Northampton County. and Bellfield in York County. This compar- 98 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Century Virginia/Brown

ison is strictly limited to total size and the use 32ft of a great hall versus a central hall. Construc­ t- (9.75 m} -; tion at this scale and at this time was a bold statement for John Custis. Although a site N report does exist concerning the excavations at 21 ft Arlington, more work is expected in the future (6.4 m) and further analysis will have to wait until the I results of this work are made available (Bedell and Luccketti 1988).

Figure 20. The foundation plan of John Carter's 1676-1700 house at Corotoman in Lancaster County. The last 24 years of the 17th century were a County Militia, built his home in the 1680s period of continued growth and prosperity. near the northern edge of the colony in Lan­ These advances did not come without cost, caster County. The two-room structure had a however. The entire colony was recovering single exterior end chimney (FIG. 20). Archae­ from the effects of a rebellion over trade, secu­ ological excavations by the Virginia Research rity, and human rights that had challenged Center for Archaeology between 1977 and colonial law, unseated a governor, and 1980 discovered that the one-and-a-half-brick­ reduced the Native American population to wide foundation of Carter's home probably subjugation to Virginia authority (Mouer n.d.: supported a wooden-frame building with inte­ 9). With the rapid influx of African slaves and rior plastered walls (Hudgins 1979: 12). An an expansion of western settlement fueled by addition was added to the structure in 1820 an increasing class of newly freed men, Vir­ doubling its size. An early 20th-century pho­ ginia was experiencing a monumental change tograph shows the structure after it was aban­ in the social and economic structure of its pop­ doned revealing a riven clapboard roof under­ ulation (Morgan 1975: 295). Also, the number neath a later shingle roof (Hudgins 1981: 90). of wealthy individuals throughout the region This may have either been the original roofing increased, many of whom did not hold polit­ material or possibly a renovation coinciding ical office. with the addition's construction. The building The increase in masomy construction con­ was dismantled in the 1930s (Hudgins 1979: tinued during this period. The Carter brothers 13). of Lancaster County built two masomy build­ Between 1685 and 1690, Robert "King" ings. Joseph Foster built one near the tum ~f Carter, Treasurer of the Colony, President of the century in New Kent County, and Lewis the Governors Council, Interim Governor, and Burwell II constructed another in Gloucester Speaker of the House of Burgesses, built his County. Men outside of the political elite, own home less 1:han 300 ft (93 m) from his such as Edmund Swaney, George Poindexter, brother's house (FIG. 21). Found during the and the merchant Thomas Jones, .could now same excavations, the two-brick-wide founda­ afford to build in brick or stone as well. Also, tion of Robert's home suggests that this three- the population increase resulted in a greater accessibility and demand for masons and brick 52 ft makers. While earlier forms of house design, 1-- (1 5.85 m) such as the cross-patterned or hall-and-parlor plan, experienced continued use, new forms of N design, including the central passage plan, found acceptance with the population. An I increase in variability is also seen in the deco­ ration and subtle design differences of houses from the late 17th century. John Carter, a member of the House of Figure 21. The foundation plan of Robert Carter's Burgesses, County Justice, and Colonel in the house at Corotoman in Lancaster County. Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. 27, 1998 99

I-- 58 ft f--40 ft (12.19 m>--1 (17.68 m) T T

22 ft 21 ft T (6.71 m) (6.4 m) .1. 1

Figure 23. The foundation plan of George Figure 22. The foundation plan of Joseph Foster's Poindexter's home, Criss Cross, in New Kent home, Foster's Castle, in New Kent County. County. room, one-and-a-half story lobby entrance to assign the building a later construction date house was brick-walled (FIG. 21) (Hudgins (Carson 1969: 222-224). 1979: 15). An exceptionally deep foundation, George Poindexter built his home, Criss laid 2.5 ft (68 em) below grade, supports this Cross, sometime between 1690 and 1700 in conclusion. Limited excavations did not New Kent County. The one-and-a-half story uncover evidence of a cellar within the struc­ building, sometimes referred to as Christ's ture but the house likely had leaded casement Cross, still stands and contains a single parti­ windows and a stone floor. The building was tion between the hall and parlor, two exterior abandoned and dismantled by the 1840s end chimneys, and a two-story porch tower (Hudgins 1979: 18). (FIG. 23). No archaeological excavations have Closer to the western part of the colony, been conducted on the property, yet architec­ Joseph Foster constructed his brick home, Fos­ tural analysis suggests that leaded casement ter's Castle, in New Kent County between windows were originally used. A cellar under 1670 and 1690. Foster was a Civil Officer, the western room of the house also dates to Sheriff, and Justice for New Kent County, as the construction of the building. The exterior. well as Lieutenant Colonel in the Militia and a of the building includes a water table with member of the House of Burgesses and Gen­ beveled bricks and a string course around the eral Assembly. His brick-walled cross-pat­ porch tower. It is unknown what was first terned house is still standing, and although ·used to roof the structure, and the width of the subjected to major alterations and renovations, foundation, while probably two bricks wide, reveals evidence of a cellar beneath the east has not been determined. Cary Carson room and the cross passage (FIG. 22). The two­ explains that this building "bears all the marks brick-wide foundation originally supported a of an older building tradition free from any of one-and-a-half story building with a two-story the tell-tale signs of early eighteenth-century porch tower. The roofing material used in the innovation" (Carson 1969: 214). building's initial construction is unknown. Near the end of the 17th century, Lewis Archaeological excavations have not been con­ Burwell II, a County Justice, Major in the ducted on the property, but architectural County Militia, and once named to the Gover­ studies suggest the possibility that leaded nor's Council, built his manor house, Fairfield, casement windows were originally used and in Gloucester County. Architectural historians there was a circular window near the top of in the 20th century have viewed the building the porch tower (Carson 1969: 219). Foster's as a "curious transitional house" and possibly Castle may have originally incorporated a cen­ the key in representing "the transition from tral hall as well. It is this central hall, which is Colonial to Georgian style" within Virginia comparable to examples in the 18th century (Waterman 1946: 25; Morrison 1952). Burwell more than the 17th, that has led some scholars completed the first phase of the house's con- 100 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Century Virginia/Brown

80ft that "with a combination of clustered Jacobean 1--- (24.38 m) ---1 chimneys, a Classical cornice, and the hori­ T zontal mass of a Classical building, Fairfield adapted two styles of architecture the old [medieval] and the new [Georgian] to a 40ft (12.19 m) regional plan" (Brownell et al. 1992: 3). The Outline of ballroom addition was covered by a hipped Building Exterior \ roof, one of the first in the colony. An end N chimney consisting of a triple-set, diamond­ l shaped chimneystack, similar to those at the Allen house, heated this room. The exterior also incorporated the use of dovecotes and a modillioned cornice, a feature commonly Figure 24. The foundation plan of Lewis Burwell II's found on Georgian houses (Morrison 1952). home, Fairfield, in Gloucester County. Although he was not a member of the political elite, Edmund Swaney built his stone struction, a two-story brick home, by 1692. and brick home around 1680 at Oares Planta­ Architectural historian Robert A. Lancaster tion in present-day Hampton. This structure (1915: 225-230) explains that this date is con­ seems to have been initially designed as a one­ firmed by accounts of a decorative iron sup­ and-a-half story, single-room home with loft port rod with the initials L[ewis], A[lice], and that was expanded in the 1720s into a two­ B[urwell], and the date 1692. The structure room hall-and-parlor home (FIG. 25). The contained one interior and one exterior end 17th-century portion of the 1.5 ft (0.46 m) wide chimney, each with double diamond-shaped foundation was constructed of cut fieldstone stacks. The entrance was "uniquely placed at and contained a full cellar with dirt floor. The one side of the fa~ade" and the leaded case­ house was partially excavated from the late ment windows were topped by flat arches 1970s until 1981 by avocational archaeologists (Forman 1948). No archaeological work has in cooperation with the National Aeronautics been performed on the foundation of the main and Space Administration (NASA). The house, and floor plans of the structure do not majority of the fieldwork focused on the early exist. Only a rough sketch of the foundation's 18th-century addition, a 20 x 21 ft (6.10 x 6.40 boundaries and a few old photographs survive m) cobblestone foundation that may have been (FIG. 24). The house was destroyed by fire in covered by a story-and-a-half wood-framed 1897. room. Very little is known about the planta- Multiple additions were constructed onto the initial house but their sequence is ques­ tionable. The end result of construction left an L-shaped foundation similar in size to Berke­ ley's second manor house at Green Spring and I- 28ft -I / to Thomas Swann's home in Surry County. (8.53 m) N The appendage forming the L shape was a single, large room known as the ballroom. This section of the house may have been built shortly after 1692 as a support building and 21 ft (6.40 m) later connected with an addition. Kimball (1950: 272) states that a matching wing once stood before the ballroom was connected to the original house, but it was "burned, or torn later I away, long ago, though the foundation can addition still be traced." Figure 25. The foundation plan of Edmund Regarding the building's transitional clas­ Swaney's house at Oares Plantation in Elizabeth sification, Brownell and his colleagues state City County. Northeast Historical Archaeology(Vol. 27, 1998 101

t- 23.5 ft -t the 1750s (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (7.16 m) Archaeological Reports 1983: 1, 15). T House 2-2G, so named because of its grid location within the city of Williamsburg, was located by the Colonial Williamsburg Founda­ 37 ft tion in the 1940s. Very little research has been (11.28 m) undertaken concerning the history of this structure, yet its conflict with the town plan suggests it was constructed prior to 1699. The 1 owner of the property at the time of the ./N dwelling's construction is unknown. The 14-in (0.36 m) brick foundation likely supported a one-and-a-half story frame building (FIG. 27) Figure 26. The foundation (Duke 1941: 3). In addition, the foundation plan of Thomas Jones's house conforms to the cross-patterned design, incor­ in James City County. porating a porch tower on the front fa~ade and end chimneys along the gabled ends. The 12.5 tion's 17th-century occupants. During the ft (3.81 m) square porch tower contains a 1770s the home was used as a storage area and brick-paved cellar with sump (Duke 1941: 4). was soon thereafter destroyed by fire (Langley Each end chimney is flanked by two indi­ Research Center Historical and Archaeological vidual "closet" additions, built after the initial Society n.d.). construction of the building. The original . The merchant Thomas Jones occupied a roofing material is unknown. Excavations previously built home near many of his most suggest that it was likely torn down shortly important customers in Middle Plantation. after the 1720s to make way for the expanding The one-and-a-half-brick-wide foundation was city of Williamsburg. identified during excavations at the public In the case of two additional buildings hospital site in Colonial Williamsburg in the there is insufficient evidence to tie their con­ early 1980s (FIG. 26). A wine bottle seal struction dates firmly within the 17th century. bearing the initials of Governor Francis The Adam Thoroughgood House and Malvern Nicholson was found in the brick cellar of Hill have each been attributed to the 17th cen­ Jones's adjacent outbuilding. The original tury as well as to the 18th century, but the owner of Jones's house is unknown. During majority of the evidence has been inconclu­ the 18th century, the merchant provided sive. Similar problems have been experienced housing for the Governor (Colonial Williams­ with construction dates for both Foster's burg Foundation Archaeological Reports 1983, Castle and Criss Cross, yet architectural 1984). Jones's one-and-a-half story home may studies have, perhaps hopefully, suggested have instituted a central hall plan and used a that an earlier date is more likely than one in combination of wood-framed walls resting on the 18th century (Carson 1969). Future archae- brick piers. The flanking end chimneys, which may have incorporated a water table course, were all but destroyed by the construction of 1- 32.5 ft --i the public hospital (Blades 1974: 3). A full (9.91 m) English cellar constructed after the initial T later ~ building of the structure survived, however. additions 23 ft (7.01 m) The building likely had a wooden roof, leaded casement windows, interior plastered walls, l and decorative delft tiles around its fireplace -- (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archaeo­ l logical Reports 1983: 19, 22). This structure, N while not on line with the plan for Williams­ Figure 27. The foundation plan of House 2-2G in burg, was abandoned and destroyed by fire in James City County. 102 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Century Virginia/Brown

ological, historical, and architectural analyses so as to husband their labor and capital for the are necessary to further refine the construction future." dates for these buildings. A list of additional A significant amount of time must have structures, identified through documents or been spent in the repair and upkeep of a post­ limited excavations as possibly dating to the in-ground structure. Archaeological investiga­ 17th century (is included as Appendix A). tions have revealed that the average post-in­ ground structure will last only 10 to 15 years Discussion without major repairs (Carson et al. 1981: 150). The money and labor invested in the mainte­ At the center of all analyses of masonry nance of these structures, however, may have architecture is the debate over the way indi­ been an accepted part of everyday life (Carson viduals designed and built their homes. This et al. 1981: 150). In late 16th-century England, discussion must include responses both to the the repair and improvement of a medieval environmental and economic considerations home was more common than a complete seen in the type of building construction, as rebuilding (Cummings 1979: 4). Again, well as the conscious or unconscious symbolic archaeological excavations of house sites in the nature of the structures. Most important, Chesapeake have revealed that some post-in­ though, is the proper contextualization of the ground homes underwent structural repairs buildings themselves. more than once in their lifetime (Carson et al. Seventeenth-century Chesapeake society 1981: 150). In the case of major renovations, an was highly unstable. Attitudes and fashions aspect of community assistance may have fluctuated as commonly as population and been involved. Fixing the thatch or shingles of economic conditions. These evolutions a roof or filling a hole in the wall of a house affected different regions at different times may have involved help from neighbors. This and in dissimilar ways. In addition, the geo­ theory is directly related to Robert St. George's graphic location of a given structure greatly (1983) concept of maintenance relations, influenced its construction. The functional wherein a bond of reciprocity is created and symbolic purpose of the building between members of similar social and eco­ depended on a number of factors, including nomic status. defense and possibly the representation of sta­ The post-in-ground homes constructed in bility and economic success (Mouer 1998a; Virginia had for centuries been a part of a Muraca 1994). An individual's choice of con­ longstanding building tradition in England struction material depended on the sur­ (Carson et al. 1981: 138). The majority of the rounding physical and economic environment, population of early 17th-century England was as well as the concerns and needs of the indi­ familiar with "houses with 'walles of earth, viduals who lived within the building. low thatched roofes, few partitions, no planch­ ings or glasse windows, and scarcely any chimnies, other than a hole in the wall to let Reasons for Building in Brick or Stone out the smoke'" (Cummings 1979: 4). Care During the early 17th century, most settlers must be taken, though, to avoid the assump­ invested the bulk of their resources in their tion that these homes, or their masonry coun­ tobacco crop. Both brick and stone construc­ terparts, were viewed by the settlers as either tion were expensive and unnecessary for the permanent or impermanent. These notions are majority of the population (Main 1982: 151). more a construction of today's society than an Post-in-ground construction was cheaper to adequate representation of what was accept­ build and easier to repair. Deciding between able 300 years ago (Mary Beaudry, personal these building materials was an important eco­ communication, 1998). The architecture of nomic decision (Carson et al. 1981: 138). early colonial settlement may have actually Carson and his colleagues (1981: 155) explain been an "outgrowth of the medieval village that "newcomers to virtually all the American pattern of building for the present generation" colonies frequently exercised that choice in (Mary Beaudry, personal communication, favor of building expediently for the present 1998). As there were limited numbers of Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 27, 1998 103

masons or skilled carpenters, settlers probably Wealth and political power alone cannot built what they knew, or at least what their explain why people built such structures neighbors had already built nearby. (Pickett 1996: viii). In fact, brick and stone The construction of masonry structures architecture during the 17th century in Vir­ seems to logically fit into the domain of the ginia may have symbolized power and the wealthy. The difference between the gentry unity of the political elite (McFaden, Muraca, and the common farm owner's choice of and Jones 1994: np). This overwhelming asso­ building material seems to exist in each ciation influenced many of the men interested group's level of disposable income and the in becoming involved in the politics of Vir­ accessibility of specific resources. These ginia to build with that material. include the availability of brick makers and Masonry architecture's power was derived masons and the ability to pay them (Main from its inaccessibility to the majority of set­ 1982: 149, 151). In addition, wages were not tlers in the colony. It visually separated those high enough in the Chesapeake to attract individuals who held economic and political skilled workers in large numbers, especially power from the rest of society (Metz and Russ when there was already enough work in Eng­ 1991: 103-4). It also created an artificial level land (Horn 1991: 95). of status, one which must be obtained in order While not all wealthy individuals chose to to achieve and maintain membership among build masonry homes, as the 17th century pro­ the colony's elite. Markell (1994: 52) elabo­ gressed, the ability to choose among different rates on the meaning and context of collective building materials grew. The expansion in group identity, as discussed by Weber (1961) population and settlement north and west of and Spicer (1971). She explains that material Jamestown made sources of fieldstone more symbols, in this case brick or stone homes, accessible. Also, as more brick and stone communicate group membership and main­ structures were built, the demand for them tain boundaries between groups. increased. These structures were now seen as The construction of brick and stone homes a design option. Lastly, as the population not only caused a series of changes that grew so did the demand for skilled craftsmen. effected divisions between the gentry and While this demand included brick makers and lower classes but also within the gentry itself. masons, the demand was never fully met. In King and Chaney (1999: 51) explain that "brick fact, the Rutmans' research on Middlesex houses served as physical manifestations of County reveals that finding an affordable social boundary markers for an emerging class bricklayer was difficult into the 19th century of elite Chesapeake planters." Pickett (1996: (Rutman and Rutman 1984: 65; Metz and Russ 34) adds that it "also reinforced a political ide­ 1991: 104). ology that created a sense of belonging among In addition to the reasons stated above, a members of the ruling class." In effect, the number of physical and environmental condi­ stone and brick used in the construction of tions factored into the choice of construction these homes symbolized both division and material. Starting in the 16th century, brick unity within different levels of colonial was becoming a more common building mate­ society. rial in England. People also believed that Masonry structures, therefore, may have brick and stone lasted longer and were less symbolized unity not so much between classes susceptible to fire than wood. After the fire of as within a restricted and rarified group of the 1666 in London, most buildings were rebuilt gentry. The lower class settlers saw the uni­ with brick walls and ceramic or slate roofing formity of construction material as a boundary tile to help prevent future fires. Also, a brick that separated them from the gentry. King home was healthier, more comfortable, and and Chaney (1999: 52) suggest that the gentry more durable than its post-in-ground equiva­ also used masonry architecture to maintain lent (Pickett 1996: 7). boundaries within their own group. Their The reasons for building a brick or stone work in Maryland has shown that "intragroup home cannot be adequately discussed without competition, negotiation, and compromise looking at issues of symbolic representation. were as important for defining boundaries as 104 MaS

was a sense of group identity," adding that structed was erratic, experiencing a lull in the "these tensions played an important role in the 1650s and a rapid increase beginning in the shaping of the domestic landscape" (1999: 52). last quarter of the century after Bacon's Rebel­ The popularity of brick and stone homes lion. This inconsistency may have been may have created a rift in the dynamics of the caused by a number of different social, eco­ 17th-century community. Relationships that nomic, and political factors. Over the course previously depended on mutual assistance, of the 17th century, population, mortality, and specifically repairing damage to a post-in­ economic stability constantly fluctuated. The ground home, were no longer necessary. population was also affected by the political Markell (1994: 61) explains that "the brick [or climate both within the colony's government stone] fabric of the house effectively dimin­ as well as in England. With the colony in a ished the social exchange relationship between constant state of flux, it is understandable that groups and created a more solid wall between the state of masonry architecture followed them." This architectural change marked an suit. increase in individuality among the gentry The lack of masonry structures outside of resulting in a shift in community relationships Jamestown during the first quarter of the 17th (Shackell1994: 93). century was likely a result of two key factors. Surprisingly, not all members of the upper First, the construction of masonry homes class built with brick or stone. In Pickett's implied a certain confidence in Virginia as a (1996: 66-73) discussion of this phenomenon profitable, long-term agricultural venture. he explains that a number of wealthy settlers, Second, it involved a considerable monetary including Nathaniel Pope of Westmoreland investment. The majority of the early settlers County and Colonel Thomas Pettus of James in Virginia may have lacked both of these ele­ City County, lived in post-in-ground struc­ ments and therefore did not see the construc­ tures. Each gentleman was active within colo­ tion of a brick or stone home as a necessity. nial politics and had homes that were extrava­ Horn (1991: 103) explains that the early emi­ gant for post-in-ground structures of their day. gration of wealthy individuals focused on easy Moreover, both houses included multiple profit or military adventure. He adds that "a wings and additions with leaded casement number of early arrivals may best be described windows and partial brick paving within inte­ as hobereaux, impoverished gentry who gam­ rior cellars (Neiman 1980; Kelso 1984: 76-79). bled on Virginia to recoup dwindling fortunes Why these individuals did not build masonry at home" (Horn 1991: 103). homes is unclear. They were undoubtedly In 1624, Virginia became a royal colony, aware of the their contemporaries' homes and and during the next two decades a new sense current English fashion. According to Pick­ of confidence and security emerged as popula­ ett's research, failure to build in brick or stone tion increased and the mortality rate began to seems to have marked the demise of their fam­ decline. While farming tobacco still offered ilies' prominence among Virginia's gentry. In the possibility of quick profits, settlers may fact, those who constructed Virginia houses have realized that prosperity was more likely after mid-century either "could not, or chose when undertaking a long-term investment. By not to, compete for power like those who con­ the 1640s, the Governor was building a mas­ structed substantial brick homes" leaving sive home at Green Spring, showing his fellow them "self-consciously in the shadow of the gentry that he now considered Virginia his more impressive homes of wealthier men" new home. This action signified a major shift (Pickett 1996: 73; Levy 1998: n.p.) towards constructing homes that the gentry expected to live in for more than just a few short years. Also, those who built masonry The Advance of Masonry Construction homes not only saw themselves as investing in In Virginia, the use of brick and stone in their future but in the future of their children the design of domestic architecture was incon­ as well. sistent throughout the 17th century. In fact, The drop in masonry home construction in the pace at which these structures were con- the 1650s is peculiar. Until this time brick and Northe~~st Historical Archaeology/Val. 27, 1998 105

stone houses developed steadily along the The colony's population was continuing to rise James River, including homes built by the and other settlements were expanding highest members of the politically elite. Also, throughout the eastern half of North America. as the transient nature of early colonial settle­ The colony's farmers and new settlers were ment was slowly changing to more permanent beginning to realize that a greater chance at forms in the 1640s, a growing sense of stability prosperity existed by staying in Virginia than emerged throughout the population (Rutman returning home to England (Mouer n.d.: 38). 1994: 189). The decrease may be related to an But with the increase in the colony's size unstable economy caused by a change in and population came a level of discontent. immigration or a fluctuation in tobacco prices. Mouer (1998b: 38) explains that "by the end of It may also have focused on the instability of the third quarter of the 17th century, there the political climate in England. The English were undoubtedly rising expectations among Civil War (1649-60) had caused the removal of new colonists, frontier settlers, recently freed Governor Berkeley from office with his servants, and many others." The gentry were replacement by governors loyal to Cromwell's now grudgingly forced to make room for more regime. The political climate created by the of their peers. This resulted in an artificial war may have resulted in uncertainty and con­ land shortage, created by the gentry, and an fusion among Virginia's elite, causing some to increase in competition for political positions. refrain from building masonry homes. In con­ In order to maintain the level of wealth and trast, the very cause of the lack of masonry stature the gentry had grown accustomed to, home construction in the 1650s may explain they instituted "high taxes to maintain ineffec­ their increase in the next decade. tual frontier forts and ranger troops" and per­ The 1660s mark the beginning of consistent mitted "huge grants to proprietors" (Mouer growth in the construction of brick and stone n.d.: 38). These conflicting pressures resulted homes in Virginia. Dwayne Pickett (1996: in a short-lived rebellion of lower class settlers 18-20) suggests that the increase may be a and servants in 1676. Led by a member of the result of the influx of royalist elite fleeing gentry, Nathaniel Bacon, Junior, a combination repercussions from the English Civil War. He of frontier landholders, indentured servants, explains that with the execution of Charles I in and recently freed men, fought the colonial 1649, a large number of elite Englishmen, loyal elite over issues of inadequate protection and to the crown, fled England fearing reprisals unfair trading rights. Within a year, though, from the new Commonwealth. Many of them the rebellion's leader was dead and the gentry came to Virginia, drawn largely by Governor had regained control over the colony's popula­ Berkeley's recruiting, and brought their money tion. and high-class lifestyle with them. "Numeri­ Even though the primary goals of Bacon's cally, royalists were insignificant, but in local Rebellion failed, the conflict did attract the as well as provincial politics they exercised an attention of the King in England. The level of influence wholly disproportionate to their self-rule that Virginia's elite had enjoyed up numbers" (Horn 1991: 108). Given a few years until that time was reduced as royal to acclimate to the region and for the political appointees took a more avid interest in con­ turmoil in England to settle, these new immi­ trolling the colony. While Governor Berkeley grants could have constructed masonry struc­ was removed from office, the stability of the tures by the early 1660s. Pickett adds that this gentry was otherwise restored and the emigration may have marked a shift within increase in the construction of brick houses Virginia society, increasing the cohesion of the continued through the last two decades of the elite while further segregating the lower 17th century. A visiting Frenchman wrote in classes (Pickett 1996: 20-23). 1687, "they have started making bricks in Brick construction in Virginia continued to quantities, and I have seen several houses increase during the 1670s. Fewer individuals where the walls were entirely made of them" were getting rich quick through tobacco (Chinard 1934: 119-120). Recent research has farming while agricultural production in Vir­ shown that a steady increase in domestic ginia as a long-term investment had solidified. masonry architecture led directly into the 106 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Cent11ry Virginia/Brown

"great rebuilding" of the 18th century (Pickett as the homes of the colonial elite. Indeed, the 1996; Brown 1996; Levy 1998). The transition arrangement of rooms within these homes resulted more from the growth of an architec­ may indicate more about the persons who tural tradition, though, than a sudden explo­ built these buildings than the material used to sion of brick and stone structures across the build them. Main (1982: 143) explains that Chesapeake landscape. "English immigrants to the New World car­ ried with them not a single homogeneous The Location of Masonry Architecture building tradition but a bundle of possible housing styles from which to choose." The The geographic location of masonry archi­ majority of 17th-century masonry house forms tecture during the 17th century corresponds in Virginia, with some variations, fit into two directly to the expansion of settlement basic groups: the hall-and-parlor and the throughout Virginia. As settlement extended cross-patterned house plans. First, the hall­ in all directions from Jamestown, the gentry, ar:'d-parlor "Virginia House," including and the construction of their masonry homes, Richard Kemp's house at Rich Neck, contained soon followed. Particular concentrations of two ground-floor rooms and loft space above these homes along the landscape require fur­ with either central or end chimneys. Second, ther explanation as they may represent more the cross-patterned or T-shaped house, such as than a response to population expansion. For the John Page house, similar to the hall-and­ instance, Thomas Harris's home on the far parlor, contained an additional porch and/ or western frontier of 1630s Virginia may have stair tower or back room. A final group of been constructed with brick because of its houses is seen as anomalous as each has a defensive qualities (Mouer 1998a). The great unique plan differing greatly from either of solidity of such a structure, believed to func­ the first two groups. This last group includes tion both as a home and a garrison fbr the local both early double-pile structures, such as John militia, may have been one reason behind its Custis's Arlington, and elongated single-pile, use of masonry construction. While this is L-shaped homes, such as Governor Berkeley's only the first such structure found along the second manor house at Green Spring. In addi­ frontier of early Virginia, other structures tion, earthfast equivalents of most of these might exist that were built in brick or stone for the same reasons. " house forms can be found throughout the colony. A distinct concentration of brick buildings The different environmental conditions in exists in Middle Plantation, specifically in the Virginia played an important role in the set­ area surrounding the future city of Williams­ tlers' choice of home design. Cummings burg. In the 1680s, at least six brick homes (1979: 209) adds that "the immigrant English were present within Middle Plantation. Fur­ carpenters were forced from the first moment th~rmore, before the end of the 17th century, a of their landing to come to grips with a new bnck church, a brick college building, and environment and to find technical solutions other structures were built or planned. This for new problems." Some of the changing indicated an increase in the stature of the area's population. The only area within the t~ends in Virginia's architecture may be a direct response to those environmental condi­ colony that had a greater number of public and private buildings, of either wood or brick, tions. Design characteristics common to Eng­ land and Europe, such as central chimneys, was Jamestown. It is possible that masonry structures were purposely constructed in large may have fallen out of favor in the colony numbers within Middle Plantation to help because of the discomfort associated with their attract the capital away from Jamestown, a use during Virginia's hot summers. The archi­ plan that succeeded in 1699 (Muraca 1994: 11). tecture of 17th-century Virginia then truly rep­ resents an amalgam of English architectural traditions adapted to the social and environ­ Design Choice in Masonry Architecture mental conditions of the Chesapeake region. The brick and stone fabric of these struc­ . The prob~ems inherent in building a fash­ tures was not the only factor in their definition IOnable English country home in Virginia are Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. 27, 1998 107

clearly seen in the design of Governor Berke­ concern for privacy and individual space. ley's 1640s home at Green Spring. While his And in almost all other cases, there was a efforts to instill a sense of confidence and secu­ desire to display one's knowledge of current rity in the colony's elite were embodied in the English fashion. construction of this house, there were The construction of the Arthur Allen and undoubtedly numerous disadvantages in the John Page homes indicates the increasing pop­ structure's design. Brownell and his col­ ularity of porch towers and the cross-pat­ leagues explain that the first manor house at terned design. Porch towers provide a formal­ Green Spring "was built with sadly insuffi­ ized entryway into a structure's interior, cient attention to design and planning: rooms allowing the screening of visitors and the fur­ were massed three-deep and covered by par­ ther isolation of outsiders from the interior. allel gable roofs" (Brownell et al. 1992: 3). This Evidence of porch towers at Mathews Manor, unfortunate obstacle in design highlights the Peirsey's stone house, Berkeley's possible problems of using English architectural styles porch tower on his first manor house, and in a very different Virginia environment. Kemp's restricted entryway at Rich Neck Other members of the gentry may have begin to show the wealthier planter's desire learned from this example. Many continued for an increase in privacy. The Virginia gentry to implement design characteristics borrowed may have also found the porch tower to be a from English and European structures that convenient way of increasing the separation worked well within the colony. This demon­ between public and individual space. This strated the colonists' ability to adapt tradi­ trend continued in both brick and wood con­ tional designs to a new area. struction through to the 18th century but dis­ In the 1660s, Thomas Ludwell's extrava­ appeared by the 1750s (Upton 1980: 106). One gant renovations of Richard Kemp's 1640s example of an earthfast structure with a porch Rich Neck home coincided with the growing tower was Nathaniel Pope's house at Clifts trend for the gentry in Virginia to emulate Plantation (Neiman 1980: 296). high society in England (Levy 1998: n.p.). The popularity of cross-patterned homes While these alterations made Ludwell's house may be the reflection of common building more attractive by 17th-century English stan­ practice in England at the time. The use of a dards, they also increased its stability, ventila­ cross-patterned design allowed a wealthy tion, and interior space. Levy (1998: n.p.) adds planter, by the colony's standards, to construct that these modifications "ultimately changed a fashionable English-style house. While at a the hall and parlor structure into a five-room decidedly different scale, the symbolism of the (excluding loft space) outshut whose plan tower may have triggered memories of castles approximated that of a double-pile dwelling." and keeps, the powerful and dominating This noticeably different version of Kemp's architecture of the medieval period in Eng­ original home would have been better suited land. Also, Pickett (1996: 76) adds, the gentry to comfortably house a high official in Vir­ wanted to display their knowledge of current ginia's government as well as to entertain English fashion "creating an American land­ others. scape more English in nature than it had ever The design and arrangement of rooms been before." within the homes of the elite can be inter­ The size of a structure also had a profound preted from various perspectives. The ele­ effect on its symbolic value. This contrast is ments involved in the construction of these embodied in the comparison between Richard residences go beyond the brick and stone Kemp's house at Rich Neck and the first materials involved in their construction. A manor house at Green Spring. Evidence sup­ concern for adequate space and comfort was ports the use of similar building materials, only one contributing factor to the changing such as plaster interiors and leaded casement design of masonry homes. In some cases, windows, for both buildings, but the similarity design elements symbolized a response to the between the structures ends there. Berkeley's changing demographic structure of the colony. home was over two times the size and had at In others, there were modifications based on a least seven more rooms than Kemp's. This 108 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Century Virginia/Brown

could have simply been the embodiment of must be examined within its own immediate the difference between the position of Gov­ context and viewed through the eye of both its ernor and that of Secretary, both politically constructor and "receiver." Matthew John­ and economically. It could also represent the son's work on the transition from the medieval role competitive placement and design of house to great house of the early modern structures played in the maintenance of period in England is centered on this question boundaries between the colony's political elite of context Oohnson 1996: 119-154). As these (King and Chaney 1999: 52). buildings changed in form, they also changed The evolution of the architecture of Vir­ in the way they related to the landscape that ginia's 17th-century elite can be directly com­ surrounded them Oohnson 1996: 121). These pared to similar trends in England and landscapes we then viewed differently and Europe. The most significant modifications in reordered. To truly understand this architec­ house forms occurred during the second half tural transition, though, it is necessary to of the 17th century as the changing form of the "grasp the way in which these changes in form English family coincided with a massive and style related to these and other changes in rebuilding in the center of elite architecture, the landed elite" Oohnson 1996: 136). London, following the fire of 1666 (Levy 1998: n.p.). In Virginia and England, the number of The Destruction of Masonry Structures rooms in elite homes increased as there was a through Time growing demand for individual space. This The demise of 17th-century masonry was in response to "the developing seven­ homes and their designs highlight their sur­ teenth-century idea of the family as [a] closely prisingly brief existence. Only 3 of the 24 connected domestic unit tied together by affec­ homes inventoried survive to the present day, tive bonds" (Levy 1998: n.p.). During this all of them having undergone extensive reno­ period, there were shifts in architectural vations and repairs. While the typical post-in­ design throughout the American colonies. As ground home had a relatively short life span, in Virginia, Cummings (1979: 207) suggests it may be expected that a masonry structure that in New England "there are indeed mea­ would be more resistant to the ravages of time. surable differences in style and technology In fact, eight of the structures did not survive between the buildings of 1650 and 1700." the 17th century and eight more were The concept of what characterized elite destroyed by the mid-18th century. Nine architecture, aesthetically speaking, also homes burned down, five were torn down, evolved during this period. Levy (1998) dis­ and of these 14, at least 11 were abandoned cusses this topic focusing on the evolution of before they were destroyed. In contrast to the Rich Neck plantation, from its construction by wood and masonry homes of 17th-century Richard Kemp to its renovation by Thomas New England, numerous examples of which Ludwell. Each building was an example of the still stand, there are less than a handful of Vir­ response to changes in English architectural ginia's early homes left to see. If brick and fashion. Levy (1998: n.p.) concludes that many stone homes of the elite were so highly valued of Virginia's elite "were acutely aware of in the 17th century, why were over half of changing trends and styles in the era's increas­ them in ruins by 1750? ingly trendy metropole," namely London, and The reasons for the disappearance of Vir­ that "these elites were particularly attuned to ginia's first examples of masonry architecture the life and values of England's towns in gen­ have as much to do with changes in fashion eral." As the architecture of the elite in Eng­ and family organization as they do with issues land changed, the definition of what was con­ of environmental or economic conditions sidered appropriate elite housing in Virginia (Levy 1998). As the 18th century progressed, changed as well. the increase in size, ornamentation, and design There still remains the question of what of homes, first seen in Arlington, the second effect these buildings instilled on the individ­ manor house at Green Spring, and Bellfield, uals who viewed them. Who was intended to more than the strict use of brick or stone, see these structures? Masonry architecture began to separate society's architecture. Even Northeast Historical Archaeology /Vol. 27, 1998 109

at the end of the 17th century, individuals like gm1a. It will also provide insight into the John Custis and William Berkeley were changing social structure of the gentry in the building much larger homes reflecting the late 17th and 18th centuries. changing tastes that would lead to the so­ called "great rebuilding" of the 18th century. Conclusion A shift in style towards the more symmetrical, "Georgian" design occurred that was so dra­ In the last 20 years, archaeological and matic as to make the rebuilding of many struc- documentary research on 17th-century archi­ . lures both economically and socially inadvis­ tecture in Virginia has increased dramatically. able. In addition, the succeeding generation of As a result, knowledge provided by earlier Virginia's elite families found themselves research has been updated and made more owning land and raising families at the same significant. Three of the remaining early brick time as their fathers. This prompted a choice structures, Bacon's Castle, Criss Cross, and between building a fashionable new home on Foster's Castle, are no longer seen as anom­ ·one's own land, or waiting to inherit a smaller, alous entities on the Virginia landscape,.but as older structure. These first and second sons a sampling of the numerous examples of an may have been more inclined to move to their evolving architectural tradition. With this own land rather than return to their father's new information, studies such as Domestic property. Architecture of the American Colonies and of the The lack of surviving 17th-century Early Republic by Fiske Kimball (1950) and The masonry domestic structures, though, is not Architecture of the Old South: The Medieval Style, surprising when one looks at Virginia's envi­ 1585-1850 by Henry Chandlee Forman (1948) ronment and the 300 years since their con­ can be reevaluated. These sources, although struction. What is curious are the reasons still useful, are now known to contain inaccu­ behind their demise. In Middle Plantation, the rate information about building construction destruction of the majority of its masonry dates. As more data become available and homes, ironically, made way for the building research continues in the fields of history, of the city of Williamsburg. During probably architectural history, and archaeology, the the- · the first case of large-scale urban renewal in ories originally proposed by Kimball, Forman, Virginia, at least a handful of masonry struc­ and others must be examined anew. tures were destroyed. Even with those struc­ The structures discussed in this article rep­ tures that survived the mid-18th century, resent the known corpus of 17th-century though, there are few that did not undergo domestic masonry structures outside of major renovations in an attempt to bring them Jamestown in Virginia. Research on these more in line with current fashion. In addition, buildings has revealed that wealthy colonists adaptations were made to these buildings to throughout Virginia employed a more diverse make them more comfortable, involving array of design and construction techniques decreasing the size of fireplaces, partitioning than previously thought. As. a group, the spaces, and adding additional exterior rooms buildings provide scholars with insight into (Hudgins 1976; Andrews 1984). Still, other the- social, economic, and political worlds buildings such as Nathaniel Bacon Jr.'s and within which domestic masonry architecture Miles Cary II's homes, were neither victims of played an important role. Each stru'cture fashion nor urban renewal, but were allows a compelling glimpse into the lives of destroyed as a result of war. the individuals who built and lived in these · There seem to be have been as many rea­ houses. Within the proper context we can see sons behind the destruction and abandonment multiple factors that guided each building's of Virginia's 17th-century masonry homes as construction, meaning, and destruction. These there was for their construction. Investigating factors played a significant role in the emer­ these reasons within both individual contexts gence domestic masonry homes as a distinct and more generally is crucial to understanding architectural tradition within 17th-century Vir­ the emergence of masonry architecture in Vir- ginia. 110 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Cenhtry Virginia/Brown

This architectural tradition, however, of these highly valued objects of status simply developed at a "sporadic but determined" left to deteriorate? While each building pace and experienced changes in both form should be analyzed within its own circum­ and meaning with the "gradual addition of stances, it seems that many of these structures new materials and techniques" (Markell 1994: fell victim to shifts in architectural design, 56). The choice to build a masonry home was fashion, and family organization. affected by various environmental and eco­ Through the excavations of the buildings nomic considerations. This included the reported in this article, there is proof that more builder's level of disposable income and the 17th-century masonry homes were built than accessibility of specific resources, such as scholars had once thought. Only three of the bricklayers. In addition, there was both a con­ known domestic masonry structures still scious and unconscious symbolism inherent in stand, providing an inaccurate view of colo­ each building. Masonry architecture symbol­ nial architecture for this period. If assump­ ized both division and unity within different tions were based strictly on these structures, levels of colonial society. While it represented brick and stone house designs would be seen the power of the political elite over other set­ as limited to the cross-patterned house design. tlers, it also expressed division and competi­ The grasp of contemporary English architec­ tion among members of the gentry. The build­ tural style seen in the Berkeley, Custis, and ings symbolize the "new order" of Virginia Burwell homes would go unnoticed. The gentry who were establishing "clear bound­ variant construction techniques seen in aries between themselves and the landless Mathews Manor, the Thomas Harris house, freemen and servants, and between them­ and the house on the Hornsby property would selves and England in order to maintain their never be seen. While the rate of masonry con­ status and power" (Markell1994: 60-61). struction in the 17th century never rivaled that Beyond the basic fabric of these buildings, of the 18th, it was more prevalent than first there existed a conscious design decision. thought. As additional buildings are discov­ Changes in the layout of a building involved ered, it may be revealed that even the "great adaptations to new environmental and social mansions of the eighteenth-century Tidewater conditions. With the demographic structure of are not a departure from seventeenth-century the colony changing as the century pro­ architecture, but rather the culmination of the gressed, there evolved a concern for privacy aspirations and experiences of seventeenth­ and individual space, as seen in the popularity century elite home builders" (Levy 1998: n.p.). of porch towers and later, central halls. There This study is far from complete and does was also a desire to display one's awareness of not claim to fully address the many issues that current English fashion. This required knowl­ need to be discussed on this subject. King and edge of the proper level of ornamentation and Chaney (1999) suggest that "the significance of size suitable for a particular home design. regional as well as chronological variation in It is also necessary to understand the rea­ the distribution of house types, the individual sons behind the disappearance of almost all of histories of the planters who built them, and Virginia's 17th-century domestic masonry the nature of intraregional variability in the architecture. While there are numerous exam­ Chesapeake economy and society all need to ples of these homes in New England, few of be investigated." Research by John Coombs Virginia's structures could avoid the fires, ren­ and Phil Levy is currently focusing on the ovations, and dismantling that destroyed the change in design and layout of the homes of colony's earliest masonry homes. Their exca­ Virginia's elite during the 17th century (Levy vation reveals that many were abandoned, 1998). Their preliminary work suggests that some within a century of their construction. the gentry in Virginia had a much tighter con­ The shells of many masonry homes were left nection with English urban society than was to deteriorate or were dismantled for their previously suspected. Other important topics materials, leaving only the documents and the worthy of debate include the influence of Vir­ archaeological record to prove their once ginia architecture on the colonies to the north prominent existence. But why were so many and south (and vice versa) and the effect of Northeast Historical ArchaeologyNol. 27, 1998 111

17th-century masonry home designs on their communication, 1996). 18th- and 19th-century counterparts. Research must also be continued on brick kilns. As Metz and Russ explain, "brick kilns 'complete William Byrd house (1679), Henrico County. the construction story of a structure and may William Byrd, a Colonel in the County Militia, reveal otherwise obscured details of a struc­ Auditor General, Receiver General, and ture' and the cultural processes active in its member of the Governor's Council and House planning and completion" (1991: 96; Heite of Burgesses, also built his stone home near 1968: 46). In addition, many of the gentlemen present-day Richmond off Goodes Creek near included in this analysis, including Richard Thomas Stegge II's house. It appears on a con­ Kemp, Thomas Ludwell, and John Page, con­ temporary surveyor's plat as a two-story structed masonry outbuildings. These struc­ house with a central chimney and gabled ends. tures need to be analyzed to the same degree Curiously, the door is placed on one of the as domestic residences as they constitute a gabled ends of the house. This home was major part of the intended domestic land­ likely destroyed by the same 20th-century scape. quarry that destroyed the Stregge House (L. The focus of this study is to provide an Daniel Mouer, personal communication, 1996). easily accessible source of information on domestic masonry architecture in 17th-century Stone house foundation, James City County. Virginia. As research begins on a similar This 2ft (0.61 m) wide foundation, constructed study in Maryland, it is important to realize of rough sandstone, is located near Ware that, as different as these two colonies were in Creek in James City County (FIG. 28). Excava­ the 17th century, no cultural study of the tions by numerous groups, including Colonial Chesapeake area would be complete without Williamsburg, the Virginia Department of His­ an equal analysis of both. This article is toric Landmarks, and Virginia Archaeological simply a beginning and with time my study Services, failed to conclude the purpose or will be expanded and revised to include new construction date of this foundation. While information and theories exploring issues this one room building has been associated related to domestic masonry architecture in with the everything from the failed 16th-cen­ the 17th-century Chesapeake. tury Spanish Jesuit mission to a fortification during Bacon's Rebellion, the lack of diag­ Appendix A: Possibilities and Rumors nostic artifacts has prevented scholars from learning much about this structure (NRHP; Following is a list of structures that could Virginia Archaeological Services 1997; David not be included in my discussion because insufficient information was available con­ cerning their layout or location. Also, some of the structures on this list have either not been excavated or there is inconclusive evidence as 1- 18.5 ft ~ to whether they were constructed in the 17th (5.64 m) century. T

Thomas Stegge II house (1650s), Henrico 22 ft County. Thomas Stegge II, a Justice of the (6.71 m) Peace Auditor General, and member of the Gove;nor's Council, built his stone building near present-day Richmond _off of Goo des L .L Creek. An image of it appears on a contempo­ N,. rary plat, left in a will to William Byrd. It was likely destroyed by a quarry excavated in the Figure 28. The foundation plan mid-20th century (L. Daniel Mouer, personal of The Stone house in James City County. 112 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Century Virginia/Brown

F. Muraca, personal communication, 1998). 25ft -1 1- (7.62 m)

Half-Sinke house, Henrico County. This structure consists of a possible 17th-century brick cellar located along Telegraph Road in / northwest Henrico County (L. Daniel Mauer, N personal communication, 1996).

Abraham Wood house, Henrico County. 85 ft Abraham Wood, a Colonel in the county I (25.91 m) militia, Justice of the Peace, and member of the Governor's Council and House of Burgesses, may have built his house with stone founda­ tion along the road to Petersburg (L. Daniel Mauer, personal communication, 1996). 1 Rol ph/Thomas Warren house (pre-1652), Henrico County. The standing structure of similar name is of a definitive 18th-century Figure 29. The foundation plan of Nominy Plantation house in Wesbnoreland County. style, yet 17th-century documents suggest a structure built by Thomas Warren, a member munication, 1998). of the House of Burgesses, of similar dimen­ sions and materials was constructed before 1652 elsewhere on the property (L. Daniel Nominy Plantation, Westmoreland County. Mauer, personal communication, 1996). Excavations by Vivienne Mitchell in 1973 and 1974 revealed a massive, cross-patterned brick foundation associated with a site occupied Structure behind the Wythe house, Williams­ from the second half of the 17th century until burg. Discovered during utility installation in the end of the 18th century (FIG. 29). Mitchell's 1939 and 1975, a pair of 17th-century brick summaries of the wine bottle glass and red foundations as recorded behind the 18th-cen­ clay tobacco pipes found during her excava­ tury George Wythe house in Colonial tions do not mention a construction date for Williamsburg. The 1939 excavations located a the building (Hudson and Mitchell 1974; 20 x 28 ft (6.67 m x 9.33 m) foundation ori­ Mitchell 1975, 1976, 1978; Mitchell and ented northeast-southwest. The 1975 excava­ Mitchell1982). tion of a utility trench uncovered a small por­ tion of a similarly oriented 2-ft-wide founda­ tion measuring at least 23 ft x 24 ft (7.67 m x 8 Matthew Page house (post-1694), at Rosewell m). The latter building also had a chimney Plantation, Gloucester County. During test along the west wall foundation as well as a excavations in the early 1990s, two founda­ brick-filled cellar. Documentation has not tions were uncovered that were not aligned been found concerning the building uncov­ with the ruins of the Rosewell mansion. ered during the 1939 excavations but a moni­ These foundations may have been associated toring and mitigation report was filed with the with an earlier home built sometime after 1694 Department of Archaeological Research at by Matthew Page, a member of both the Gov­ Colonial Williamsburg the 1975 utility trench ernor's Council and House of Burgesses, excavation (David F. Muraca, personal com- which was destroyed by fire in 1721 (Nicholas Northeast Historical Archaeology /Vol. 27, 1998 113

Luccketti, personal communication, 1996). structure in present-day Virginia Beach now believed to have been built in the early 18th century (Morrison 1956: 143; Dwayne W. Bray property, behind Basset Hall, Williams­ Pickett, personal communication, 1996). burg. In 1932, Colonial Williamsburg exca­ vated a large brick foundation 80 ft (26.67 m) east of 18th-century Basset Hall. The 2-brick­ Ringfield Plantation, York County. A pro~ wide foundation, on property once owned by bate inventory from 1698 suggests that a James Bray who built a home there between "Great House" on King's Creek in York 1671 and 1677, was laid out in English bond County was constructed between 1693 and with oyster shell mortar (Kelso 1984; Muraca 1698 by Joseph Ring, a member of the House 1994). The remaining portions of the founda­ of Burgesses. This house contained two tion suggest a 2-roomed, hall-and-parlor struc­ storeys with basement. Photographs exist of a ture with one interior and one exterior structure near this location that was destroyed chimney. The northern end chimney was two­ by fire in the 1920s. Limited excavations were and-a-half bricks wide, 8 ft 10 in in length and undertaken by the National Park Service on 4 ft 8.5 in deep (3 m x 1.62 m). The southern this building's foundation in the 1930s. No end chimney was not placed symmetrically documentation or measured drawings exist,. with the northern end chimney, was smaller in though, that document this work (Hatch width, and may have been part of later con­ 1970b). struction. A cellar underlies the southern third of the structure and was constructed after the original foundations. The cellar walls Joseph Croshaw's House, York County. The were one brick thick and a bulkhead entrance 1668 estate inventory of Major Joseph west of the southern chimney was also added Croshaw, a Justice of the Peace, Major in the after the original foundation. A one-and-a­ county militia, High Sheriff of York County, half-brick-wide foundation for a two-room and member of the House of Burgesses, addition was uncovered on the east side of the describes a house with at least six different original structure as well. Turned leads were rooms including a "porch chamber." The recovered during the excavations (Ragland presence of this chamber, the affluence?of the 1932: 2). house's owner, and his rivalry with John P!ige of Middle Plantation, suggests that, while no mention of construction materials were found Wilson Creek site, Gloucester County. A in the documentation, this structure may have brick foundation was discovered near a con­ been constructed of brick. The site is currently centration of mid-17th-century artifacts. located on Camp Perry and no known archae­ Probing for the extent of the foundation ological work has been found relating to the revealed a rectangular plan of roughly 20 x 37 specific location of this structure (McKinney ft (6.10 x 11.28 m). Test excavations of the 1995). structure's English cellar revealed a probable wood floor and plastered interior. The building was likely destroyed shortly after the Houses damaged during Bacon's Rebellion. 1720s (Dwayne W. Pickett, personal communi­ Numerous suits were filed in England cation, 1996). claiming expenses for damages resulting from looting related to Bacon's Rebellion. A list of these suits is available from the British Colo­ Adam Thoroughgood I House, Virginia nial Records Office and through the Virginia Beach. The 1640 will of Adam Thoroughgood Colonial Records Project. Included on the list I, a Justice of the Peace, Captain of the County are descriptions of buildings, such as Militia, and member of the Governor's Council Nathaniel Bacon Jr.'s "small, new, brick and House of Burgesses, mentions a brick house." While no other buildings are referred house. This house likely predates the standing to as built with brick, a number of entries 114 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Century Virginia/Brown

describe framed dwellings. These dwellings addition to the recovery of many mid- to late are owned by Captain James Crews, Captain 17th-century domestic artifacts, evidence for a William Carter of James City County, William 17th-century construction date is seen in the Rookins of Surry County, and William Star­ presence of flat roofing tiles produced in John brough of Surry County. There are also refer­ Page's 17th-century kiln, wall plaster frag­ ences to "good" or "very good dwelling ments, dressed slate, and portions of leaded houses" owned by Robert Joans, Thomas casement windows. These artifact types are Hansford, and Thomas Young. Any of these found more commonly on other 17th-century 17th-century structures could have used a buildings located within Middle Plantation. masonry foundation in its construction. Additional research is currently underway to reveal more information regarding the owner of the property during this period and the Thomas Ballard I or II house, Williamsburg. building's possible function as a combination In the summer of 1997, a foundation was dis­ store and dwelling (Cooper 1998: 23). covered to the immediate north of the Wren Building in Williamsburg. While the artifacts recovered during limited test excavations were Kingsmill Site (44JC915) (1620s-1660s), inconclusive, the orientation of the building Jamestown Island. The remains of numerous suggests that it existed before the construction above- and below-ground features relating to of the Wren Building in 1698. The foundation the 17th-century occupation of this site were may be associated with either Thomas Ballard identified by the William and Mary Center for I, a Justice of the Peace for York County, Clerk Archaeological Research during their survey of the County Court, Colonel in the county of Jamestown Island in 1996 (Blanton et al. militia, member of the Governor's Council, 1999). Limited excavations resulted in the and Speaker of the House of Burgesses, or recovery of over 1000 artifacts dating between Thomas Ballard II, a Colonel in the County 1620 and 1660. Although no foundation was Militia, Justice of the Peace, and member of the uncovered during these excavations, the dis­ House of Burgesses (David F. Muraca, per­ covery of pan tile and slate roofing tile frag­ sonal communication, 1998). ments, paving tile fragments, and large piles of hand-made brick rubble suggests that a struc­ ture with a brick foundation once existed on Claremont Manor House, Surry County. A this site. Documents refer to an "Island late 17th-century brick foundation with hall­ House" in 1661 and a "brick house" in 1668, and-parlor layout was destroyed and replaced yet artifacts from the second quarter of the with an early 18th-century structure of similar 17th century indicate that the building may design. This building had two exterior end have been built earlier than that period chimneys and was owned at one time by (Blanton et al. 1999: 3). The structure was Arthur Allen (Leverette Gregory, personal probably built by Richard Kingsmill, a burgess communication, 1997). and church warden, between 1626 and his death in 1638. The recovery of turned lead Ravencroft Site, James City County. A one­ fragments indicates the presence of casement and-a-half-brick-wide foundation was discov­ windows. Excavations also indicated that ered in 1954 by James Knight during the after the site was destroyed, many of the mate­ reconstruction of Colonial Williamsburg. In rials were robbed from the ruin and possibly 1998, an adjacent late 17th- to early 18th-cen­ recycled in other buildings. tury midden was excavated by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Department of Archaeological Research (Cooper 1998). The Acknowledgments analysis of the artifacts and features from I would like to express great thanks to the these excavations suggests that the foundation many persons who shared their information was constructed between 1675 and 1725. In and expertise with me. This includes Donald Northeast Historical ArchaeologyNo/. 27, 1998 115

Linebaugh, Nicholas Luccketti, Daniel Mauer, Blanton, Dennis B., Patricia Kandle, and Charles Mary Beaudry, Jane Sundberg, Frasier Downing Neiman, John Metz, Leverette Gregory, Willie 1999 Comprehensive Archaeological Survey of Jamestown Island. William and Mary Graham, John Coombs, Philip Levy, Marc Center for Archaeological Research Pre­ Wenger, Edward Chappell, Andrew Edwards, pared for the National Historic Park, Theodore Reinhart, Frank Farmer, John National Park Service. Mouring, Stephen Mrozowski, Lee Priddy, and Dennis Pogue. In particular, I'd like to Blanton, Dennis B., Thomas F. Higgins III, David thank David Muraca for his sobering insight Lewes, and Kenneth E. Stuck and good humor. Additional thanks are in 1999 Venturing Beyond the Town: Archaeology of order for John Roberts for his assistance with an Early Plantation on Jamestown Island. AutoCAD and to Thane Harpole for his William and Mary Center for Archaeolog­ review of this paper and many suggestions. ical Research, Williamsburg, VA. I'm also grateful to my partners, Cory Judson and Erika Haubert, on the precursor to this Brown, David project, an annotated bibliography of 17th-cen­ 1996 Seventeenth-Century Domestic Brick tury domestic brick architecture in Virginia Architecture in Virginia. Unpublished and Maryland. I'm most indebted to Dwayne independent study paper for Professor Pickett, who recently completed a Masters Kornwolf, Art History Department, The thesis focusing on the John Page house and College of William and Mary, Williams­ burg, VA. including many of the buildings discussed in this article. Lastly, I would like to thank Pro­ fessor James Kornwolf for his insight, guid­ Brown, David, Cory Judson, and Erica Haubert ance, and desire to have me think more like an 1995 An Annotated Bibliography of Seven­ art historian than an anthropologist interested teenth Century Brick Domestic Structures in the Tidewater Area. Manuscript on file, in architectUre. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Department of Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, VA. References

Andrews, Stephenson B., ed. Brown, Marley R., III 1984 Bacon's Castle. The Association for the 1989 Study and Preservation Options for Site Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, Rich­ 44JC500 on the Hornsby Property. Ms. on mond. file, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Department of Archaeological Research, Barka, Norman F. Williamsburg, VA. 1976 The Archaeology of Flowerdew Hundred Plan­ tation: The Stone House Foundation Site. Brownell, Charles E., Calder Loth, William M. S. Southside Historical Sites, Department of Rasmussen, and Richard Guy Wilson Anthropology, The College of William and 1992 The Making of Virginia Architecture. Vir­ Mary, Williamsburg, VA. ginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond.

Bedell, John C., and Nicholas M. Luccketti Bruce, Philip Alexander 1988 An Archaeological Assessment of Arlington, 1895 Economic History of Virginia in the Seven­ Northampton County, Virginia. James River teenth Century: An Inquiry into the Material Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williams­ Conditions of the People. Peter Smith, New burg,VA. York.

Blades, BrookeS. Carson, Cary 1974 Brick Samples Recovered from the Pre-Public 1969 Settlement Patterns and Vernacular Archi­ Hospital Features. Ms. on file, Colonial tecture in Seventeenth Century Tidewater Williamsburg Foundation Department of Virginia. Unpublished Master's thesis, Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, The University of Delaware, Newark. VA. 116 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Century Virginia/Brown

Carson, Cary, Norman F. Barka, William M. Kelso, 1984 The "Francis Nicholson" Building, Archi­ Garry Wheeler Stone, and Dell Upton tectural Evidence. Ms. on file, Colonial 1981 Impermanent Architecture in the Southern WilliamsbUrg Foundation Department of American Colonies. Winterthur Portfolio 16 Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, (2): 135-196. VA. 1995 In-house Interim Report, 1995 Field Season. Ms. on file, Colonial Williams­ Carson,J. burg Foundation Department of Archaeo­ 1954 Green Spring Plantation in the Seven­ logical Research, Williamsburg, VA. teenth Century: House Report. Ms. on 1996 In-house Interim Report, 1996 Field file, Colonial National Historic Park, York­ Season. Ms. on file, Colonial Williams­ town, VA. burg Foundation Department of Archaeo­ logical Research, Williamsburg, VA. Carter, Edward C. II 1997 In-house Interim Report, 1997 Field 1974 The Virginia Journals of Benjamin Henry Season. Ms. on file, Colonial Williams­ Latrobe. Yale University Press, New burg Foundation Department of Archaeo­ Haven, CT. logical Research, Williamsburg, VA.

Caywood, Louis R. Cooper, Margaret W. 1955 Excavations at Green Spring Plantation: 1998 The Ravencroft Site: Archaeological Inves­ Archaeological Report. Colonial National tigation of Colonial Lots 267 and 268. On Historic Park, Yorktown, VA. file, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation 1955 Excavations at Green Spring Plantation. Department of Archaeological Research, The Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Williamsburg, VA. Society of Virginia 10(1): n.p. 1957 Green Spring Plantation. The Virginia Cotter, John L. Magazine of History and Biography 65(1): 1958 Archaeological Excavations at Jamestown, Vir­ 67-83. ginia. 1994 reprint. Special Publication No. 32. Archeological Society of Virginia, Chappell, Edward A. Richmond. 1994 Notes on Masonry Finish and Stone, Arlington, Northampton County, VA. Ms. Currunings, Abbott Lowell on file, Colonial Williamsburg Department 1979 The Framed Houses of Massachusetts Bay, of Architectural Research, Williamsburg, 1625-1725. Harvard University Press, VA. Cambridge, MA.

Chinard, Gilbert, trans. and ed. Deetz, James 1934 A Huguenot Exile in Virginia; or, Voyages of 1993 Flowerdew Hundred: The Archaeology of a a Frenchman Exiled for His Religion (Durand Virginia Plantation, 1619-1864. University de Dauphine). Press of the Pioneers, New Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. York.

Dimmick, Jesse Colonial Records Office 1929 Green Spring. The William and Mary Quar­ 1677 An Account of the Estate of Nathaniel terly, 2nd series 9(2): 129-130. Bacon, Jr., Dec' d. C.O. 5/1371, Part 2, 227 vo-230, May 11, 1677. Colonial Records Office, London. Duke, F. 1941 George Carter Lots Archaeological Report, Colonial Williamsburg Department of Archaeolog­ Block 2 Lot 247. Ms. on file, Colonial ical Research Williamsburg Foundation Department of 1983 The "Thomas Jones" Dwelling, Architec­ Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, VA. tural Evidence. Ms. on file, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Department of Forman, Henry Chandlee Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, 1948 The Architecture of the Old South: The VA. Northeast Historical Archaeology(Vol. 27, 1998 117

Medieval Style, 1585-1850. Harvard Uni­ 1979 Archaeology in the "King's" Realm: A versity Press, Cambridge, MA. Summary Report of 1977 Survey at Coro­ toman with a Proposal for the 1979 Season. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology. · Green Spring Plantation Surveyors Plat Williamsburg, VA. 1683 William Salt Library, Stratford, England. 1981 The "King's" Reaim: An Archaeological and Historical Analysis of Robert Carter's Cora­ Harrington, J. C. taman. The University of Alabama, 1950 Seventeenth-Century .Brickmaking and Birminham Tilemaking at Jamestown, Virginia. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Hudson,J. P. 58(1): 16-39. 1957 This was Green Spring. Jamestown Founda­ 1967 The Manufacture and Use of Bricks at the tion, Jamestown, VA. Raleigh Settlement on Roanoke Island. North Carolina Historical Review 45(1): 1-17. Hudson, J.P., and Vivienne Mitchell 1974 Seventeenth Century Wine Bottle Seals Hatch, Charles E., Jr. Found in Westmoreland County. The 1970a The Bellfield Estate. General Study. Divi­ Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society sion of History, Office of Archaeology and of Virginia 29(2): 41-42. Historic Preservation, U.S. Department of the Interior and the National Park Service, Yorktown, VA. Johnson, Matthew 1970b Ringfield Plantation. Special Report. Divi­ 1996 An Archaeology of Capitalism. Blackwell, sion of History, Office of Archaeology and Oxford. Historic Preservation, U.S. Department of the Interior and the National Park Service, Yorktown, VA. Kelso, William 1984 Kingsmi/1 Plantations 1619-1800: Archae­ ology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia. Horn, James Academic Press, New York. 1991 "To Parts Beyond the Seas": Free Emigra­ tion to the Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Kimball, Fiske Century. In To Make America: European 1950 Domestic Architecture of the American Emigration in the Early Modern Period, ed. Colonies and of the Early Republic. Dover by Ida Altman and James Horn, 85-130. Publishing, Inc., New York University of California Press, Berkeley.

King, Julia, and Edward Chaney Horning, Audrey J. 1999 Lord Baltimore and the Meaning of Brick 1995 A Verie Fit Place to Erect a Great Cittie: Architecture in Seventeenth-Century Comparative Contextual Analysis of Maryland. In Old and New Worlds, ed. by Archaeological Jamestown. Ph.D. diss. Geoff Egan and Ronald L. Michael, 51-{;0. The University of Pennsylvania, Philadel­ Oxbow Books, Oxford, CT. · phia. Knight, James M. Howlett, Carey F., and Chris Swan 1942 Archaeological Report, Block 14, Area B-2 1996 Examination report on brick cartouche, (17th Century Foundation Under Nassau accession number 095-33AN. Ms. on file, Street). Ms. on file, Colonial Williamsburg Colonial Williamsburg's Department of Foundation Department of Archaeological Conservation, Williamsburg, VA. Research, Williamsburg, VA.

Hudgins, Carter L. Komwolf, James D. 1975 Excavations at the Miles Cary Rich Neck 1976 Guide to the Buildings of Surry and the Amer­ Plantation Site, the 1976 Field Season. Ms. ican Revolution. The Surry County Virginia on file, Department of Historic Resources, 1776 Bicentennial Committee, Surry Richmond. County, VA. 118 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Century Virginia/Brown

Lancaster, R. A. Council for Northeast Historical Archae­ 1915 Historic Virginia Homes and Churches. 1973 ology, Williamsburg, VA. reprint. Reprint Company, Spartansburg, S.C. McFaden, Leslie, David Muraca, and Jennifer Jones 1992 Cavaliers and Pioneers: A Study of Rich Langley Research Center Historical and Archaeolog­ Neck Plantation, Interim Report: 1993 ical Society Field Season. Ms. on file, Colonial n.d. Historical Properties Now Included in the Williamsburg Foundation Department of West Area of Langley Research Center, Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, NASA: A Short History of. A pamphlet VA. prepared by the LRC. Pamphlet on file, NASA Langley Research Center, McKinney, Jane Dillon Hampton, VA. 1995 Marston Parish 1654-1674: A Community Study. MA thesis, College of William and Latrobe, B. Henry Mary, Williamsburg, VA. 1905 The Journal of Latrobe. D. Appleton and Co., New York. Metz, John, and Kurt C. Russ 1991 Understanding Traditional Brickmaking in Levy, Philip Virginia. The Quarterly Bulletin of the 1998 "A Planter's Urbanity." Paper presented Archeological Society of Virginia 46(2): at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Council 96-106. for Northeast Historical Archaeology, Montreal, Quebec. Mitchell, Vivienne 1975 Glass Wine Bottle Seals Found at Nominy Linebaugh, Donald W. Plantation. The Quarterly Bulletin of the 1994 All the Annoyances and Inconveniences of Archeological Society of Virginia 29(4): the Country: Environmental Factors in the 204-208. Development of Outbuildings in the Colo­ 1976 Decorated Brown Clay Pipebowls from nial Chesapeake. Winterthur Portfolio Nominy Plantation: Progress Report. The 29(1): 1-18. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 31(2): 83-92. 1978 Glass Wine Bottles from Nominy Planta­ Luccketti, Nicholas M. tion Cellar. The Quarterly Bulletin of the 1984 Bacon's Castle Archaeological Project: Archeological Society of Virginia 32(3): 61-Northern Neck of Virginia Histor­ Main, Gloria ical Magazine 32(1): 3707-3714. 1982 Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Maryland, 1650-1720. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Morgan, Edmund 1975 American Slavery, American Freedom. Norton, New York. Markell, Ann 1994 Solid Statements: Architecture, Manufac­ turing, and Social Change in Seventeenth­ Morrison, Hugh Century Virginia. ln Historical Archaeology 1952 Early American Architecture from the First of the Chesapeake, ed. by Paul A. Shackel Colonial Settlements to the National Period. and Barbara J. Little, 51-64. Smithsonian Dover Publications Inc., New York. Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Mouer, L. Daniel McFaden, Leslie 1988 The Excavation of Nathaniel Bacon's 1994 "Richneck Plantation: An Example of Per­ Curies Plantation. The Henrico County manent Architecture in the 17th Century." Historical Society Magazine 12: 3-20. Paper presented at 28th Meeting of the 1988 The Archaeology of Curies Plantation. Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. 27, 1998 119

Ms. on file, Virginia Commonwealth Uni­ 1965 An Interim Report on Excavations at Den­ versity Archaeological Research Center, high Plantation in Virginia. The Florida Richmond. Anthropologist 18(3/2): 8-14. 1991 Digging a Rebel's Homestead: Nathaniel 1966 Mathews Manor, Preview of a Major Bacon's Fortified Plantation called Archaeological Discovery in Virginia. "Curies." Archaeology July I August: 54-57. Antiques 90(6): 832--836. 1998a A True Story of the Ancient Planter and 1969 Historical Archaeology. Alfred A. Knopf, Adventurer in Virginia, Captaine Thomas New York. Harris, Gent., as Related by his Second 1996 Ghosts at Green Spring. Colonial Williams­ Sonne. Historical Archaeology 32(1): 4-14. burg 18(3): 24-33. n.d. Digging Sites and Telling Stories: Essays in Interpretive Historical Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, forth­ Pickett, Dwayne W. 1995 Changing Landscapes: Recent Excavations coming. at the John Page House Site. The Colonial Williamsburg Interpreter 16(4): 9-13. Muraca, David F. 1996 The John Page House Site: An Example of 1994 The Aspirations, Ambience, and Actuali­ the Increase in Domestic Brick Architec­ ties of Middle Plantation. Paper presented ture in Seventeenth-Century Tidewater at the 28th Meeting of the Council for Virginia. MA thesis, College of William Northeast Historical Archaeology Confer­ and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. ence, Williamsburg, VA. 1997 Phase III Data Recovery in Advance of Waterproofing Activities at the Thomas Pate House, Yorktown, Virginia. On file, Muraca, David, and Cathleen Hellier Colonial Williamsburg Foundation 1993 Archaeological Testing at Bruton Heights. Department of Archaeological Research, Report on file at Colonial Williamsburg Williamsburg, VA. Department of Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, VA. Ragland, H. S. NHRP (National Register of Historic Places) 1932 Archaeological Report on e:>ld Founda­ 1977 Swann's Point Plantation Site. Nomina­ tions found in Basset Hall property, tion Form on file, Department of Historic Williamsburg, VA. Ms. on file at the Resources, Richmond. Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA. Neiman, Fraser 1980 The "Manner House" before Stratford (Dis­ covering the Clifts Plantation, Robert E. Lee Rutman, Darrett, and Anita H. Rutman Memorial Association, Stratford, VA. 1976 Of Agues and Fevers: Malaria in the Early 1986 Domestic Architecture at the Clifts Planta­ Chesapeake. The William and Mary Quar­ tion: The Social Context of Early Virginia terly, 3rd Series 33(1): 31--{;0. Building. In Common Places: Readings in 1984 A Place in Time: Middlesex County, Virginia: American Vernacular Architecture, ed. by 1650-1750. W. W. Norton and Co., New Dell Upton and John Michael Vlach, York. 292-314. University of Georgia Press, 1994 Small Worlds, L.Jlrge Questions: Explorations Athens. in Early American Social History, 1600-1850. 1993 Temporal Patterning in House Plans from University Press of Virginia, Char­ the 17th-Century Chesapeake. In The lottesville. Archaeology of 17th-Century Virginia, ed. by Theodore R. Reinhart and Dennis J. Pogue, 251-283. Dietz Press, Richmond. Shackell, Paul 1994 Town Plans and Everyday Material Cul­ Noel Hume, Ivor ture: An Archaeology of Social Relations n.d. Denbigh Plantation, Where Gracious Vir­ in Colonial Maryland's Capital Cities. In ginia Living Began. Pamphlet on file, Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, ed. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation by Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little, Department of Archaeological Research, 85-100. Smithsonian Institution Press, Williamsburg, VA. Washington, D.C.. 120 Masonry Architecture in 17th -Century Virginia/Brown

Spicer, Edward Weber, Max 1971 Persistent Cultural Systems. Science 1961 The Ethnic Group. In Theories of Society, 174(4011): 795--800. ed. by Talcott Parsons and Edward Shils, et al., 305-309. The Free Press, New York. St. George, Robert 1983 Maintenance Relations and the Erotics of Property in Historical Thought. Paper Mr. Brown is pursuing a Master's degree in presented at the American Historical History, focusing on Historical Archaeology, Association meetings, Philadelphia. from the University of Massachusetts at Boston. He has a Bachelors Degree in Anthro­ Upton, Dell pology from the College of William and Mary. 1982 Vernacular Domestic Architecture in Eigh­ His interests include settlement and social teenth-Century Virginia. Winterthur Port­ interaction in rural Virginia during the late folio 17(2/3): 97-119. 17th and early 18th century. Waterman, Thomas T. 1946 The Mansions of Virginia, 1706-1776. Reprint 1965; Bonanza Books, New York. David A. Brown Department of Anthropology Waterman, Thomas T., and John A. Barrows University of Massachusetts at Boston 1932 Domestic Colonial Architecture of Tidewater, Boston, Massachusetts 02125 Virginia. Reprint 1969; Dover Publications, [email protected] New York.