MONTICELLO DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY TECHNICAL REPORT SERIES

NUMBER 2

Archaeological Investigation of theElizabeth Hemings Site (44AB438)

by Fraser NeimanLeslie McFaden and

Derek Wheeler

50 100 150 200 250 300

-50

0

50

100

Total Artifact Density(per square foot)

Feet0 25 50 75 100

0.08

0.58

1.08

1.58

2.08

2.58

3.08

3.58

4.08

4.58

5.08

5.58

6.08

Third Roundabout

DECEMBER 2000

i

Table of ContentsList of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Geographical Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. The Documentary Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Elizabeth Hemings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7The Hemings Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. Fieldwork: Methods and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Initial Testing and the 1995 Field Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11The 1996 Field Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Soils and Sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Architectural Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Architectural Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Cobble Scatter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Landscape Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Microtopography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18The Third Roundabout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Site Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Cost Surface Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Spatial Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Soil and Soil Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Artifact Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Phytolith Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4. Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Consumption Patterns for Plates, Tea Bowls and Saucers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Cost Implications of Ceramic Plate Discard Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Ceramic Ware Types and Vessel Shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Architectural Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Appendix I. Artifact Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Appendix 2. Test Unit Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

ii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Locator map for Monticello Mountain in Albemarle County, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Figure 2. Locator map for Elizabeth Hemings site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Figure 3. Thomas Jefferson’s plat of the mansion proper and roads including the four

roundabouts (N-225) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Figure 4. Details of Jefferson plats showing Betty Hemings site location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Figure 5. Elizabeth Hemings’s family tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Figure 6. Test units excavated during the 1995 and 1996 field seasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Figure 7. Field school students excavating during the 1996 season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Figure 8. Typical soil profile for the Elizabeth Hemings site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Figure 9. Remains of the Elizabeth Hemings hearth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Figure 10. East profile of chimney prop post hole located downhill of hearth feature . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Figure 11. Tidewater example of dwelling employing chimney props . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Figure 12. Conjectural outline of Betty Hemings dwelling based upon archaeological evidence . . . . 16Figure 13. Cobble scatter possibly associated with field clearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Figure 14. One-foot contour map of the Elizabeth Hemings Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Figure 15. Percent slope map with superimposed two-foot contour map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 16. Plan curvature map of topography surrounding the Elizabeth Hemings site . . . . . . . . . . . 21Figure 17. East profile of test trench excavated across the third roundabout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Figure 18. Cost surface contour map superimposed over percent slope map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 19. H-plot summarizing the pattern of correlations among log-transformed element

concentrations from the 10-foot interval soil samples, Wisconsin Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Figure 20. Contour map of the spatial pattern held in common in the distributions of Ca, K,

and Mg, as estimated by principle component analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Figure 21. Contour maps of the principle component scores for Ca, K, and Mg and of the

distribution of P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Figure 22. Contour maps of the principle component scores for Ca, K, and Mg and of the

distribution of P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Figure 23. Total artifact distribution map for all excavated test units at the Elizabeth Hemings

site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Figure 24. Total artifact density contour map for test squares around the Elizabeth Hemings

house site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Figure 25. Distribution of wrought nails (top) and cut nails (bottom) at the Elizabeth Hemings

site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Figure 26. Distribution of construction nails (top) and finishing nails (bottom) at the Elizabeth

Hemings site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Figure 27. Distribution of pearlware (top) and creamware (bottom) ceramic sherds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Figure 28. Distribution map for Chinese porcelain sherds. Note the similar distribution to the

pearlware sherds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Figure 29. Phytolith sample locations denoted by their sample number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Figure 30. Plot of logratios for C3 vs. C4 grass phytoliths and arboreal vs. grass phytoliths . . . . . . . 42Figure 31. Logratio plots for chloridoid vs. pooid and panicoid vs. pooid grasses. Labels are

the same as in Figure 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Figure 32. Pearlware bowl recovered from the Betty Hemings site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Figure 33. Plate Index values with exact 95% confidence limits for 7 Mulberry Row Sites and the

Hemings and Stewart Sites. The Dry Well and Building O sites are known to besignificantly earlier than the rest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

iii

Figure 34. Tea Index values with exact 95% confidence limits for 7 Mulberry Row sites and the Hemings and Stewart Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 35. Proportion of plates and platters that occur in different ceramic ware types at the Hemings and Stewart Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 36. Proportion of tea cups and saucers that occur in different ware types at the Hemings and Stewart Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 37. Miscellaneous artifacts recovered from the Betty Hemings site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

iv

List of Tables

Table 1. Correlations (Spearman’s r) between the ranks of element concentrations tested at three independent soil labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Table 2. Relative frequencies of grass sub-families expressed in percent of species in total grass flora. Data extrapolated from frequency maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 3. Variation in relative frequencies of phytolith taxa by depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Table 4. Variation in relative frequencies of phytolith taxa by location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Table 5. Minimum vessel count for the Elizabeth Hemings site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Table 6. Mean ceramic date for the Elizabeth Hemings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

1

Figure 11. Monticello Mountain, the core of Thomas Jefferson’s Albemarle County, Virginia plantation, depicting Jeffersonperiod roads (red), field boundaries (yellow), archaeological sites (black) and the Elizabeth Hemings site (orange). MonticelloMountain is bounded on the north and east by the Rivanna River, the Meadow Branch to the south, Moore’s Creek to thenorthwest and Mount Alto (Carter’s Mountain) on the west.

1. Introduction

The Monticello of traditional historical memory isthe neoclassical mansion built and rebuilt byThomas Jefferson over a period that began in1769 and ended with Jefferson’s death in 1826.However, the real historical Monticello was a5000-acre plantation that was home not only toJefferson and his family, but also to scores of freeworkmen and hundreds of enslaved AfricanAmericans. Slavery made possible the Monticelloof traditional memory. It was the economicfoundation of the society that produced ThomasJefferson. The connections among the membersof these groups, characterized by a complex mixof cooperation and conflict, were fundamental tothe lives of all. Getting the history of Monticelloright requires documenting and explaining thesocial and economic dynamics exhibited by thiscomplex community over time.

Over the past two decades, archaeology

has played an important role in calling attention tothe existence of the real historical Monticello(Heath 1999, Kelso 1997, Sanford 1995). Byuncovering the buried physical traces of long-vanished living and working spaces of enslavedand free workers, archaeologists have helped raisethe real historical Monticello above the thresholdof historical visibility. This report is acontribution to that ongoing effort. It describesthe recent archaeological investigation of a smalldomestic site at Monticello that was once thehome of a central member of the Monticellocommunity, Elizabeth Hemings, during thedecade or so that preceded her death in 1807.

Known to Jefferson and his family asBetty, Hemings was the matriarch of an extendedslave family whose members filled the ranks ofdomestic servants and skilled artisans atMonticello. By the time of Jefferson’s death in

2

1826, one-third of the 130 African Americanswho were listed as part of his Albemarle Countyestate belonged to this one family. Recenthistorical, genetic, and statistical research(Gordon-Reed 1997, Foster et al. 1998, Neiman2000), makes it clear that six of her grandchildrenwere Thomas Jefferson’s children with SallyHemings, Elizabeth Hemings’s youngestdaughter.

This is a remarkable record of personaland familial achievement within the bonds ofslavery. Both documents and archaeologicalsurveys offer tantalizing clues about theuniqueness of Hemings’s experience atMonticello, but appreciating that uniquenessrequires fitting the historical facts andarchaeological artifacts into a larger historicalcontext. This is an ongoing process, the firststeps of which are reported here. We aim toexplore the physical outcomes, in terms of sitelocation and structure, architecture, and materialpossessions, of the complex interactions betweenBetty Hemings and the rest of the Monticellocommunity, including Thomas Jefferson.

Geographical SettingOur exploration of the Hemings Site begins withits location, on the southern slopes of MonticelloMountain, a short distance from Jefferson’smansion, which was situated on the mountain top(Figure 1). The site’s location can be understoodat several spatial and historical scales. The largestof them relates to the settlement of the region byEuropeans and Africans, beginning in the early18th century. The smallest of them relates to theinternal spatial structure of Monticello Plantation,as it emerged in the late 18th century. We describethese below.

Monticello Mountain is part of theSouthwest Mountains, a chain of hills that runsalong the western edge of the Virginia Piedmont.Europeans, relying on the labor of enslavedAfricans to produce tobacco for trans-Atlanticmarkets, began to move out of the Coastal Plainand into the Piedmont in the 1720's. The landcomprising Monticello Mountain was patentedsoon thereafter by Thomas Jefferson’s father,Peter, as part of a larger tract that included landon both the north and south banks of theRivanna River. Two features made the tract

especially attractive. The first was the Rivanna,which offered transportation for tobacco crops tothe James River, the Chesapeake Bay, andultimately Atlantic markets. It also provided amill seat, of which Peter Jefferson wouldeventually take advantage. The second attractionwas high-quality soil. Jefferson’s tract was entirelyunderlain by the fertile Davidson soil association(USDA 1981). Davidson clay loams are theproduct of deep weathering of the Catoctinformation, a mass of metamorphosed basalt(greenstone), with inter-stratified sandstone beds,that comprises the Southwest Mountains(Sherwood 1981).

By 1740, Peter Jefferson was living atShadwell, his home farm on the northern bank ofthe Rivanna. Recent fieldwork, conducted as partof the ongoing Monticello PlantationArchaeological Survey, has revealed that theMonticello tract, located on the southern bank,was first settled c. 1750 by enslaved African-Americans working on an outlying quarter farmassociated with Shadwell. This early Monticelloquarter was located on the eastern slope of themountain.

By 1770 Thomas Jefferson had begun todevelop Monticello Plantation on his father’stract. Monticello Mountain became the site ofJefferson’s house and the Monticello home farmquarter. Jefferson would eventually develop threeoutlying quarter farms, as part of MonticelloPlantation. The Tufton Farm also lay south ofthe Rivanna, while Lego and Shadwell shared thenorthern bank. The Meadow Branch tributaryseparated Monticello from Tufton Farm.

Jefferson began construction of hismansion at the top of Monticello mountain in1769. The locational choice built on gentrypractice in the Coastal Plain. There, by the early18th century, wealthy slave owners situated theirmansions so they commanded large vistas acrosswide flood planes. Piedmont geology denied aprospect across a broad river valley. ButJefferson gained an even larger vantage bybuilding on Monticello Mountain. Given 18th-century transportation technology, Jeffersonindirectly paid enormous costs for this decisionfor the rest of his life, in the form of the increasedeffort required to get everything from buildingsupplies to drinking water to his house. Those

3

Figure 2. Location map for he Elizabeth Hemings Site.

costs were directly paid by his slaves, as requiredby their forced labor for Jefferson and by theirefforts to maintain themselves and their families.

Whatever its ultimate causes, given thecostly location of the mansion on the mountaintop, the layout of the rest of the Monticello homefarm appears to have been engineered withefficiency in mind. Two artificial features of theresulting landscape are important to anunderstanding the location of the Hemings Siteon the mountain: Mulberry Row and the homefarm quarter. Jefferson laid out Mulberry Row, a1000-foot long, straight street of plantationoutbuildings, conveniently adjacent to themansion. To maximize its length, Mulberry Rowwas oriented parallel to the major axis of themountain top’s contours. The structures along it,in which enslaved domestics and artisans workedand lived, enjoyed a southern exposure.

The layout of Jefferson’s agriculturaloperations on Monticello Mountain also followed

topographic constraints. Monticello Mountainrises over 500 feet above the Rivanna. The northand west aspects of the mountain are steeplysloped, while the east and south faces present agentler grade, descending for one and a quartermiles before reaching the Rivanna River and itstributary, the Meadow Branch. Most of theagricultural fields that comprised the Monticellohome farm were located on these gentle easternand southern slopes, along with the houses ofenslaved farm workers and an overseer. The smallquarter farm that Peter Jefferson had operated onthe mountain around 1750 was similarly situated(Figure 1.)

The southern and eastern slopes ofMonticello Mountain are dissected byintermittently flowing springs that drain into theMeadow Branch. Two springs are relevant to thelocation of the Hemings Site (Figure 2.). TheSouth Spring lay south of the homes of theenslaved laborers who worked the Monticello

4

Figure 3. Thomas Jefferson’s plat of the mansion proper and roads including the four roundabouts (N-225).

home farm quarter. Its name was likely derivedfrom this spatial relationship. When there waswater in it, the South Spring was the closest watersource for these individuals. Bailey’s Spring,named for the Irish gardener whose house waslocated at the head of its drainage (see below), laysouthwest of the South Spring (Betts 1944:630).Because the watershed for Bailey’s Spring wasconsiderably smaller than the watershed for theSouth Spring, the latter was probably a morereliable water source.

The location of Hemings’s house needsto be understood in the spatial context ofMulberry Row, the home farm quarter, and thetwo water sources. The house was situated about350 feet south of Mulberry Row and a roughlyequal distance from the head of Bailey’s Spring,

suggesting that both locations were important toHemings. As we shall see, the proximity toMulberry Row is understandable, given that manyof Hemings’s children lived and worked there.Less clear is the attraction of Bailey’s Spring.Hemings’s house might have been situated thesame distance from Mulberry Row and nearly asclose to the head of the South Spring, a morereliable water source. But it was not. Why?

Several hypotheses might explain thechoice, among them that Hemings was suppliedwater by family members working on MulberryRow, or that use of the South Spring wasmonopolized by farm laborers living to the northof it. The latter might imply that Hemings’s housewas sited with spatial separation from enslavedfarm workers in mind. Here we encounter more

5

than a little ambiguity, due to our incompleteknowledge of where enslaved field hands lived.We know the locations of a few farm laborers’shouses north of the South Spring fromJefferson’s documents. But most of ourknowledge on this topic comes from thePlantation Archaeological Survey, which so farhas focused exclusively on the area north of theSouth Spring. Jefferson’s documents show noslave housing south of the South Spring, exceptof course the Hemings Site itself. But it is notclear that absence of documentary evidence isevidence of actual absence of slave settlementsouth of the South Spring. Archaeologicalevidence from systematic survey of this area isrequired to resolve the issue.

In the mean time, additional light on thelocation of Hemings’s house is forthcoming froma finer-grained consideration of the mountaintoplandscape. Of particular importance here is thesystem of the four “roundabout” roads, laid outby Jefferson, that circled the mountain at roughlyconstant elevation (Figure 3)1. The roundaboutswere linked by additional roads, referred to byJefferson as “1 in 10s” and “1 in 20s”, dependingon their slopes. The roundabout system had apractical role as an internal transportation systemfor the mountaintop. But it also had an decorativecomponent. It is clear from Jefferson’s plans, thathe intended the roundabouts to be integrated intoa larger ornamental scheme, borrowed from

European sources and dubbed the ferme ornée orornamental farm (Williamson 1995). The idea wasto use both crops and animals as ornamentalelements in a landscape design whose primarymotivation lay in aesthetic effects and costlydisplay, not utility. It seems likely that theroundabouts were the only parts of the schemethat were actually constructed.

The four roundabouts were at leastpartially constructed in succession over the courseof several decades. The First Roundaboutenclosed the main house at the very summit ofthe mountain and was finished by 1772.Generally oval in shape, one straight segmentformed Mulberry Row. The Second Roundaboutencircled the kitchen garden and orchards plantedon the slopes just below the mansion; completionof this road came roughly a decade after the first,in 1782. The Third Roundabout was finished in1795. Construction of the Fourth Roundaboutbegan in the previous year.

The Third and Fourth Roundaboutsmarked a transition zone between the ornamentaland agricultural precincts of the MonticelloMountain landscape. Hemings’s house waslocated in this zone. It stood 30 feet south of theThird Roundabout roadbed. The house’s locationis documented on two plats, drawn by Jeffersonhimself. The first, dated c. 1806, labels the house“B.Hem’s”. The second, drawn c. 1809, afterHemings’s death in 1807, identified it only as a“Quarter” (Figure 4).

The same Jefferson plats reveal that twoother dwellings were located on the Roundaboutroads, not far from Hemings’s house. Both werethe houses of free white workmen. Bailey’s wasthe closest dwelling. It stood just south of theSecond Roundabout, on the south-facing slopebelow the fenced orchard (see Figure 4).Beginning in 1794, Scottish gardener RobertBailey and his family occupied this house. By1802 Bailey was working in Washington, D.C..Thus it is likely he was living at the site whenHemings moved in next door. The structureappears on Jefferson’s c. 1809 map of themountaintop. Possibly it housed one or more ofthe craftsmen Jefferson periodically hired for theongoing construction of his mansion. Proximitysuggests the residents of Bailey’s shared the

1 There are three numbering systems inplace for cataloguing Jefferson drawings. Thefirst was introduced by Fiske Kimball, where allentries are sequentially numbered after a “K”designator (Kimball 1968). After the discoveryor attribution of additional Jeffersondocuments, Frederick Nichols reorganized thepapers and sequentially numbered them after an‘”N” designator (Nichols 1978). Recently, theMassachusetts Historical Society has begun tore-catalog the materials for a third time. In thisreport, we use the Nichol’s numbering system.For a complete listing and concordance seehttp://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/wilson/catalogs/catalog.html

6

eponymous spring, when water was available in it,with Hemings.

William Stewart, a white blacksmith fromPhiladelphia, occupied a house on the ThirdRoundabout, west of Hemings’s dwelling (seeFigure 2). He lived there with his family from1801-1807, a period coinciding with Elizabeth’stime at the Hemings site. The Stewart housestood unoccupied for a brief time until anotherwhite artisan, carpenter Elisha Watkins, residedthere briefly with his own family in 1809-1810.After that time, like Elizabeth Hemings’ house,this structure seems not to have been furtheroccupied and was torn down (Heath 1991:3).While Stewart’s house lay in the Meadow Branchwatershed, it was about the same distance fromthe Bailey’s and Meadow Branch Spring heads.

The location of the Hemings Site in thelarger Monticello landscape appears to have beensomewhat unusual. If current incompleteevidence proves accurate, other enslaved African-Americans lived along Mulberry Row or north ofthe South Spring. The fact that Hemings’s housewas situated in a different precinct within theroundabouts, whose other denizens were freewhites adds to the apparent anomaly. Some ofthe ingredients for an explanation can be found inthe documentary record.

Figure 4. Details of Jefferson plats (left, N-215, c.1806 and right, N-225, c.1809) showing Betty Hemings site location.

7

2. The Documentary Record

Elizabeth HemingsElizabeth Hemings came to Monticello as part ofThomas Jefferson’s inheritance from his father-in-law, John Wayles. According to her grandsonMadison, Hemings had been born around 1735,the daughter of a “full-blooded African woman”and a sea captain named Hemings (Gordon-Reed1997:245). Hemings was born into slavery, andwas the property of Francis Eppes IV ofBermuda Hundred in Chesterfield County by1746 when she was transferred to the householdof John Wayles upon his marriage to MarthaEppes, Martha Jefferson’s mother (Stanton, inpress).

During her childhood and earlyadulthood in the Eppes-Wayles households,Hemings had become a valued enslaved houseservant. When John Wayles made out his will in1760, “Betty Hemings and Jenny the cook” werethe only two slaves singled out by name in thedivision of his estate (John Wayles’s will, 15 April1760 in Tyler’s Quarterly Magazine 1924-1925).

When Thomas Jefferson inherited aportion of his father-in-law’s land and slaves,Hemings was 38 years old and had ten children,six of whom were apparently fathered by JohnWayles (Gordon-Reed 1997:245); the paternity ofthe others is unknown. John Wayles’s daughterMartha married Thomas Jefferson in 1772. WhenWayles died a year later, Thomas and MarthaJefferson inherited a portion of his lands andslaves, including Hemings.

At the settlement of John Wayles’ estatein January 1774, Jefferson made a list of the slaveshe had inherited and their whereabouts. Hemingshad been living at one of Wayles’ outlying quarterfarms in Amelia County, “Guinea;” and Jeffersontransferred her and her youngest children toanother quarter farm, “Elk Hill,” in GoochlandCounty (Bear and Stanton 1997:329). Hemings’sgrown children were sent immediately toMonticello. By February of 1775, however,Jefferson brought Hemings and her remainingchildren to Monticello. By design or not, thismove united the Hemings family at Jefferson’shome plantation (Betts 1987).

When she arrived at Monticello in 1775,Hemings was roughly 40 years old. She gave birthto two more children in the next two years,bringing the total of her known children totwelve. White housewright Joseph Neilson mighthave fathered one of these last two children(Madison Hemings recollections in Gordon-Reed1997:245). Her exact whereabouts at Monticelloduring the 1770s and 1780s was not recorded, butas an enslaved domestic, Hemings in allprobability lived on Mulberry Row. Jeffersondepicted several quarters for enslaved workers ona c.1776 map of Mulberry Row. They included abuilding with a central chimney termed the“Negro quarter” as well as a “workmen’s house.”It is likely that the joinery and blacksmith shopsalso provided housing for slaves. In the mid-1770s Jefferson sketched plans to buildneoclassical dwellings on Mulberry Row thatwould complement his mansion; in so doing hedesignated one for “Betty Hemings and family”(N-38, Nichols 1978). Although only one suchstructure was built (the workman’s house nowcalled the “Weaver’s Cottage,” which still standson Mulberry Row), Jefferson’s plans demonstratethat Hemings probably lived on Mulberry Rowthroughout the 1770s and 1780s (Kelso 1997).

Hemings was one of Jefferson’s corestaff of house servants. She was reportedly oneof the servants in attendance when MarthaJefferson died in 1782 (Bear 1967:99). WhileJefferson leased his slaves to neighboringplantations whenever they could be spared (acommon practice), he specifically exemptedHemings. While serving in France in 1788,Jefferson sent home the instructions that “GreatGeorge, Ursula, Betty Hemings [are] not to behired at all” (Boyd 1956:343). Later that year,planning a short visit home, he listed a requisitefew servants for his stay: “Great George, Ursula,and Betty Hemings will be there, of course...”(Boyd 1958:362).

Documentary evidence suggests that by1790, Hemings was less active in the work force.In that year Jefferson took office as secretary ofstate, leaving his daughters and son-in-law behind

8

at Monticello. He instructed his foreman to makeavailable to them the house servants, but limitedHemings’s availability by noting “also...BettyHemings, should her services be necessary” (Boyd1971:29). Until that time, all references toHemings place her at the Monticello home farm.Sometime between 1790 and 1794, however, shewas sent to the outlying quarter farm, Tufton,which adjoined the home farm to the south. A1794 plat of Tufton shows a structure labeled“B.Hem’s,” with the corresponding survey note,“Betty H’s house” (N522-2, 6). With Jeffersonabsent, the aging woman may have been releasedfrom duties at the mansion. It was customary forthe elderly to assist as nurses for slave children.Hemings might have done so at the nearby farm.Nevertheless, the causes behind the move toTufton remain obscure.

Jefferson brought Hemings back toMonticello in 1795 when she was almost 60 yearsold. Jefferson’s “Roll of the negroes and whereto be settled for the year 1795” situated her atMonticello, and all subsequent records place herat the Monticello home farm (Betts 1966: 30, 50-53, 56-57).

It is probably not coincidental thatHemings’ move from Tufton back to Monticellooccurred in the same year that her daughter Sallybore her first child conceived at Monticello withThomas Jefferson (Neiman 2000). This timingsuggests that Hemings’ reappearance atMonticello was designed to facilitate caring forher grandchild Harriet. It seems reasonable toassume that the log house where Hemings spenther final years was built at this time. As we haveseen, the structure was located on the ThirdRoundabout, and documents indicate thatworkmen had completed construction of thisroad by 1795. The Hemings house would nothave been a major undertaking; Jeffersonrecorded that similar dwellings took about oneweek to build (Betts 1987:pl.67). Hemings almostcertainly occupied the structure by 1802. Writingin that year from Washington, Jeffersoninstructed his daughter to “remove” any servantsthat had contracted the measles from themountaintop (and away from his mansion),suggesting that “Squire’s house would be a goodplace for the nail boys...and Betty Hemings’ forBet’s or Sally’s children” (Betts and Bear

1966:231) .Like other slaves, Elizabeth raised both

vegetables and poultry, for food and for eggs, andsold them to the Jefferson family. Jefferson paid“Betty Hemings for a pullet 7 ½ d. [cents]” in1776, and again in 1783 “Pd. Betty Hemings forfowls” (Bear and Stanton 1997: 415, 533). Afterreturning to Monticello from Tufton, shecontinued this enterprise. Anne Cary Randolph,one of Jefferson’s granddaughters, noted in heraccount book for the years 1805 and 1806 severalpurchases of eggs, chickens, and once, threecabbages from “Betty Hemming [sic].”(Gawalt1994:19-38). Hemings might also have cared forchildren too young to work during this time,including her own grandchildren. In Jefferson’s1801 listing of slaves to be leased to John Cravenand a corresponding list of those to be “retained:”Hemings’s name is found in the latter column(Betts 1966: 60). That listing was updated whenJefferson partially crossed through her name andnoted, “d.07,” - meaning that she died in 1807.She was 72 years old.

The Hemings FamilyIn his journals, Thomas Jefferson noted theworking status of his slaves, whether houseservant, tradesman, or farm hand (e.g.: Betts1987:128). Hemings and her children appear inthe skilled roles rather than the general categoryof farm laborers. Hemings was a house servant;her children and grandchildren also filledpositions of responsibility and trust in the houseand in the workshops of Mulberry Row (Bear andStanton 1997; see also Figure 5).

Hemings’s oldest daughter, MaryHemings Bell, was a seamstress whose sixchildren included Betsy, a house servant, and JoeFossett, Jefferson’s blacksmith. Another daughter,“Bett” or Betty Brown, was also a seamstress andlikely the first Hemings to arrive at Monticello.Brown very likely accompanied Martha Jeffersonto Monticello upon the Jefferson’s’ marriage in1772 (Stanton in press: chapter “1774: People andProperty”). Bett’s children included gardenerWormley Hughes, butler Burwell Colbert, andhouse servants Edwin and Robert. Hemings’soldest son Martin Hemings was Jefferson’s butler.Nance Hemings worked as a weaver, and her owndaughter was a nurse for Jefferson’s

9

Figure 5. Elizabeth Hemings’ family tree (adapted from Stanton 1996).

grandchildren; Robert Hemings served asJefferson’s personal manservant, and JamesHemings accompanied Jefferson to Paris to learnFrench culinary arts. Daughter Critta Bowles wasanother house servant, and her son Jamey became

a carpenter. Peter Hemings took over asJefferson’s cook after his brother James wasgranted his freedom; Peter later became abrewmaster (Bear and Stanton 1997:912). JohnHemings was a skilled cabinetmaker who was

10

responsible for much of the interior woodwork atMonticello. Hemings’s youngest daughter, SallyHemings, was a lady’s maid (also described aschambermaid and seamstress (Stanton in press;Madison Hemings Memoirs in Gordon-Reed:248)) whose own children includedcarpenters Beverley, Madison, and Eston, andspinner Harriet, all the offspring of a long-termrelationship with Thomas Jefferson (MadisonHemings’ Memoirs in Gordon-Reed 1997;Neiman 2000; Stanton in press).

By the time Hemings moved to the ThirdRoundabout, six of her children were living atMonticello, probably along Mulberry Row and inthe rooms under the South Terrace of the mainhouse, which were just being completed (Stantonin press). Thus Hemings’s house stood just downthe mountain slope from the homes of herchildren and grandchildren. Madison Hemingsremembered his grandmother during her lastdays: “My earliest recollections are of mygrandmother Elizabeth Hemings. That was whenI was about three years old. She was sick and onher death bed” (Madison Hemings Memoirs inGordon-Reed 1997:247). Whether she lay in herown house or was at her daughter Sally’s(Madison’s mother), or another of her children’shouses, one gathers that Elizabeth Hemings wassurrounded by family members in death, as wellas in life.

11

3. Fieldwork: Methods and Results

Initial Testing and the 1995 Field SeasonThe archaeological remains of Hemings’s housewere first identified by William Boyer of JamesMadison University, who conducted limitedtesting at the map-predicted site location in 1981,as part of Monticello’s summer archaeologicalfield school. Boyer quickly identified what hethought was a “cut and leveled area”approximately 20 feet downslope of the barbedwire fence that today separates woods and field(Boyer 1983:5). He and his crew observed a smallconcentration of brick bats and sandstone cobblesaround the base of a tulip poplar tree (Liriodendrontulipfera) and noted two shallow depressions about20 feet east of the tree. A single test pit (ER430)excavated between the depressions producedthree wrought nails, two pieces of dark greenbottle glass, and one fragment of burned bone(Boyer 1983:5). A hand-made brick was alsorecovered from the ground surface near the tuliptree. Boyer conducted no further testing in theinterest of “maintaining the integrity of the site”(Boyer 1983:5).

Testing of the Hemings Site resumed in1995 as part of the Monticello/University ofVirginia Archaeological Field School under thedirection of Susan Kern. Research goals for the1995 field season included locating the remains ofthe house shown on the 1809 plat (see Figure 4),defining site boundaries, and verifying thelocation of the Third Roundabout. Kernestablished a site datum linked to a survey pointestablished in 1977 by surveyor Kurt Glockner.The survey point, designated C-74, marked whatGlockner believed was a point on the ThirdRoundabout, based on his analysis of bearingsand distances recorded by Thomas Jeffersonwhen he surveyed the course in 1809. Kern’s sitebaseline extended 300 feet east from point C-74and was oriented on a bearing of North 60E 40’51” East to match the alignment of MulberryRow. Grid points were established every twentyfeet across a 100 feet (north-south) by 300 feet(east-west) area, centered on the baseline.

Kern initiated excavations using 2-by-2foot excavation units, a size designed to expose a

large enough area to facilitate the identification offeatures while providing for quick excavation andthe efficient sampling of artifacts (Kern 1996).Test units were excavated stratigraphically andsediment was sifted through quarter-inch steelmesh to ensure uniform recovery of artifacts.Following the archaeological recording systemestablished in 1979 for the excavation ofMulberry Row, Kern assigned each unit a uniqueprovenience number known as an ExcavationRegister Number (ER); the layers and features--i.e., contexts--found within each unit were givenconsecutive letter designations (i.e., ER1864-A,ER1864-B). A Stratigraphic Record form detailedfor each unit the stratigraphic location, elevation,and artifact content of the contexts included inthat unit. One profile of one test unit wall wasdrawn on the reverse side of the form. Finally,the location of each test unit was recorded on abase map of the site (Figure 6).

Kern’s test units revealed the nature ofthe stratigraphic layers across the site (discussedbelow) and pinpointed areas of artifactconcentration. Excavators dug forty-nine testunits on 20-foot centers within the site area,recovering artifacts from thirteen of the units.Two units west of the brick/cobble concentrationat the tulip poplar tree identified by Boyer in 1981were then expanded. ER 1864 was increased to10-by-10 feet and ER 1865 was expanded to 4-by-10 feet. The units revealed an artifact middenthat continued northward, and two more 10-by10-feet units (ERs 1900 and 1902) weresubsequently opened to expose the remainder ofthe midden (Kern 1995a, 1995b, 1996).

During the 1995 field season, Kernnoticed on the ground surface a concentration ofgreenstone cobbles some sixty-five feet southeastof the artifact midden. The cobble featuremeasured 12 feet (north-south) by 23 feet (east-west) with a noticeably straight, even northernedge. Three 10-by-10 feet test units (ERs 1897,1898, and 1899) exposed the bulk of this stoneconcentration. Four additional test units ofvarious dimensions were excavated to reveal theperiphery of the feature (ER 1903 measured 4-by-

12

Figure 6. Test Units excavated during the 1995 (light blue) and 1996 (dark blue) field seasons.

4 feet; ER 1904, 2-by-4 feet; ER 1905, 4-by-4 feet;and ER 1906, 4-by-10 feet). Although fewartifacts were found associated with the feature,excavators concluded that the concentration ofgreenstone cobbles represented structural remains(Kern 1996).

Artifacts recovered from the site areawere domestic in nature with the refinedearthenware ceramics dating between c. 1765 and1820 (Appendix 1). Most of the assemblagecame from the artifact midden west of the tulippoplar tree.

The 1996 Field SeasonThe 1996 field season was conducted under thedirection of Fraser Neiman; again, the site was thefocus of the Monticello/University of VirginiaArchaeological Field School (Figure 7).Excavators returned to the two previouslyidentified areas of cultural activity, the middenand the cobble feature. They investigated thenorthwest project area as well (grid coordinatesN20-100, E0-60), where soil chemical mappingconducted in the fall of 1995 revealed elevatedlevels of potassium. Field methods were modifiedto maximize the data recovery potential of anephemeral site such as this one, where there are

relatively few artifacts and features and mostapparent stratification is related to soil formation,not sediment deposition. In addition, grid pointswere re-surveyed using an Electronic DistanceMeasurer (EDM).

The 1996 field strategy featured a moreextensive campaign of testing that involvedexpanding the investigated area in all directions(Figure 6). Test unit dimensions werestandardized to 2.5-by-2.5 feet; large areas wereexposed by excavating blocks of 2.5-by-2.5 feettest units. This unit size was selected to facilitatecomparison with previously excavated areas thatmeasured two, five and ten feet square.

Where double units were excavated, theorientation (north-south or east-west) of the two-unit block was variously selected. Although testunits continued to be excavated stratigraphically,each layer was excavated in arbitrary 0.25-footincrements to maximize vertical control.Arbitrary levels within layers were numberedsequentially in the order they were encountered(i.e., ERs 1921-A1, 1921-A2, 1921-A3).

Changes in field documentation includedan updated, comprehensive Context Record form.These forms were designed to prompt excavatorsfor specific details concerning elevation,

13

Figure 7. Field school students excavating during the 1996 season.

stratigraphic relationships, excavation method,sediment description, artifact content, andinterpretation. A separate Context Record sheetwas filled out for each context within a test unit.Finally, excavators drew two adjacent profileswithin each test unit. The results of the 1996investigations follow.

Soils and SedimentsSoil profiles across the site area were relativelyuniform. Sediments in Unit 1919 were typical ofthe site area, where an A horizon composed ofvery dusky red (2.5YR 2.5/4) silty clay loam thatoverlay a B horizon composed of dark red (2.5YR4/6) clay (Figure 8). Within and around therelatively level house area, sediments included anA horizon that ranged from a very dusky red(2.5YR 2.5/3) to a dark red (2.5YR 4/6) clayloam, and the B horizon was a dark red (2.5YR3/6) clay. The A horizon, or topsoil, wascharacterized by root disturbance andbioturbation, and ranged from 0.4-0.6 feet thick inthe central and eastern portions of the site to 1.3feet in the westernmost site area. Gravel tocobble-sized greenstone and sandstone clastswere common throughout the topsoil, generallycomprising 3% of the soil matrix.

Despite the 25-percent slope of thegeneral site area, the land surface remainedrelatively uneroded and intact. Sediments weresurprisingly stable, with little or no evidence oferosion. The top 0.1-0.2 feet of the A horizonwere relatively artifact free, a result of in-situ soildevelopment since the abandonment of the site.Below this zone, artifacts were distributedthroughout the A horizon, down to the top of theB horizon, presumably a result of bioturbationand cycles of drying and crack development in theclay-rich soil profile.

Architectural FeaturesArchitectural features identified at the HemingsSite consisted of the scattered remains of a hearthand one small post hole. Boyer in 1981 described,but did not identify, the hearth when he noted asmall concentration of bricks and stones at thebase of the tulip poplar tree (Boyer 1983:5).Excavation of this concentration revealed hand-made bricks, including whole bricks and brickbats, and local sandstone and greenstone cobblesspread across an area measuring approximately7.5-feet square. No sections of intact hearthremained: the tulip poplar had grown up throughthe center of the feature, dislodging any intact

14

Figure 8. Typical soil profile for the ElizabethHemings site.

Figure 9. Remains of the Elizabeth Hemings hearth.

masonry that might have remained (Figure 9).The tree comprised the central 2.5-feet square ofthe feature area. The majority of the cobbles weresandstone, with lesser amounts of epidotegreenstone and, occasionally, chlorite greenstone.Since greenstone weathers more readily thansandstone, it is less frequent on the groundsurface (Sherwood 1981). The infrequency ofgreenstone among the hearth stones suggests thatthese stones were gathered from the surfacerather than drawn from subsurface deposits.

The amount of stone and brick suggeststhat only the hearth and firebox were of masonryconstruction, and that the chimney stack waswood, chinked and lined with mud. A post hole(1865E) located 10 feet south of the hearthfeature supports the hypothesis of a wood-framedchimney. The post hole measured 1.2 feet (north-south) by 0.8 feet (east-west), with depth of 0.4 -0.6 feet north to south. There was no detectablepost mold. A single wrought nail was recoveredin the fill, just below the B-horizon surface(Figure 10). The size, depth, and location of thehole--downslope of and centered on the hearth--suggests that this feature secured a wooden polethat served as a chimney prop. Chimneysconstructed with masonry hearths and woodenstacks were a standard component of domesticarchitecture for slaves as well as for middling- to

15

Figure 10. East profile of chimney prop post hole located10 feet south (downhill) of the hearth feature (excavatedduring the 1995 field season).

Figure 11. Tidewater example of dwelling employing chimney props.

poor free whites. An important element of thisbuilding technique was the chimney prop, a polethat could be removed quickly in the event thatthe wooden stack caught fire, thus allowing theoutward-leaning chimney to fall away from thehouse (Figure 11).

Sandstone cobbles found in the vicinityof the hearth might have served as foundationstones for the Hemings house, and to help level iton the 15-degree slope. The placement of severalstones, to the east, west and north of the hearth,correspond with the 12-by-14 foot dimensions ofBuildings r, s, and t, which were erected at theeastern end of Mulberry Row in 1793 (Gruber1991). The spatial arrangement of the hearth andchimney prop indicates that Hemings’s housefaced the Third Roundabout (Figure 12). Thisplaces the fireplace on the south gable end of thestructure and the door on the north. No evidenceof a wooden floor was detected. Window glasswas recovered at the site (see Chapter 4),indicating that Hemings’s windows were glazed.

Architectural PatternsThe foregoing information on the

configuration of Hemings’s house needs to beunderstood in the context of patterns of change

16

HypotheticalHouse Outline

Chimney proppost hole

Figure 12. Conjectural outline of Betty Hemings dwelling based upon archaeologicalevidence.

and variation in slave housing at Monticello andacross the Chesapeake. Recent archaeologicalresearch has shown that for much of the 18th

century, Chesapeake slaves were housed in whatarchaeologists have referred to as “barracks-style”housing (Kelso 1984, McKee 1991). The physicalconditions denoted by this term include multipleindividuals, many of whom were unrelated to oneanother, living together in the same room. Thekey to understanding the social dynamics behindthis housing situation lies in sub-floor pits. Thefloors of early slave houses in the Chesapeake areusually riddled with multiple sub-floor pits (e.g.Kelso1984). These features probably have servedas storage closets for the meager personalpossessions of enslaved residents, includingperhaps weekly food rations provided by theirowners. Subfloor pits appear to have served as“safe-deposit boxes”. By storing personalbelongings in a highly visible pit, enslaved peoplemade access to their few possessions public andthus socially accountable. Under this hypothesis,subfloor pits worked like today’s freedom of

information act. By using them, slavesbootstrapped community morality and achieveda modicum of security for personal belongings ina world in which locked furniture was unavailable.Subfloor pits were a clever invention byindividuals enslaved in the Chesapeake to copewith the fact that slave owners denied them theability to choose their residence partners. Thatcontrol over residence partners was the keyvariable is suggested by the fact that 18th-centuryslave houses in South Carolina lacked subfloorpits. There is independent evidence, fromdocuments and archaeology, that slaves in SouthCarolina had more control over their livingarrangements (Neiman 1997). In the Chesapeake,slave houses with large rooms and multiplesubfloor pits were replaced by single-cellstructures with smaller room sizes, and with oneor, more often, no subfloor pit, toward the end ofthe 18th century. The change represents theemergence in the region of more choice for slavesover who they lived with, the apparent modalchoice being to live in small family groups

17

Figure 13. Cobble scatter possibly associated with fieldclearing.

(Neiman 1997). The change came to Monticello at about

this time. Archaeology has revealed in detail theplans of two slave houses on Mulberry Rowwhose construction dates to the 1770's. A slavehouse that Jefferson described as a “NegroQuarter” had two rooms, each about 17-feetsquare, with two subfloor pits under each one.Building o, had a single room of about the samearea, and again there were two subfloor pitsbeneath it. In contrast, slave houses built in the1790's on Mulberry Row fit the later Chesapeakepattern. For example, Buildings r, s, and t,constructed in 1793, were single-cell structuresmeasuring a scant 12 by 14 feet. Two of themhad a single subfloor pit (Gruber 1991, Kelso1997). Excavators explained the lack of a sub-floor pit under Building r on grading for a parkinglot constructed in the 1930's.

Slave domestic spaces built on MulberryRow during the first decade of the 19th centuryseem to have lacked subfloor pits entirely, e.g. thecook’s room in the South Terrace and the StoneHouse (Kelso 1997). The pattern of changeindicates that at least some Monticello slavesachieved marginally greater autonomy in theirliving conditions as the 18th century drew to aclose.

The configuration of Hemings’s housefits this larger pattern. However, one possibleanomaly does emerge. Unlike Building s and t,which had been built only a few years before,Hemings’s house lacked a subfloor pit. Severalhypotheses might account for the difference. Thespatial isolation of Hemings’s house might haveoffered greater security, relative to houses locatedalong densely populated Mulberry Row.Alternatively, her house might have been fittedwith a lock. In either case, assuming the safe-deposit hypothesis is itself correct, the lack of asubfloor pit indicates that Hemings had greatercontrol over who had access to the interior of herhouse than did the residents of Building s and t.

Additional perspective on Hemings’shouse and slave housing at Monticello can be hadfrom a comparison with the contemporary houseof William Stewart, the free white blacksmith. TheMonticello archaeologists excavated theStewart/Watkins site in 1989-1990, under thedirection of Barbara Heath. They determined that

Stewart’s house, like Hemings’s was a logbuilding, seated on a dry-laid stone foundation.However, when initially constructed around 1800,the house was much larger, measuring roughly 20by 24 feet in plan. An addition in 1803 increasedits length to 36 feet. The completed buildingcontained two rooms, both heated by endchimneys of wood and mud, built on stonehearths. A wood-lined half basement, measuring10 by 12 feet square, was located beneath thelarger of the two rooms (Heath 1991, 1999).

Stewart’s house had more than four timesthe floor area than Hemings’s did. The differenceis not explained by the fact that Stewart had a wifeand 5 children living with him, while Hemings didnot. There are no slave domestic structures onMulberry Row approaching the size of Stewart’shouse, yet we know slave families were housedthere. Even after the transition to family-basedhousing at Monticello, enslaved families lived atdensities from 2 to 4 times greater than freeworkers. The cause is not hard to pinpoint. Freeworkers like William Stewart could choose to goelsewhere if their expectations concerninghousing were not met.

The second salient difference betweenStewart’s and Hemings’s accommodations lies inStewart’s large wood lined-cellar. Again freedomfigures in the explanation. Enslavement severelyconstrained its victims ability to acquire food insufficient bulk to require a large cellar for storage.

18

Regular provisioning of staples to slaves lessenedthe payoff to attempting bulk acquisition. Freeworkmen, on the other hand, had access to cashand were not provisioned with staples. They thushad both the means and the motive to acquirefood in sufficient bulk to require a large subfloorstorage space.

Cobble ScatterThe other significant feature on the Hemings Sitewas a large concentration of sandstone andgreenstone cobbles southeast of the house site,identified during the 1995 season. Measuring 12feet (north-south) by 23 feet (east-west), thestones lay generally two and three deep (Figure13). The scatter was composed primarily ofsandstone. As with the hearth, the predominanceof sandstone cobbles suggests that they werecollected from the adjacent ground surface.Greenstone cobbles are only found in highfrequency further down the soil profile(Sherwood 1981). Soil horizon developmentaround the stones suggests that the feature wasold enough to have been contemporary with theHemings house.

The obvious linear configuration of thecobble scatter’s north edge and the superficialsimilarity with stone floors excavated in several ofthe Mulberry Row structures lead to an initialinterpretation of this feature as architectural(Kern 1996). However, the scarcity of associatedartifacts and the absence of any discernable hearthremains argue against this idea, as does the ragged,circular configuration of three of its sides.Rather, its straight northern edge suggests thepresence of a barrier there, such as a fence or fieldedge. The feature extends downslope, with thecenter of the lower or southern edge extendingfurthest south. This overall configuration seemsmore consistent with a cache of field-clearedstones, deposited over time against a fence. Onthis hypothesis, the fence stood along thenorthern edge of the cobble scatter and cobbleswere thrown against it from the south. Supportfor this hypothesis, along with a betterunderstanding of how space around Hemings’shouse was used is forthcoming from an analysisof the site’s terrain.

Landscape AnalysisMicrotopographyConcurrent with field excavations, theDepartment of Archaeology sought to clarifyoutstanding questions regarding the spatialrelationship between the Hemings site and ThirdRoundabout. Jefferson’s plats placed Hemings’sdwelling just south of the Third Roundabout. In1977, Kurt Glockner surveyed various landscapefeatures on Monticello mountain using thebearings and distances written on Jefferson’splats. However, all the features and most of theartifacts thought to represent the Hemings sitefell north of Glockner’s resulting placement of theThird Roundabout, which according to him ranthrough point C-74, along the North-0 grid lineor baseline of Kern’s grid (see above). Adding tothe puzzle was the fact that Glockner’s surveyplaced the roadbed in a location where nophysical evidence of a road or path existed.

Because of this discrepancy between the1977 survey results and both the physical andhistorical evidence, the Department re-surveyedthe site area. A total station was used to takeelevations on roughly 20-foot intervals on the gridestablished by Kern, over an area measuring 250feet (north-south) by 300 feet (east-west). Adigital elevation model (DEM) was thencomputed from the scattered elevations. Anelevation was interpolated for every point on a 1-foot grid, using radial basis functions (GoldenSoftware, Inc. 1999:104). The resulting DEMoffers a useful portrait the site’s microtopography(Figure 14). In addition, the DEM makes itpossible to compute various derivatives of themicrotopography, which further clarify therelationships among the microtopography,Hemings’s house, the cobble scatter, and theelusive Third Roundabout.

Two derivative measures are especiallyimportant: slope and plan curvature. To constructa slope map, the slope at each grid point on theDEM is estimated as the change in elevationrelative to change in distance in the direction theterrain’s aspect. Aspect is the direction of thesteepest ascent or descent (Figure 15). Thedarker sections of the slope map representrelatively level spaces, while the lighter sectionsdenote steeper areas. The slope map shows thatHemings’s house and its immediate yard area are

19

645650655660

665670

675680685

690695700

705710

715720

0 50 100 150 200 250 300-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

Elevation (feet)

0 25 50 75 100Feet

Hemings'Hearh

CobbleScatter

Figure 14. One-foot contour map of the Elizabeth Hemings Site.

located on a 24 to 28 percent slope. To the westthe hillside is a bit steeper, with varying terrain tothe east. More importantly, this map clearlyshows a linear patch of more level ground roughlyparalleling the North-60 grid line. In contrast, theroadbed proposed by the Glockner survey, alongthe North-0 grid line, lies along a section ofuninterrupted slope. Given this evidence, wepropose that the linear patch of more levelground is the topographic trace of the ThirdRoundabout. Confirmation for this hypothesis isimmediately forthcoming from the fact that theremains of Hemings’s house were found south ofthe linear patch. This is the spatial relationshipbetween roundabout and house documented onJefferson’s plats (see Figure 4). Note that thenorth side of the Fourth Roundabout, in itsactively maintained, modern incarnation, is visiblein the southeast corner of the slope map.

The slope map also reveals that

Hemings’s house was located just north andupslope of a relatively more gently sloping areaabout 125 feet in diameter whose southernboundary is formed by the Fourth Roundabout.It is tempting to suggest that the house wasstrategically positioned to help minimize costs ofaccess to the Third Roundabout and to this morelevel patch. Such positioning would have beenattractive for Hemings because it made for easyaccess to a large area over which the costs ofmovement, determined by slope, were relativelylow.

Further insight into the location of thehouse and cobble scatter is provided by a plancurvature map (Figure 16). Plan curvature is thesecond derivative of aspect. It measures theamount of curvature in the contour lines on acontour map. Positive values for plan curvatureindicate areas into which water flow converges,while negative values represent areas from which

20

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0.22

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.3

0.32

0.34

0.36

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

-140

-100

-60

-20

20

60

100

Hemings'Hearth

CobbleScatter

Feet

Percent Slope

0 25 50 75 100

Fourth Roundabout

Third Roundabout

Figure 15. Percent slope map with superimposed two-foot contour map.

water flow diverges. The plan curvature maphighlights the north-south trending rise on whichthe house was located and the gullies on eitherside of it. We see that the house is preciselycentered on a rise, presumably because of thedrainage advantages of divergent flow. The largerelatively flat area south of the house was also awell drained area of divergent flow. On the otherhand, the cobble scatter is precisely centered onthe eastern gully, an area of convergent flow.

We suggested above that the straightnorthern edge of the cobble scatter betrays thepresence of a fence line against which the cobbleswere thrown from the south. It is tempting tosuggest that the area from which the cobbles werecleared was the well drained flat area tosouthwest, and further that this area may havebeen used by Hemings as a garden. Theevaluation of this idea should receive top priorityin future investigations at the site. In any case, the

fact that the cobble scatter is centered in a gullyprovides further support for the idea that it is notthe remains of a building.

The Third RoundaboutIn order to test further the hypothesis that thelinear patch on the slope map was the ThirdRoundabout, five contiguous 2.5 by 2.5 feet unitswere excavated across it (Units 1976, 1977, 1991,1992, and 2001). The resulting 12.5-foot trenchwas oriented north-south so as to reveal a profileof any extant roadbed. It exposed a layer ofcompacted clay (2.5YR 4/6 red clay loam) sevenfeet wide (north-south) sandwiched betweentopsoil (2.5YR 4/4 reddish brown, silty clay loam)and the underlying B horizon (2.5YR 3/6 dark redclay) (Figure 17). Unlike the sloping layers ofsediment above and below, the upper surface ofthe clay layer was relatively level; it ranged inthickness from 0.1 - 0.9 feet north-south. The

21

Figure 17. East profile of test trench excavated across the third roundabout.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

-0.03

-0.025

-0.02

-0.015

-0.01

-0.005

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

Hemings' Hearth

CobbleScatter

PlanCurvature

0 25 50 75 100Feet

Figure 16. Plan curvature map of topography surrounding the Elizabeth Hemings site. Green areas denote divergentflow and the yellow a convergent flow.

22

layer included fine- (6-10 mm) to cobble-sized(65-250 mm) particles of greenstone andsandstone that comprised 7-10% of the soilmatrix. This percentage, which is over twice thatof any other area on the site, indicates that atsome point an attempt was made to maintain theroad bed by adding rock to it. The configurationof this layer also suggests that it is fill deposited inan attempt to create a level roadbed. There canbe little doubt that these sediments representJefferson’s Third Roundabout.

Site StructureHow big was the activity space around Hemings’shouse? How was it spatially structured and howdid the structure of activities within it relate to theroundabout, the cobble scatter, and the houseitself? Our approach to these questions beginswith a simple model, based on recentethnoarchaeological work, of how activities mighthave been spatially organized at the Hemings site.We then look to evidence from the spatialdistribution of chemical elements and artifacts onthe site to evaluate the model.

Over the past two decades, archaeologistshave begun to document ethnographically howhumans organize activities in regard to theirspatial layout on sites (Binford 1983, 1987;Hitchcock 1987; O’Connell 1987; O’Connell et al.1991; Schiffer 1987; Wandsnider 1996; Yellen1977). A crucial variable that organizes andsegregates activities spatially is the extent to whichthey interfere with one another. Interference islikely when the objects involved in activities takeup a large amount of space, or processing themgenerates a large amount of debris, or the activityitself requires large amounts of uninterruptedtime. Each of these factors, singly or in concert,renders simultaneous use of the same space forother purposes costly in time or effort. Thus,there will be a long term benefit to theexpenditure of additional effort to covertravelcosts incurred in the location and pursuit ofsuch activities at some distance away from thearea in which most other activities occur. Thusactivities with higher interference potential willtend to be conducted in out-of-the-way areas.Prime examples of special activities include bulkprocessing and storage of plant and animals foodsand the disposal of bulky or hazardous refuse.

On the other hand, additional energy will not beexpended to remove to special areas thoseactivities that require smaller amounts of space,generate little refuse, or have short durations.These activities will tend to occur together in thesame general activity area. General activity areascan be expected to be the site of pursuits like thepreparation of food for immediate consumption,social interaction or sleeping. This argument leadsto the expectation that, other things being equal,domestic sites will be partitioned radially, with ageneral activity area at the site core and specialactivity areas on the periphery. The distance thatspecial activities are removed from the domesticcore is a function of their interference potential(Neiman 1993).

Cost Surface ModelingHow might we identify the spatial scale of thesezones? One way to proceed is to estimate thecosts of movement from the domestic core to anyspot on the site. Our estimates can be representedas a cost surface, a contour map whose contourlines indicate the locations of peripheral zones towhich it was equally costly to walk, following aleast-cost path, in order to pursue a specificactivity. The location of features like the ThirdRoundabout and the cobble scatter on the costsurface might indicate the maximum extent of anintensively used site core. And this could befurther evaluated using evidence from the spatialdistribution of artifacts and chemical elementsacross the site.

When a site is located on a flat surface,the cost of activity removal from center toperiphery is a function of linear distance from thecore. But when a site is on an irregular, slopingsurface, costs no longer scale linearly withdistance. Movement perpendicular to thedirection or aspect of the slope is easier thanmovement up it.

Making this observation analyticallyuseful requires estimating the costs of movement,which can be done with the help of a formuladerived from backpacking:

Costoneway = 1 + 3.2s, if s>0 (1)1 + 1.2s, otherwise

where Costoneway is the cost of movement across 1

23

0 50 100 150 200 250 300-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

Hemings'Hearth

CobbleScatter

Third Roundabout

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0.22

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.3

0.32

0.34

0.36

0 25 50 75 100Feet

Percent Slope

Figure 18. Cost surface contour map superimposed over percent slope map. The 80-cost unit contour is highlighted toshow the intensively-used Hemings site core.

unit in a horizontal plane, and s is the slope, givenas vertical change, divided by horizontal change(Ericson and Goldstein 1980).

The use of this formula to modelmovement in multiple directions across complextopography come under the heading ofanisotropic cost surface modeling. The key wordhere is anisotropic. It refers to the fact that thecost of movement is a function not only of thesteepness of the slope, but also of the direction atwhich the slope is attacked. Anisotropy meansthat costs vary as the difference between theslope’s aspect the direction of travel varies.Hence anisotropic cost surface analysis requires acost grid, which specifies the costs of movingacross a grid cell in the study area, and an aspectgrid, which specifies the (azimuth) direction inwhich the costs of movement are greatest.

The forgoing formula implies that a grid

containing the costs of moving back and forth orup and down across a grid cell can be estimatedfrom a grid of slopes:

Costbothways = 1 + 4.4s (2)

Both the slope and aspect grids arecomputed from the DEM of the study area.Because the costs are anisotropic, estimating theactual costs of movement requires taking intoaccount the angle at which the grid cell is crossed.Basic trigonometry makes it easy to show that theactual cost of crossing a cell is:

ActualCostbothways = 1 +4.4s|cos(a)| (3)

It is possible then to estimate our sought-after cost surface, with the help of Equation 3 andan algorithm that uses it to trace the least-cost

24

path from a given source point on the DEM to allother points.2

The cost surface that results is shown inFigure 18. The lozenge-shape cost contoursreflect that fact that the same amount of effortgets one further when one travels along thesouthern-facing slope than up and down it. Boththe Third Roundabout and a line paralleling thenorthern edge of the cobble scatter fall roughlyalong the 80-unit cost contour. This implies amore intensively-used site core, in which generalactivities were more likely to occur, measuring 90feet (north-south) by 130 feet (east-west). Theeastern and western edge of this area coincidewith the center of the two gullies identified on theplan curvature map.

The size of this area was an importantpart of Hemings’s daily experience. Onedimension of its significance for her is apparent inthe difference between it and the sizes of yardareas associated with Buildings r, s and t onMulberry Row. These 12-by-14 foot structuresstood 25 feet apart. At their front doors layMulberry Row. By 1809, a garden fence stoodabout 10 feet behind them. If the cost surfaceanalysis is an accurate approximation, thenHemings’s yard space was roughly 10 times thesize of the yard area associated with the MulberryRow structures.

Spatial PatternsSoil and Sediment ChemistryOne domain in which the radial model of sitestructure has special archaeological relevance istrash disposal. It leads to the expectation thatdifferent kinds of refuse will be deposited ingeneral activity areas and special activity areas.When individual refuse items have highinterference potential or when a large amount ofrefuse needs to be disposed of at once, trash willbe transported greater distances from general-activity space at the center of the site to theperiphery. The study of spatial variation in thechemical elements across the site offers a way toevaluate this expectation.

Archaeologists have discovered that dataon the abundance of chemical elements in soilsand sediments can be useful in locatingarchaeological sites and defining different activityareas within those sites. Researchers havehypothesized that certain chemical elements orcombinations of elements are indicative ofspecific types of human activities (Cook andHeizer 1965). Although American prehistoriansbegan to use soil chemistry data in the 1950s,historical archaeologists overlooked thepossibilities until the late 1970s. In theChesapeake, archaeologists first demonstrated thepotential of soil chemical patterns in the analysisof seventeenth-century sites (Keeler 1978; Pogue1988).

Most archaeological studies focus on ahandful of chemical elements, includingpotassium, phosphorous, calcium, andmagnesium. Phosphorous (P) has been used fora long time to identify sites. It reflects a widerange of activities because it is present in softanimal tissue, excrement, and bone, as well asother organic materials (Cook and Heizer 1965;Eidt 1977, 1985). Potassium (K), magnesium(Mg), and, to a lesser extent, calcium (Ca) are allcomponents of wood ash (Griffith 1980, 1981;Heidenreich and Konrad 1973, Konrad et al. 1983,Middleton and Price 1996, Schuldenrein 1995).Calcium is a major chemical constituent of shelland bone (Cook and Heizer 1965, Middleton andPrice 1996, Schuldenrein 1995). On sites withmasonry, unlike the Hemings Site, elevated Calevels are also likely to be a product of lime inmortar (e.g. Metz et al. 2000).

2 The algorithm used here is theVARCOST module in the Idrisi GIS (ClarkLabs 1998). VARCOST handles an anisotropyby powering a cost grid, computed from Equation2, by a user-specified function of the differenceangle a. This means that it is impossible for thealgorithm to duplicate Equation 3 precisely. Butit is possible to come very close using thefollowing approximation:

ActualCostbothways .(1 + 4.4s) /|cos (a)| (4). This approximation is used here. The Pearsoncorrelation between actual costs as given byEquation 3 and the approximation in Equation 4is .998 for 0 < s < 2 and 0 < a < 360 degrees.

25

The 1996 season saw the implementationof a comprehensive soil chemical mappingprogram. The Department took an initialcollection of soil chemistry samples during theFall of 1995 in an attempt to clarify the locationof the Hemings house and any associatedfeatures. Excavators collected 104 samples, takenevery 20 feet across an area measuring 140 feet(north-south) by 300 feet (east-west). Anadditional 41 samples were taken from theprofiles of test units. All of the soil samples wereacquired 0.3 feet below modern grade. The 145soil samples were analyzed at Virginia PolytechnicInstitute’s Soil Testing and Plant AnalysisLaboratory in Blacksburg, Virginia.

A second more intensive samplingcampaign was initiated after the remains of thehearth were identified during the 1996 fieldseason. Initially, samples were taken every tenfeet within a 60-foot square centering on thesouthwest corner of the suspected hearth,resulting in 49 samples. An additional 25 sampleswere collected from north-south and east-westtransects, centered on the 60-foot square block.These samples were also taken 0.3 feet belowmodern grade. For comparative purposes, thesamples were sent to the Plant AnalysisLaboratory in Blacksburg (VPI), the University ofWisconsin at Madison’s Archaeological ChemistryLaboratory and to A&L Eastern AgriculturalLaboratories, Inc. (A&L) in Richmond, Virginia.

A final sampling campaign wasundertaken after excavations at the site werecompleted. An Oakfield corer was used to collect143 soil samples at 2.5 foot intervals fromunexcavated ground within a 40 foot (north-south) by 32.5 foot (east-west) area surroundingthe hearth feature. Fourteen additional sampleswere obtained from sediments within the hearthand from excavated contexts 0.3 feet belowmodern grade. Unfortunately the area southwestof the hearth could not be sampled in this fashionbecause it had been excavated in 10-foot quadratunits in 1995. Due to the small bore diameter ofthe Oakfield corer, samples were sent only to onelab: The University of Wisconsin’s ArchaeologicalChemistry Laboratory.

The extensive soil chemistry samplingprogram offers a unique opportunity to exploretwo technical issues. The first is the extent to

which assays by the different labs, using differentextractions methods and instrumentation, agreefor each element. Agreement across labs for agiven element indicates that the labs’ measures arereliable, that is each lab offers reasonableestimates of the same underlying quantity. This isa necessary condition for valid inferences aboutthe meaning of that element’s spatial pattern. Thesecond issue is the extent to which the spatialpatterns exhibited by different elements correlatewith one another across different spatial scales.Consistency across spatial scales in the pattern ofcorrelations among elements would also suggestthat the spatial patterns exhibited by variouselements are reliable.

The first issue, agreement across labs,was addressed using the 10-foot interval samples,that were analyzed by all three labs. Each labanalyzed a slightly different suite of elements.Eight elements (Al, Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, P andZn) were common to all three labs. Two (B andCu ) were common to A&L and VPI alone, whileone element (Na) was common to A&L andWisconsin. Correlation coefficients werecomputed to measure the similarity among rank-orders of element assays by pairs of labs. Weused ranks, and not the original values, tominimize the effects of outliers on the results.Table 1 shows that there is reasonably strongagreement among the labs for three of the fourelements that have traditionally interestedarchaeologists (Ca, K, and Mg), while there are

Element VPI-A&L Wisc.-A&L VPI-Wisc.K 0.8930 0.8270 0.8800Ca 0.8290 0.8340 0.8710Mg 0.8380 0.8010 0.7220B 0.7710Zn 0.7427 0.5074 0.5693Mn 0.4610 0.6240 0.4830Cu 0.4690Fe 0.6960 0.2280 0.4030Al 0.1420 -0.0740 0.6850Na 0.2100P 0.1017 0.0691 0.0646

Table 1. Correlations (Spearman’s r) between the ranks ofelement concentrations tested at three independent soil labs(ordered from highest correlation to lowest).

26

moderate to zero correlations among the rest.Phosphorus (P) has the lowest

correlation for all of the elements tested. This isthe result of the unique characteristics forCatoctin formation, Davidson clay loam soils, thechemical properties of phosphorus, and theelement extraction methods employed by the soillabs. In the local soils and sediments, most of theP introduced by decaying plant and animal tissuequickly bonds to mineral silicates. The tightlybound phosphorus is not easily extracted anddetected.

The soil testing program at VPI, forexample, only attempts to measure the amountreadily available for new plant growth (watersoluble) and does not attempt to detect the totalP. Soil samples are dried, pulverized and siftedthrough a 2 millimeter sieve. Four cubiccentimeters are placed in 20 milliliters of MehlichNo. 1 extractant (0.05N HCl in 0.025N H2SO4).The samples are shaken for five minutes, filteredand then analyzed by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP/AES).

The acid extraction method employed atthe Wisconsin lab is much more aggressive andthe resulting readings reflect a higher proportionof the total amount of P in the sample. AtWisconsin the sample is dried, pulverized, andsifted through a 2 millimeter sieve. 0.2 grams isplaced in a 1N HCl solution for two weeks atroom temperature and then analyzed byICP/AES. Note that the acid concentration, asmeasured by solution molarity (N), is 20 timesgreater that used by VPI. And the extraction timeis measured in weeks, not minutes.

The A&L lab detects P using twodifferent acid solutions. The weak Bray or P1 testis very similar to VPI’s Mehlich No. 1 test in thatthis method determines the amount of readilyavailable phosphorus usable for plant growth. Theprepared sample is placed in a 0.025M HCl +0.03M NH4F solution for 1 minute and thenanalyzed by ICP/AES. The strong Bray or P2 testextracts the water soluble phosphates(ammonium- and mono-calcium phosphates),weak acid soluble phosphates (di-calciumphosphates), and a small amount of the activereserve phosphates (i.e., tri-calcium phosphate).Soil samples are placed in a 0.1M HCl + 0.03MNH4F solution for 1 minute and then analyzed by

ICP/AES (Ankerman and Large n.d.:26).For our purposes, the Wisconsin test

yields useful estimates of P by providing valuesthat reflect the anthropogenic processes at workon Monticello sites. The Mehlich No. 1 and theweak and strong Bray tests are too weak to breakmuch more than a tiny fraction of anthropogenicP from its chemical bonds. These very differentmeasures account for the low correlationcoefficients in Table 1. As a result, only theWisconsin results for the 2.5- and 10-foot intervalwill be used for analysis.

The second issue, consistency ofcorrelations among elements at different spatialscales, was also addressed using correlationanalysis. Three symmetric matrices of correlationcoefficients among log-transformed elementswere computed for the 20-foot, 10-foot and 2.5-foot interval samples. The pattern of correlationsamong elements was similar for each of the threematrices. Typical results are shown in Figure 19.The plot captures about 60% of the total variationfor the 10-foot interval sample, as analyzed by theWisconsin Lab. Note the acute angles betweenthe vectors representing three of the fourelements that have traditionally interestedarchaeologists: calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg),and potassium (K). This pattern represents therelatively high positive correlations that wereobtained among all three elements, and especiallybetween Mg and K, whose vectors display themost acute angles. The positive correlationsamong these three elements appear at all threespatial scales and in all three lab results. Thisindicates that the spatial distributions of thesethree elements are broadly similar and strengthensconfidence in the reliability of the results. Thevector representing the fourth element oftraditional archaeological interest, phosphorus (P),lies at right angles to the vectors representing theother three elements, reflecting the near-zerocorrelation between P and the other threeelements. This result shows up in the 2.5-footinterval sample, analyzed by the Wisconsin Lab aswell. Again the agreement indicates reliability.

The positive correlations among Ca, K,and Mg suggest that there might be a singleprocess responsible for the majority of variationin the distributions of all three elements. Tobetter characterize that process, we could map the

27

ZNTI

SR

P

NA

MN

MG

K

FE

CA

BA

AL

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

Figure 19. H-plot summarizing the pattern of correlations among log-transformed element concentrations from the 10-footinterval soil samples, Wisconsin Lab (Baxter 1994). The angle between a pair of vectors is proportional to the correlationbetween the corresponding elements: vectors forming an acute angle are positively correlated; vectors at right angles areuncorrelated; vectors pointing in opposite directions are negatively correlated. The length of each vector represents how faithfullyits pattern of correlations is represented in the plot. Elements represented: calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), potassium (K),magnesium (Mg), barium (Ba), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), aluminum (Al), phosphorus (P), titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), sodium(Na).

three distributions individually and guess aboutthe spatial pattern that they have in common. Orwe could estimate the common patternstatistically and then map it. The latter option ispreferable because it relies less on interpretivewhim. It has statistical advantages as well. Ouranalysis of inter-lab correlations revealed thatestimates of element concentration are laden witherror. Estimating variation shared by severalelements is one way to dampen the effects of thaterror. Principal components analysis (PCA), is anatural way to estimate the variation shared by the

three element distributions. PCA produces,among other things, a numeric score for eachsample location. The score for each location is aweighted average of the original elementconcentrations. The weights are computed sothat the scores they produce account for themaximum possible amount of variation in thedata. The scores with this variation-maximizingproperty are called principal component scores.There are as many sets of principal componentscores as there are variables in the original data.But if the original variables are correlated, then

28

50 100 150 200 250 300

-50

0

50

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3PC 1: Ca, K, Mg

VPI

a

b

c

Z-score

0 25 50 75 100Feet

Figure 20. Contour map of the spatial pattern held in common in the distributions of Ca, K, and Mg, as estimated byprinciple component analysis. The shared pattern was estimated from the first principle component extracted from the correlationmatrix among the three elements. Triangles represent soil sample locations, taken at 20-foot intervals and from side walls ofexcavated units. Letters denote areas of high concentration discussed in the text. The element distributions were estimated bythe VPI Soils Lab.

the first principal component accounts for mostof the variation in the data and summarizes thecommon pattern (Baxter 1994).

A final word about methods. In order toportray spatial patterning in the distribution ofchemical elements, we have relied on contourmaps. These have been produced byinterpolating a regular and continuous grid ofelement concentrations from the spatially isolatedsample locations, and then contouring this gridedsurface. The grided values were estimated byKriging, a statistical method that, under certaincircumstances, yields estimates that haveminimum squared error (Golden Software, Inc.1999). Kriging, like all surface interpolationmethods, relies on the existence of spatialautocorrelation among values at sampledlocations. Sampled locations that are closetogether have more similar values than locationsthat are far part. We tested this assumption for allthree of our sets of samples (20, 10 and 2.5-footintervals), and in each case found the positivespatial autocorrelation required by the method.

The first principal component computedfrom the Ca, K, and Mg distributions for the 20-foot interval sample accounts for 65% of thevariation in the data. Each of the three variablescontributes in roughly equal amounts to thecomponent, that is the weights for each elementare about equal. The spatial pattern exhibited bythe scores shows that high concentrations of allthree elements tend to occur some distance fromthe house. Concentrations a and b lie outside thecost surface contour that bounds the intensively-used core of the site (Figure 20). Concentrationc, located about 20 feet north-northwest of thehouse, falls within the estimated core boundaries.Finally note the zone of relatively lower valuesnortheast of the house, separating concentrationsc and b.

Similar patterns appear in the 10-footinterval sample analyzed by the Wisconsin lab.Here the first principal component accounts for74% of the variation in the original distributionsof Ca, K, and Mg. Again, the three elementscontribute about equally to it. The spatial pattern

29

100 150 200 250

-50

0

50

100

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

a b

c

d

ef

PC1 ScoresCa, K, Mg

Z-score

0 20 40 60 80Feet

100 150 200

-50

0

50

100

Phosphorus

Phosphorus partsper million

c20

50

80

110

140

170

200

230

260

290

320

a b

c

Figure 21. Contour maps of the principle component scores for Ca, K, and Mg and of the distributionof P. Triangles represent soil sample locations, taken at 10-foot intervals and from side walls of excavatedunits. Letters denote areas of high concentrations discussed in the text. The element distributions wereestimated by the Wisconsin Lab.

30

in the resulting component scores looks familiar.The highest values appear at some distance fromthe house, beyond the edges of the site core asestimated by the cost surface and at the oppositeends of the east-west transect (concentrations aand b, Figure 21) and at the southern end of thenorth-south transect (concentration c ). A thirdarea of high values (d ) north-north west of thehouse and within the estimated core echoes theconcentration in the same location on the 20-footinterval map (concentration c, Figure 20). Again,we see the area of low values northeast of thehouse. The novelty on the 10-foot map is theappearance of smaller concentrations within thesite core, about 10 feet and 30 feet west of thehouse (e and f ).

Unlike the 20-foot interval samplesanalyzed at VPI, the 10-foot interval samples,which were analyzed by the Wisconsin lab,yielded reliable values for P (Figure 21). Thespatial patterns exhibited by P and the firstprinciple component appear unrelated. Theappearance is confirmed by a near-zerocorrelation between P values and the principlecomponent scores (Pearson’s r = -.07, p= .53).There is a large concentration of P under andadjacent to the house, on the west (a) and east (b).This large concentration lies in the same area thatdisplays low to moderate values for Ca, K and Mgin both the 20-foot and 10-foot interval samples.In contrast, as we have seen, large concentrationsof Ca, K, and Mg are all considerably farther fromthe house.

The 2.5-foot interval sample provides astill higher resolution picture of chemical variationin the immediate vicinity of the house. Severaldifferences in spatial patterning appear at thismore fine-grained spatial scale. First, the strengthof the correlations among Ca, K, and Mgincreases. As a result, the first principalcomponent now accounts for 86% on thevariation in these three elements. Second, webegin to see small concentrations of the threeelements under and immediately adjacent to thehouse (Figure 22). Two of these appear to beassociated with the hearth (e and f ). A third (c) islocated just inside the presumed location of adoor in the north wall of the house. A fourthalong the eastern wall (d ) is a bit more enigmatic.Two additional concentrations northwest of the

house (a and b) echo what we have seen on the10-foot series map in the same direction (Figure21, concentrations d and e).

In the 2.5-foot interval samples, thedistribution of P does share some patterns incommon with the Ca, K, and Mg principalcomponent scores (Figure 22). The highconcentrations just inside the hypothesized door(a), outside the door to the west (b), and adjacentto the hearth (d ) are three examples. The fourtharea of high P concentration (c) partially overlapsthe Ca, K, and Mg concentration adjacent to theeast wall of the house. The apparent modestsimilarity between the P and Ca, K, and Mgdistributions is confirmed by a modest butstatistically significant rank correlation value of.31 (p < .0001). However, aspects of the contrastbetween the distributions of P and Ca, K, andMg, noted in the 10-foot interval sample, recurhere. High concentrations of P are closer to thehouse and they are more spatially clumped, whileCa, K, and Mg concentration also occur awayfrom the house and the concentration are moredispersed.

What are we to make of these patterns?How do they relate to the organization ofactivities and space on the site? Much of thelarge-scale pattern in the distribution of Ca, K,and Mg, visible in the 20-foot and 10-foot intervalsamples, is likely a function wood ash deposition.Two depositional contexts for wood ash may bedistinguished: burning of trees and brush thatresult from the clearance and maintenance of thesite core and ongoing disposal of fireplace ashgenerated in the house. Burning trees and bush isclearly an activity with large interference potential,one that we should expect to occur in a special-activity area on the site periphery. Disposal oflarge quantities of ash, likely to contain live coalsfrom the periodic cleaning of a continuously usedfireplace, is another such activity. Hence, underthe radial model of site structure, the observedconcentrations of Ca, K, and Mg at the siteperiphery are to be anticipated and may be used ascorroboration for the division of the site intogeneral and special activity areas based on the costsurface.

What then are we to make of the smallerconcentrations of Ca, K, and Mg that emergewithin the site core in the 10 and 2.5-foot interval

31

140 145 150 155 160 1650

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-4.5

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

cb

a

d

e

f

PC1 ScoresCa, Mg, K

0 5 10 15 20Feet

Z-score

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

Phosphorus partsper million140 145 150 155 160 165 170

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Phosphorus

ab

c

d

Figure 22. Contour maps of the principle component scores for Ca, K, and Mg andof the distribution of P. Triangles represent soil sample locations, taken at 2.5-footintervals. Letters denote areas of high concentration discussed in the text. Theelement distributions were estimated by the Wisconsin Lab. No chemical sampleswere taken from the blank area in the southwest corner when it was excavated in1995.

32

50 100 150 200 250 300

-50

0

50

100

Total Artifact Density(per square foot)

Feet0 25 50 75 100

0.08

0.58

1.08

1.58

2.08

2.58

3.08

3.58

4.08

4.58

5.08

5.58

6.08

Third Roundabout

Figure 23. Total artifact distribution map for all excavated test units at the Elizabeth Hemings site.

samples. These may be the result of theoccasional expedient deposition of fireplace ashcloser to the house. The hypothesis that fireplaceash deposition plays a more important role inspatial a patterning at smaller scales receivesindependent support from the increasing strengthof among-element correlations in the 10- and 2.5-foot samples. If some bone and soft-tissue wastewere being cycled through the fireplace, we wouldexpect increased levels of Ca and P in fireplaceash and increased correlations of K and Mg withCa and of all three elements with P as a result ofash disposal. This is the pattern that we see.

However, we have also seen that thedistribution of P is quite different from thedistribution of Ca, K, and Mg, even in the 2.5-foot interval sample. This indicates that most Pdeposition occurred independently of ashdumping. In addition, the low correlationbetween P and Ca indicates there are moreimportant sources of P on the site than bone. Alikely context of the deposition of P is thereforesoft tissue and liquid deposited in the course ofmeal preparation and food waste disposal aftermeals. The small amount of refuse involved inany one depositional episode makes for lowerinterference potential and thus deposition closer

to the house, within the general-activity area ofthe site core. This would explain why Pconcentrations tend to occur closer to the housethan do Ca, K, and Mg. If this is correct, then thehigh concentrations of P along the northerninterior wall of the house (Figure 21,concentrations a and c), might represent zones offood preparation, situated to take advantage oflight at an open door. A final aspect of thedistribution of Ca, K and Mg is worthy of note.We have seen that in the 20, 10 and 2.5-footsamples, the area north-northeast of the househas consistently low levels of Ca, K, and Mg.This may point to the location and orientation ofa path, that was kept clear of debris, running fromthe front of the house to the Third Roundabout.

There is clearly unexplained variation inthe distribution of chemical elements across thesite. Some of the residual variation is probablycaused by spatial inhomogeneity in the chemicalcomposition of the greenstone parent material onwhich the soil across the site has weathered.However, major features of the distribution of thefour elements discussed here fit comfortably withthe radial model of site structure, and the divisionof the site into general and special activity zonesbased on the cost surface analysis. The fit

33

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

0 10 20 30 40

Feet

Total Artifacts Density(per square foot)

0.08

0.58

1.08

1.58

2.08

2.58

3.08

3.58

4.08

4.58

5.08

5.58

6.08

6.58

Figure 24. Total artifact density contour map for test squares around the Elizabeth Hemings house site.

supports the primarily anthropogenic origin ofthese distributions.

Artifact DistributionsAdditional insight into the use of space inside andoutside the general-activity core of the HemingsSite can be had from the study of the spatialdistribution of artifacts that were recovered inquarter-inch mesh screen from the excavatedquadrats. Again we use contour maps estimatedwith the Kriging interpolation method to portraythe spatial patterns. A map of the distribution ofall artifacts combined clearly shows that the greatmajority of artifacts were dumped to the south orbehind the Hemings structure, but within thegeneral activity-core (Figure 23)3. The majority

of the artifacts mapped here are nails andceramics (see Appendix 1 for complete artifactinventory). Once broken or disused, most ofthese artifacts would have minimal interferencepotential, and their deposition within the site coreis not unexpected. As we shall see, however,there are informative exceptions to thisgeneralization. As Figure 23 makes plain,artifacts were on occasion discarded outside thesite core. Two low density concentrations, dueeast and west of the house, fall in roughly thesame spots as the large concentrations of Ca, K,and Mg discussed in the previous section. Theirspatial coincidence supports the idea that, like theartifacts, at least some of the chemicals weretransported from the house to the site periphery.

Within the site core, artifacts areconcentrated in two areas (Figure 24). The firstis a large concentration, about 15 feet in diameter,that lies behind the house, just off its southwest

3 Due to various quadrat sizes, alldistribution maps reflect artifact density insteadof artifact counts. The 2.5 foot square unit isthe median quadrat size and the artifact densityof 0.08 (minimum plotted density) represents an artifact count of 0.5 for a unit of this size.

34

corner. Most of the artifacts in this concentrationwere probably broken in the house and thentransported to this location in the yard. Thesouthern edge of this yard midden coincides withthe southern boundary of the yard as predicted bythe cost surface analysis described above. Thesecond area of artifact concentration partially fallswithin the suspected house boundaries, north ofthe hearth. Smaller in area and less dense thanthe yard midden, this scatter is roughly 10 feetacross. Unlike the yard midden, the smallerconcentration may largely be comprised ofartifacts generated during the destruction of thehouse, not deposition associated with its ongoingoccupation.

Additional insight into the processesresponsible for artifact deposition can be had byconsidering variation in the spatial distributions ofdifferent classes of nails and ceramics. We beginwith nails. Both hand-made wrought nails andmachine-made cut nails occur on the site, with theformer outnumbering the latter. The occurrenceof both nail types means that during theoccupation of the site cut nails had begun toreplace wrought nails, at least for some purposes.These two nail types have slightly different spatialdistributions (Figure 25). In both cases, we finda concentration to the west of the house.However, the locations of concentrations closerto the house differ. There are two modest cut-nailconcentrations associated with the hearth – onejust to north, under the house, and the other justto the south. In contrast, wrought nails clusterunder the northwest corner of the house. Thisdifference could register temporal differences inlocations of nail disposal. On the other hand, itmight also reflect different functional roles forwrought and cut nails. We can choose betweenthese alternatives by further dividing wroughtnails into two classes: construction nails greaterthan 2 inches long and finishing nails less than orequal to 2 inches long (Figure 26). The finishingnail distribution is nearly identical to the cut naildistribution, with its signature concentration justnorth and south of the hearth. This suggests thatcut nails and wrought finishing nails were put tosimilar uses, which differed from the uses towhich construction nails were put. Theassociation between cut and wrought finishingnails and the hearth is compatible with the idea

that they were used preferentially in theconstruction of the chimney, perhaps in nailingthe laths over which mud was plastered. Thiswould mean that the nail concentrations beneaththe house are derived from its destruction, notfrom ongoing nail disposal during the occupation.The significance of the wrought construction nailconcentration under the north west corner of thehouse is not apparent. Finally, it is worthemphasizing that the biggest nail concentrationoccurs not where the building once stood, butwhere the bulk of refuse generated during thecourse of the occupation was discarded.

Ceramics are the other major constituentof the yard midden. Examination of the spatialdistribution of pearlware and creamware revealssome startling differences (Figure 27). Thepearlware distribution resembles the various naildistributions: the biggest concentration ofpearlware occurs off the southwest corner of thehouse. However, the distribution of creamware isdramatically different. The bulk of the creamwareconcentration lies further from the site core asestimated by the cost surface. What mightaccount for the difference? Given thedocumented differences in manufacturing datesfor the two wares, 1762-1820 for creamware and1780-1820 for pearlware, it might be suggestedthat early in the occupation trash was transportedfarther from the house for deposition than later inthe occupation. But it is not clear why this mightbe.

A better explanation relates to the radialmodel of site structure and the differences in theinterference potential of sherds from vessels increamware and pearlware on the Hemings Site.As we will see in the next chapter, vessel shapesare very differently distributed across the twoceramic ware types. Creamware vessels are nearlyexclusively hollow forms like tea bowls andsaucers. The latter were deep and bowl-like in the18th and early 19th centuries. The majority ofpearlware vessels are flat forms: plates andplatters. Pearlware sherds therefore could berelied upon to lie flat on the ground, while thecurved creamware sherds would protrude.Because of their greater interference potential,discarded creamware shreds were transported pastthe edge of the site core for discard. Examinationof the distribution of Chinese porcelain across

35

100 120 140 160 180

-40

-20

0

20

40

Wrought Nail Density(per square foot)

0.08

0.33

0.58

0.83

1.08

1.33

1.58

1.83

2.08

2.33

2.58

2.83

3.08

3.33

3.58

100 120 140 160 180

-40

-20

0

20

40

0 10 20 30 40

Feet

Cut Nails Density(per square foot)

0.08

0.23

0.38

0.53

0.68

0.83

0.98

1.13

1.28

1.43

Wrought Nails

Cut Nails

Figure 25. Distribution of wrought nails (top) and cut nails (bottom) at the Elizabeth Hemingssite.

36

100 120 140 160 180

-40

-20

0

20

40

Construction Nail Density(per square foot)

100 120 140 160 180

-40

-20

0

20

40

0 10 20 30 40

Feet

Finishing Nail Density(per square foot)

Construction Nails (>2 in.)

Finishing Nails (<2 in.)

0.08

0.23

0.38

0.53

0.68

0.83

0.98

1.13

1.28

1.43

1.58

1.73

1.88

0.08

0.23

0.38

0.53

0.68

0.83

0.98

1.13

1.28

1.43

1.58

Figure 26. Distribution of construction nails (top) and finishing nails (bottom) at the Elizabeth Hemingssite.

37

100 120 140 160 180

-40

-20

0

20

40

0 10 20 30 40Feet

Creamware Density(per square foot)

0.08

0.18

0.28

0.38

0.48

0.58

0.68

0.78

100 120 140 160 180

-40

-20

0

20

40

0.08

0.23

0.38

0.53

0.68

0.83

0.98

1.13

1.28

1.43

1.58

1.73

1.88

2.03

2.18

2.33

Pearlware Density(per square foot)

Pearlware

Creamware

Figure 27. Distribution of pearlware (top) and creamware (bottom) ceramic sherds. The mostly curved,holloware form creamware sherds are found further away from the house site than the mostly flat pearlwaresherds.

38

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

0 10 20 30 40

Feet

Porcelain Density(per square foot)

0.08

0.13

0.18

0.23

0.28

0.33

Porcelain

Figure 28. Distribution map for Chinese porcelain sherds. Note the similar distribution to thepearlware sherds.

the site offers an opportunity to evaluate thisexplanation. If interference potential is the keyvariable, then the Chinese porcelain distributionshould resemble the pearlware distribution, sincethe former, like the latter, were derived nearlyexclusively from plates (Figure 28). Thisexpectation is met.

Phytolith AnalysisToday the Hemings Site lies in a hardwood forest,dominated by oak, hickory and poplar. Recentestimates place the age of much of this stand onthe order 100 to 150 years (Tice 1980). Was thisthe condition of the site when Hemings occupiedit 200 years ago? Evidence to address thisquestion can be had from phytoliths, microscopicsilica bodies that many plant species build in theinterstices between their cells. Aspects of cellularstructure are preserved in phytoliths. To theextent that structure is taxonomically distinctive,phytolith shapes offers clues about the kinds of

plants that produced the phytoliths.Seventeen phytolith samples were

collected from the Hemings site. The samplescame from eight discrete locations: four near thecobble scatter, three adjacent to the house, and asingle sample on the western extremity of the site.The sample locations were chosen to make itpossible to study, at a gross level, spatial variationin vegetation cover across the site, with the houseand cobble scatter as central features of interestand the western most sample as an “off-site”control (Figure 29). At seven of the samplelocations, two samples were retrieved from the A-horizon at depths of 0.3 and 0.5 feet. Two ofthese locations, both near the house, yielded onlya single sample with enough phytoliths forcounting (Samples 270 and 254, see Figure 29).Three samples were taken from the eighthlocation at depths of 0.3, 0.5 and 0.75 feet. Thedifferent sample depths were intended to capturechange over time in phytolith frequency.

39

Figure 29. Phytolith sample locations denoted by their sample number.

The phytolith identifications reportedhere were carried out by Dr. Lisa Kealhofer at theColonial Williamsburg Phytolith Lab (Kealhofer1998). Phytolith samples were processed bystandardized techniques outlined by Piperno(1988), with a few modification in chemicals usedand processing times. Soil processing for themostly clay Piedmont soils required approximatelytwo months before the identification andquantification of the phytoliths commenced.After removal from the sediment matrix, thephytoliths were mounted on microscope slidesand viewed at 400-times magnification.

The silica bodies were classified in detailby shape. Groups of shapes were in turn assignedto sub-families of the grasses (Pooideae, Panicoideae,Chloridoideae, and Bambusoideae), the arborealdicots, and to two families of herbaceous plants(Cyperaceae, Compositae). With very few exceptions,phytolith analysis is not refined enough to identifyphytolith shapes to the species or even genuslevels. However, assignment of phytoliths to oneof the seven major taxonomic groups mentionedabove is still very helpful in interpreting pastmicro-environments at Monticello. In this reportwe describe patterning among these seven majortaxa, and leave a discussion of variation inphytolith shape classes for a future occasion. The

grass sub-families are of special analytical interest.The Pooid grasses are generally found in cool, dryand open environments. Some members of thissub-family include the European cultigens ofwheat, oats, and barley. The panicoid grassesthrive in warm, wet environments. Corn (maize)is a panicoid grass. Chloridoid grasses, on theother hand, tend to be found in hot, dry areassuch as pastures or other open grasslands. Mostchloridoid species tolerate the extremes of hightemperatures and aridity better than the othergrasses.

Most panicoid and chloridoid species usethe C-4 photosynthetic pathway and are native tothe New World. Most pooid grasses use the C-3pathway and, in a Virginia context, many are OldWorld Natives. Finally, the Bambusoideae arebest suited for wet environments, and are foundpredominantly within the tropics and sub-tropics.Rice is one member of this sub-family (Twiss1992). The distinctive habitat preferences of thepanicoid, chloridoid, and pooid groups raise thepossibility of using phytoliths frequencies inhabitat reconstruction. The correlation with Oldand New World origins in a Virginia contextraises the additional possibility that change ingrass phytolith frequencies may reflect ecologicalreplacement of native by European grasses.

40

Recent research into the moderndistribution of these sub-families of grasses showthat within Virginia, the Pooid grasses comprise,on average, forty percent of the total grassspecies. Panicoid grasses make up thirty percent,the Chloridoids approximately fifteen percent,and the Bambusoids another five percent (Table2) (Twiss 1992). Comparing these data to theHemings phytolith samples presents manyproblems. First, the frequencies listed in Table 2are for the entire state of Virginia, and it is notknown how much the Piedmont region in general,and Monticello specifically, deviates from thenorm. Second, the frequencies reflect the numberof grass species within each taxon, and not thenumber of individual plants, or the amount ofphytoliths that each plant generates. No work hasdetermined the relationship between speciesnumbers and the number of phytoliths theyproduce. Finally, with the introduction of manyexotic plants over the last two centuries, themodern frequencies are most likely not applicableto the past. Recent analysis, in fact, raises thepossibility that there was a general replacement ofnative panicoid grasses by exotic pooids duringJefferson’s lifetime (Metz et. al. 2000; Sullivan

1999, and see below).A simple approach to analyzing the

phytolith data is to compare variation amongsamples in the relative frequency of pairs ofphytolith taxa, where the taxon pairs have beenchosen to emphasize the habitat and ecologicalcorrelates outlined above. Consider firststratigraphic trends, as measured by phytolithtotals at the .3 and .5-foot depths, summed acrossall sample locations (Table 3). There is astatistically significant decrease in the C4 Index,computed as C4/(C4+C3), 45% in the .5-footlevels to 41 % in the .3-foot levels. This is drivenby a decrease in the chloridoid grasses, relative tothe pooids. In addition, the Panicoid Index(panicoid/(panicoid+pooid)) decreases slightlyfrom 24% to 22%. A negative correlationbetween the arboreal index and the C4 index iswhat we might expect, if the local ecology wereleft to its own devices: fewer trees shouldencourage the proliferation of heat and drought-tolerant C4 grasses. As we have seen, however,the temporal trend at the site is the reverse: fewertrees are accompanied by decreases in C4 grasses.This supports the idea that C3 grasses increasedin frequency over time at Monticello and that the

Level C4 Index PanicoidIndex

ChloridoidIndex

ArborealIndex

HerbaceousIndex

.30 feet 0.41 0.22 0.28 0.25 0.10

.50 feet 0.45 0.24 0.33 0.32 0.02

.75 feet 0.48 0.37 0.25 0.23 0.02

Table 3. Variation in relative frequencies of phytolith taxa by depth. Note that there is asingle sediment sample from the .75-foot level, while the other levels have 6 samples each. Theavailability of only a single sample may explain apparently anomalous values for the .75-footlevel.

Grass Sub- Commonly Known Modern EnvironmentFamily Members FrequencyPooideae wheat, barley, oats 40% dry, cool, openPanicoideae corn (maize) 30% warm, wetChloridoideae 15% hot, dryBambusoideae rice 5% wet

Table 2. Relative frequencies of grass sub-families expressed in percent of species in totalgrass flora. Data extrapolated from frequency maps.

41

increase was helped along by human introductionand manipulation.

In addition to the shift in grass species atthe site, there was also a change in tree cover. TheArboreal Index (arboreal/(arboreal+grass))decreases significantly over time at the site, goingfrom 32% in the .5-foot samples to 25% in the .3-foot samples. This is further supported by aparallel increase from 2% to 10% in theH e r b a c e o u s I n d e x ( h e r b a c e o u s /(herbaceous+arboreal)). As the tree cover wasremoved, shrubs increased.

How did the timing of this change relateto the Hemings occupation? The .3-footphytolith samples came from a zone just belowthe A-horizon that had developed since theabandonment of the site. Hence they reflect, in ageneral way, conditions at the site when it wasoccupied. The differences between the uppersamples and the lower samples taken at .5 feetrepresents the general direction of change overtime. It is likely that the lower samples containphytoliths that were initially deposited when thesite was occupied and the upper samples containphytoliths deposited after the site was abandoned.This movement down the stratigraphic column isan expected consequence of illuviation andbioturbation. The direction of change leading upto the Hemings occupation is clear and indicatesthat when Hemings lived at the site, it was notforested as it is today.

The phytolith sampling campaign offersa glimpse of spatial variation at the site as well(Table 4). The predominance of chloridoidgrasses in all the samples (see below) suggests thatmuch of the spatial variation monitored dates toa time when the site was open. The C4 Index isgreater in the samples distant from the Hemingshouse. Statistically significant variation in bothchloridoid and panicoid grasses, relative to

pooids, drives this contrast. Note that theArboreal Index displays precisely the oppositepattern, with significantly higher frequencies oftree phytoliths in the samples close to the house. The logical inference is that the area adjacent tothe house had a higher density of trees than didthe areas further away, which were dominated bygrasses adapted to hot and dry conditions. Thispattern of spatial variation matches the ecologicalexpectation of the a negative correlation betweenthe arboreal index and the C4 index. Note that thearea with higher tree density corresponds to thesite core, as defined by the cost surface analysis.The preservation of trees adjacent to Hemings’shouse would have offered the advantages ofshade.

So far our discussion has highlightedgross trends in phytolith frequency in time andspace. It was worth noting that depth and samplelocation, taken one at a time or together, do notfully explain variation in phytolith frequencyamong the individual samples. One symptom ofthis unexplained variation is the fact that thedifferences between the .3 and .5-foot phytolithsamples from a given location to not necessarilymatch the depth trend for the entire site.Statistical modeling of phytolith frequencyvariation using multinomial logistic regressionreveals that, for the most part, these departurescannot be explained as sampling error. There areseveral possible explanations. As we have seen, itis evident that there is considerable movement ofphytoliths in the actively weathering soil horizonon the site. Illuviation and bioturbation guaranteethat the phytolith assemblages from a given depthare massively time-averaged. If movement ratesvary among sample locations, and they almostcertainly do, then phytolith samples from thesame depth will sample different periods of time.A second possibility is that the phytolith counts

Location C4 Index PanicoidIndex

ChloridoidIndex

ArborealIndex

HerbaceousIndex

Cobbles 0.44 0.26 0.30 0.26 0.06 House 0.34 0.16 0.24 0.36 0.06 "Off Site" 0.52 0.30 0.40 0.25 0.02

Table 4. Variation in relative frequencies of phytolith taxa by location.

42

Garden

HemHem

Hem Hem

Hem

HemHem

HemHem Hem

Hem

Hem

Hem

Hem

Hem

E.Tri.

TerraceFill

TerraceFill

N.Tri.

N.Tri.

OrchardWPS

WPS

WPS

WPS

S6S6

S6

S6

S6S6

S.Tri.

S.Tri.

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SSSS

SS

SSSS

SS

GardenW.Tri.

W.Tri.

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2ln(Arboreal/Grass)

ln(C

4/C

3)

Figure 30. Plot of logratios for C3 vs. C4 grass phytoliths and arboreal vs. grass phytoliths. The Hemings Site samples aredenoted by “Hem”. Samples from other locations at Monticello are shown for comparative purposes. Terrace Fill: samples fromsoil horizons buried by the construction of Jefferson’s garden terrace in 1809; N, S, E, and W Tti: samples from Jefferson’splanting beds in the tops of the north, south, east and west corner triangles of Monticello Mansion; Garden and Orchard: modernreference samples from currently cultivated beds in the vegetable garden and from the surface of the South Orchard; SS: samplesfrom sediment eroded into the South Spring drainage after 1830, but before 1900.

may not be statistically independent of oneanother, as is assumed in the binomial andmultinomial sampling models that are the basisfor statistical evaluation. In other words, thepresence of one tree phytolith in a sample maymake the presence of another one more likely.This kind of statistical “contagion” in counts ofindividual taxa would result from the fact thatphytoliths enter the archaeological record inclumps (e.g. a leaf) and not one at a time. It islikely that both these factors explain idiosyncraticsample variation at the Hemings site. Clearly theissue of phytolith taphonomy in pedogeniccontexts requires further exploration. The kindof fine-grained vertical sampling (e.g. at .1-footintervals down a soil horizon) required to clarifythis issue is a high priority for future research.

Additional light on the environmental

implications of the Hemings phytolithassemblages can be had by comparing them tophytolith samples from elsewhere at Monticello.We chose scatter plots as the most effectivemeans of doing this. In order to enhance ourability to see patterns in these data, we used log-ratio transformations (Aitcheson 1982). Logratioanalogs of the various indices used above werecomputed by adding 0.5 to all counts, dividingone count by its companion, and transforming tonatural logs before plotting. These steps reducethe distorting effects of outlier values and zerocounts, and improve symmetry of the marginaldistributions As an aid in reading the graphs,recall that the log of 1 is 0. Hence samples withnegative log ratio of 1 have equal frequencies ofthe two phytolith taxa used in the ratio.

Consider first the plot of C3/C4 and

43

W.Tri.

W.Tri.

Garden

SS

SS

SS

SS

SSSS

SS

SSSS

SS

SS

S.Tri.

S.Tri.

S6

S6

S6

S6

S6

S6

WPS

WPS

WPS

WPS

WPS

Orchard

Orchard

N.Tri.

N.Tri.

TerraceFill

TerraceFill

TerraceFill

E.Tri.

E.Tri.

HemHemHem

Hem

Hem

Hem

HemHem

Hem

Hem

Hem

Hem

Hem

HemHem

Garden

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

ln(Panicoid/Pooid)

ln(C

hlor

idoi

d/Po

oid)

Figure 31. Logratio plots for chloridoid vs. pooid and panicoid vs. pooid grasses. Labels are the same as in Figure 30.

Arboreal/Grass ratios (Figure 30). Thepredominance of negative values in the y-axisindicates that nearly all the Monticello samples aredominated by C3 or pooid grasses. However isits clear that nearly all the Hemings samples arericher in C4 grasses than nearly all other samples.The most important exception is three samplesfrom the fill that comprises the vegetable gardenterrace, completed in 1809. The terrace fill isderived from topsoil that covered an earliervegetable garden in the same location. Thehistorically documented cultivation of corn in thisearlier vegetable garden is a partial explanation forthe elevated C4 ratios. If the terrace C4 ratios area typical signature for sustained maize cultivationin a garden context, then the sampled locationson the Hemings site never saw this activity.

Variation among the sites in the arborealratio lends support to our earlier conclusion thatmost of the sampled locations at the Hemings sitewere denuded of trees at the time of theoccupation and later reforested. If this is correct,then we can expect areas on the mountain that

have never been reforested since they wereinitially cleared in the 18th century to have lowerarboreal ratios than Hemings. Two such areascan be identified. The first is the modern orchard,which has been in grass from Jefferson’s timeuntil today. The second is the fill beneath thevegetable garden terrace, which represents an areacleared by Jefferson in the 18th century and thensealed in 1809. The Orchard samples are a time-averaged mixture of two centuries of grass coverand the pre-Jefferson forest. The garden terracesamples represent a similar mixture, but with onlyseveral decades of grass cover before begin sealed.It makes sense then that the mean arboreal ratiofor the orchard samples (-2.19) is lower than themean for the garden terrace (-1.4), which is inturn lower than the mean for the Hemings site (-.99).

The logratio plot for Chloridoid/Pooidand Panicoid/Pooid grasses further increases ourunderstanding of the Hemings site assemblages(Figure 31). The Hemings samples have highestchloridoid ratios, matched only by the garden

44

terrace and one of the modern orchard samples.Both the latter areas have southern exposures andwere denuded of tree cover, confirming that asimilar situation once existed at the Hemings site.The cause of the extraordinarily high C4/C3 ratiovalues in the garden terrace samples is nowevident: the superabundance of panicoid grasses,the subfamily to which maize belongs. Thepattern further weighs against the cultivation ofmaize in the sampled locations of the Hemingssite.

45

4. ArtifactsCeramicsThe artifact assemblage recovered from theElizabeth Hemings site was relatively small, notsurprising given that the dwelling was inhabitedfor only about a decade and probably by a singleindividual. Recovered sherds point to over thirtyceramic vessels, however, and these were almostexclusively creamware, pearlware, and Chineseporcelain. A half dozen upholstery tacks, twobuttons, a woman’s brass shoe buckle, and a slatepencil add to the archaeological inventory ofhousehold goods. Aside from a small amount oftable and bottle glass, the remainder of theassemblage consisted largely of architecturaldebris, that is, nails and fragmented brick.

A primary analytical tool applied to theartifact assemblage was a conservative, orminimum count of individual ceramic vessels asrepresented by the excavated sherds. ThisMinimum Vessel Count offers only a partialimage of Elizabeth Hemings’ goods related tofood consumption; unrepresented are thosevessels that probably were removed to otherhouseholds upon her death, and not seen are thepewter vessels that might have comprised part ofthis assemblage. Nonetheless, the ceramic sherdsoffer some indication of ware and vessel typesused during Hemings’s occupation of the site.

Analysis of the ceramic assemblagerevealed a minimum of 33 vessels. Fourteenpearlware vessels comprised 42.42% of that total;nine creamware and eight Chinese porcelainvessels represented 27.27% and 24.24%respectively. One blackglazed redware vessel and

one white saltglazed stoneware, decorated with a“debased” scratch blue design, each represented3.03% of the assemblage. A pearlware platefragment, whose evenly scalloped, straight-linedshell edge dates from after the time of Hemings’s1807 death (c.1810-30), was not included in thevessel count. Similarly, a Rockingham jar rimdating post-1830 was not included, as it clearlypostdates Hemings’s occupation of the site. Bothof these vessels were excluded from furtheranalysis.

Aside from the preponderance ofpearlware, the vessel count revealed somecorrespondence between ware type and vesselform: pearlware and Chinese porcelain vesselswere mostly flatwares, or dinnerwares, whilecreamware vessels were mostly tea wares (Table5). Half of the pearlware vessels weredinnerwares: six plates and one platter, out of atotal of fourteen vessels (one can, two saucers,three bowls, and a chamberpot completed theassemblage of pearlware) (Figure 32). All butone of the Chinese porcelain vessels wereflatware: five plates and two platters (theremaining vessel being a tea bowl). By contrast,the majority (67%) of creamware vessels wereteawares: three tea bowls and three saucers (theremaining creamware is represented by fragmentsof a possible creamer, a single plate, and achamberpot). The blackglazed redware vessel wasan unidentified hollow form, as was the whitesaltglazed vessel (though the latter probably wasa chamberpot). This relation between vessel formand ware type was noted earlier, along with acorresponding spatial distribution pattern of thediscarded sherds and will be discussed in more

Flatwares Hollow Formsplate platter Total tea bowl saucer bowl can creamer ch. pot unid Total

pearlware 6 1 7 2 3 1 1 7porcelain 5 2 7 1 1creamware 1 1 3 3 1 1 8white salt 1 1 glazeblackglazed 1 1 redwareTotal 12 3 15 4 5 3 1 1 3 1 18

Table 5. Minimum vessel count for the Elizabeth Hemings site.

46

Figure 32. Pearlware bowl recovered from the ElizabethHemings site.

detail below.Twenty-nine vessels from the Hemings

occupation could be dated solidly and were usedto produce a mean ceramic date of 1790.3 (Table6) (see South 1977:210-212). This averaged datereflects an assemblage that included older andwell-used creamware, pearlware, and porcelainvessels, along with several pieces of more recentlyacquired pearlware.

It is instructive to look at the vesselsindividually. With the exception of an overglazepainted saucer all of Elizabeth Hemings’screamware was undecorated; all creamware pieceshowever were very light in tint, placing theirprobable manufacture after the mid-1770s.Missing were annular decorated vessels thatbecame common c. 1790. Among the pearlware,Hemings’s shell-edged plates were all the rococostyle popular from 1780-1810; two were greenedged, three were blue. A blue, rococo shell-edged platter had additional moldings of beadsand swags; it is contemporaneous with the plates.An additional plate/platter, painted with a bluefloral motif, also dates from this period.Numerous cuts or scratches in the glaze attest toheavy and/or long use. A slop bowl, saucer, andchamberpot painted in blue with floral or Chinesemotifs date c. 1780-1810 as well. More up-to-datewere a polychrome painted saucer and can, orsmall mug (date range 1795-1830), and an annulardecorated bowl (1790-1820). Three of theporcelain plates recovered from Hemings’s yardmidden were painted with Nanking II-style motifsthat date from 1785-1800; all three featured a

“blue willow-” type landscape in the central panel.A “blue trellis” border (1690-1790) encircled therim of a fourth plate while a fifth had a simple,hatched border. “Blue spearhead” motifsdecorated a fairly old (1735-1770), octagonal-rimmed plate/platter, and a tea bowl also had a“blue trellis” border. All of the porcelain waspainted in blue under the glaze; there were nooverglaze enamels or gilding. The single whitesaltglazed stoneware vessel, a globular,unidentified hollow form (probably a chamberpot), was decorated with a “debased” scratch bluefloral motif that dates c.1765-1790 (for more ondates of porcelain decoration motifs, see Madsen1995).

The ceramic assemblage from theHemings site offers unique analyticalopportunities at several spatial and temporal

WARE AND DECORATIVE MOTIF DATE RANGE COUNT MEDIAN DATE

white saltglazed stoneware, debased scratch blue 1765-1790 1 1777.5creamware, lighter tint 1775-1820 9 1797.5pearlware, rococo molded 1780-1810 6 1795pearlware blue painted wares, chinoiserie 1775-1810 4 1792.5pearlware, annular/"warm" polychrome hues 1795-1830 3 1805Chinese porcelain, Nanking II pattern 1785-1800 3 1792.5Chinese porcelain "Blue Trellis" motif 1690-1790 2 1740Chinese porcelain "Blue Spearhead" motif 1735-1770 1 1752.5

mean ceramic date = 1790.3

Table 6. Mean ceramic date for the Elizabeth Hemings.

47

scales. Taking advantage of them requirescomparison of the Hemings assemblage withMonticello assemblages excavated from sitesalong Mulberry Row in the 1980s and from theStewart-Watkins site in 1990. As we shall see, theStewart Site provides a particularly informativecomparison, given its almost precisecontemporaneity with the Hemings occupation.

Consumption Patterns for Plates, Tea Bowls and SaucersCeramic data from these sites need to beunderstood in the context of long-term trends inthe consumption of stylish ceramics that sweptthe Chesapeake and the rest of the Atlantic worldin the 18th and early 19th centuries. During thelate 17th and early 18th eighteenth centuries,consumers replaced traditional pewter drinkingvessels with newly fashionable ceramic onessupplied by Staffordshire earthenware andstoneware potters and by German stonewarepotters. This change is registered in a dramaticincrease in the relative frequency of cups andmugs in the Chesapeake archaeological record (e.g.Neiman 1980; Beaudry et al. 1981). The early 18th

century also witnessed the emergence among thewealthy of entirely novel ceramic vessel shapes--tea bowls and saucers--required to executeproperly the social rituals surrounding teaconsumption (Roth 1961). Evidence fromprobate inventories indicates that by theAmerican Revolution most Chesapeakehouseholds contained at least one piece of thespecial equipment required to drink tea (Carr andWalsh 1994). Over the course of the last half ofthe 18th century, consumers in the Chesapeakeand the rest of the English-speaking Atlanticworld replaced their traditional pewter diningvessels with fashionable creamware, pearlware,and Chinese porcelain plates (Martin 1994).Martin has shown, using probate inventoryevidence from Albemarle county, among othersources, that during its heyday pewter wasubiquitous in households at even the lowesteconomic and social levels, including householdsof slaves. The demise of pewter is currently bestdocumented in data garnered from store invoicesfrom Virginia and Maryland. Pewter platesdeclined from 73% to 2% of plates available forpurchase between 1750 and 1810 (Martin 1989).These trends in ceramic usage are a part of a

larger historical phenomenon, recognized byarchaeologists as “Georgianization” (Deetz 1988,Leone 1988) and by social historians as the“consumer revolution” (e.g. Carson 1994).

To what extent were Monticello’sresidents participants in these developments?Getting an answer to this question fromarchaeological evidence requires a measure ofvessel frequency that is sensitive to variation indiscard rates, and use frequencies that drive them,among Monticello sites. Here we use twomeasures, the Plate index and the Tea Index. ThePlate index (PI) is estimated as:

PI = plates (plates + bowls+ mugs)

where the numbers that comprise the index areestimates of the minimum number of vessels ofeach shape in the assemblage in question. The teaIndex (TI) is estimated in a similar fashion.

TI = (tea bowls + tea saucers) (tea bowls + tea saucers + bowls + mugs)

These indices have an advantage over simplepercentages of the entire ceramic assemblage.They avoid spurious negative correlations inducedby the closed-sum constraint. For example, ahigh percentage of tea wares might not be alarger-than-normal number of tea wares; insteadit might result from a low number of some othercategory. The assumption here of course is thatmug and bowl discard rates remained relativelyconstant.

It is clear that there is both substantivelyand statistically significant variation amongMonticello sites in PI values (Figure 33). Despitegaps in our knowledge of the archaeologicalchronology of Mulberry Row sites, there is goodevidence for increases over time in PI values. PIvalues are lowest in the Dry Well and Building oassemblages. The Dry Well assemblage is derivedfrom the clay fill of a cool storage facility that wasabandoned before it could be completed in the1770s. The feature’s proximity to Mulberry Rowand Monticello’s original kitchen dependencysuggests that the assemblage derives from slavesliving and working in that facility (cf. Crader 1990,

48

Dry Well

o

lSmoke House

r

s

t

StewartHemings

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Site

Plat

e In

dex

Figure 33. Plate index values with exact 95% confidence limits for 7 MulberryRow Sites and the Hemings and Stewart Sites. The Dry Well and Building osites are known to be significantly earlier than the rest.

HemingsStewart

t

s

r

Smoke Housel

o

Dry Well

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Site

Tea

Inde

x

Figure 34. Tea index values with exact 95% confidence limits for 7 MulberryRow sites and the Hemings and Stewart Sites.

49

Kelso 1997). Building o is located on MulberryRow, and its occupation is currently thought tohave ended by 1800 (Kelso 1997). Significantlyhigher PI values are found at the other fiveMulberry Row assemblages, from Buildings r, s, t,l, and the Smokehouse-Dairy (m). Chronologicalcontrol is poor, but the bulk of these assemblagesis thought to date to the 1790s and the early1800s (Kelso 1997). The Hemings and Stewart PIvalues are slightly greater than the values for thelater Mulberry Row sites, with the exception ofthe anomalously high values for Building r. Thetentative conclusion is that enslaved and freelaborers at Monticello, like most Chesapeakeresidents, were increasing their investments instylish ceramic plates at the expense of pewter.Elizabeth Hemings was a participant in this trend.

A similar pattern emerges for the TIvalues (Figure 34). Tea vessel discard ratesclearly increased over time. Among the laterMulberry Row sites, Building r again emerges withan anomalously high value and it is nearlymatched by the Stewart assemblage. The Hemingssite falls in line with the later pattern of higher teavessel frequency found on Mulberry Row. It isclear then that tea vessel discard rates increasedalong Mulberry Row during the late 18th and early19th centuries. However, it is also evident thatthere is considerable variation among the latersites for both TI and PI values. In addition, thisvariation is strongly correlated: sites with higherTI values have higher PI values. For example, theHemings Site has the second highest PI value andthe third highest TI value in the sample.

What might this correlated variationmean? Our current working hypothesis is that TIand PI both measure the amount of resources thatindividuals responsible for an assemblage werewilling to expend on acquiring ceramics of little orno practical utility. In other words, TI and PIrepresent forms of conspicuous consumption(Veblen 1899). Conspicuous consumption is aform of social advertising or costly signaling(Boone 1998; Neiman 1997; Smith and BliegeBird 2000). In this model, social advertising isengineered to faithfully reflect the costs that mustbe born to maintain it. The costs that individualsare willing to bear for social advertising are afunction of the level of material and socialresources to which they have access and the

payoffs to letting others know it. Payoffs increaseas familiarity between advertisers and receiversdeclines and as individuals’s resource levelsbecome more difficult for receivers to ascertaindirectly, without the help of cues fromconspicuous consumption (Neiman 1997).Conspicuous consumption is an advertisingstrategy in which signalers attempt to attractuseful social allies and deter competitors bysending costly signals of their social and economicpower that cannot be counterfeited.

If this is right, then our results indicatethat levels of resource access and/or theadvertising payoff increased at Monticello overtime and that the Hemings assemblage falls at thehigher end of the continuum, although its smallsample size and correspondingly large confidencelimits add uncertainty. Additional uncertainty isforthcoming from the poor chronological controlfor the Mulberry Row assemblages. For example,it is not clear that the Building r assemblage’s PIand TI values are high because the assemblage ismuch later in time than the others, or because theindividuals who generated it invested significantlymore resources in social advertizing than theircontemporaries. If time proves not to be asignificant factor, then one could conclude thatresource access levels and/or advertising payoffswere higher for Elizabeth Hemings, the enslavedresidents of building r, who themselves may havebeen her descendants, and for the free blacksmithWilliam Stewart. This would make sense to theextent that the social and economic resources ofthe Hemings site’s and Building r ’s residentsdepended on maintenance of favorablerelationships with Jefferson and his white family,relationships whose character was difficult forothers to judge without material cues. Stewart,despite the fact that he was free, may have been ina similar position, although freedom brought bothgreater economic resources and more contactswith people who were unfamiliar with theMonticello social scene. Ongoing research,conducted as part of the Mulberry RowReassessment Project and aimed at finer-grainedchronological control of these assemblages shouldclarify the picture considerably.

Cost Implications of Ceramic Plate Discard RatesThe forgoing reading of assemblage variation

50

depends on the assumption that both PI and TIare correlated with the costs incurred by anassemblage’s users. The case is easier to make forTI values. After all, ceramic tea vessels representan entirely novel form of expenditure, and themore tea you drink, the more tea ceramic vesselsyou break. The case is not as clear cut for ceramicplates because they are replacements for plates inanother material: pewter. Because they arereplacements, the crucial question is whether ornot maintaining a household with ceramic plateswas more costly than pewter plates. TheHemings assemblage offers a path to an answer.

We can make a start toward that answeras follows. The total cost per year (T) to anindividual opting to use a vessel in a givenmaterial is a function of the costs of acquiring avessel (c), the proportion of the acquisition costthat may be recouped after vessel failure throughrecycling (r) , and the number of vessels that mustbe acquired per year to replace failed vessels (n):

T= c(1-r)n

In order to estimate the cost of ceramic plateusage relative to pewter, we need to haveestimates of each of these quantities for bothmaterials, or their ratios. The Hemings siteprovides some of the necessary information. Thespatially extensive sampling strategy allows us touse the Minimum Number of Vessels for plates asan estimate of the total number of platesdiscarded at the site during the occupation. As wehave seen, documents indicate that Hemings livedat the site from 1795 to 1807. This yields a platediscard rate of 1.25 plate/person/year (=15 platesand platters /[1 person × 12 years]). The Stewartassemblage yields a lower estimate of 0.74plates/person/year, although here the estimate iscomplicated by the presence of 5 children whoaccount for 30 person-years, in addition toStewart himself (6 person-years) and his wife (2person-years).

Store accounts from the last quarter ofthe 18th century in Virginia reveal that the cost ofan English-made creamware plate was 25% of thecost of a pewter one, while a Chinese porcelainplate cost nearly as much as pewter. Hence aconservative estimate of the relative value of c for aceramic plate is .25, relative to a value for pewter

of 1. Newspaper ads and probate inventoriesreveal that individuals wishing to unload theirworn pewter vessels could expect to recover 40%of the original cost (Martin 1989:179). This leavesus with a single missing value: the number ofpewter vessels (n) that must be replaced each year(or its reciprocal, the use life of a pewter vessel).The data necessary to estimate this value areunavailable. However, it is possible to concludethat, given the Hemings plate breakage rates,ceramic plates would have been more costly thanpewter for all n values for pewter less than .52, orfor a mean use life for a pewter plate greater than1.9 years. The corresponding values for theStewart data are .31 pewter plate/year and 3.2years. If pewter plates lasted more than 2-3 yearson average, then running a household with eventhe cheapest available ceramic plates (creamware)was more costly than running a household withpewter plates. This result offers independentsupport for the idea that greater PI values atMonticello register greater social advertising costs.It also suggests that by replacing pewter plateswith ceramic ones, consumers across theChesapeake saddled themselves with similarlyincreased advertizing costs, a change thatpresumably was underwritten by increased wealthlevels or advertising payoffs or both. Teasingapart the causal processes involved at Monticelloand elsewhere is a goal for future research.

Ceramic Ware Types and Vessel ShapesElizabeth Hemings not only had access tofashionable ceramics, she was apparently selectivein what was acquired. Her choices contrast ininteresting ways with those of the free blacksmithStewart. Over 90 percent of ceramic vessels inboth assemblages occur in creamware, pearlware,and Chinese porcelain. However tea vessels andplates were distributed across the three ware typesin radically different patterns at each site. Inaddition, these patterns differed between the twosites.

Understanding this variation requiresknowing something about the acquisition costsfor ware types in question. Multiple sources ofevidence indicate that creamware vessels wereconsiderably cheaper than pearlware or Chineseporcelain. Store invoices indicate that a shell-edged pearlware plate cost about 1.5 times a

51

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Creamware Pearlware Porcelain

Ware Type

Rela

tive

Freq

uenc

y

Stewart

Hemings

Figure 35. Proportion of plates and platters that occur in different ceramicware types at the Hemings and Stewart Sites.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Creamware Pearlware Porcelain

Ware Type

Rela

tive

Freq

uenc

y

Stewart

Hemings

Figure 36. Proportion of tea cups and saucers that occur in different waretypes at the Hemings and Stewart Sites.

52

creamware plate by about 1800. Cost differentialsfor painted pearlware tea vessels were similar(~1.5-2.0) at this time (Miller 1991). Our currentbest evidence for the cost of Chinese porcelaindates to the 1770s. At that time the cheapestporcelain teacups and saucers were roughly twiceas expensive as their creamware equivalents. Thecheapest porcelain plates, on the other hand, werealmost six times as expensive as creamwareflatwares (Martin 1994:181).

Consider first plates and platters. AsFigure 35 reveals, over 90 percent of Hemings’sflatwares occurred in more costly porcelain andpearlware, while she owned only a singlecreamware plate. The pattern for Stewart was thereverse. Over 60 percent of Stewart’s plates werecreamware. The difference is statisticallysignificant. Thus Hemings’s plates were morecostly than Stewart’s. When we consider teawares, we see precisely the opposite pattern(Figure 36). Sixty-seven percent of Hemings’stea wares were cheap creamware, while over 85percent of Stewart’s were in more costly pearlwareand porcelain. Again the difference is statisticallysignificant.

If ceramic dining and tea drinking vesselswere forms of social advertising, then Hemings’sand Stewart’s signaling strategies differed.Hemings invested more advertising effort indining vessels and less in tea vessels, while Stewartinvested more heavily in tea vessels than in diningvessels. It is worth noting that this differencemay also be registered in the fact that the Stewartassemblage TI values are greater than theHemings assemblage (Figure 34).

What might account for this mirror-image pattern? One possibility is that it betrays adifference in the contexts for social display in thetwo households. Stewart and his family used theemerging ritual of tea consumption to impressunfamiliar competitors and allies, while apparentlydining with individuals who were already familiarwith their social and economic ability. ForHemings, meals were the venue for signaling toothers, while tea drinking was more of a privateaffair. More work is needed to determine if thispattern holds for the rest of Monticello’s enslavedworkforce.

GlassAnalysis of table glass (colorless, leaded glass),wine bottles, and other bottle fragments alsoresulted in minimum vessel counts for thoseartifact groups. Elizabeth Hemings had at leastthree stemmed drinking vessels, or wine glasses.Copper wheel engraving decorated a sherd froman unidentified vessel, possibly one of the aboveglasses. Three wine bottles were represented inthe artifact assemblage: two English bottles andone French bottle. Also present in theassemblage were fragments of an aqua, glasspharmaceutical phial and an aqua, glass jar/bottle.

Architectural MaterialsThe architectural debris encountered at theHemings site included some three dozen hand-molded bricks and brick bats (broken bricksretaining two measurable surfaces). All wereoverfired and/or warped. (An additional sixteenpounds of fragments, equaling roughly fourbricks, were also recovered.) Jefferson had brickmade on the plantation for the ongoingconstruction and renovation of the mansion; thebricks found on the Hemings site appear to havebeen “wasters” (bricks ruined in the firingprocess) that were unsuitable for this purpose andwere instead used in the construction of theHemings dwelling. The ruined brick included onewatertable brick, one a cavetto-molded section(similar to those used in Jefferson’s chimneymoldings), and four other fragments of specially-molded brick. Most of the bricks and brick batswere concentrated in the hearth feature.

Only 17 sherds of window glass wererecovered from the site; together they make upless than one 12" by 12" pane of glass (thestandard size in Jefferson’s day [McLaughlin1988:164]). While small in number, the windowglass sherds suggest that the dwelling had at leastone glazed window.

Finally, the site produced a sizablequantity of nails, most of which were wrought.Preservation was fairly good, due in part to theferrous sediments of the site; this allowed foridentification not only of the manufacturingtechnique (wrought or machine-cut) but also ofshank length. As discussed in Chapter 3 nailsoccurred in two length categories, roughlycorresponding to nails used for finishing work

53

Figure 37. Miscellaneous artifacts recovered from theBetty Hemings site including copper alloy upholstery tacks(upper right), lead shot (lower right), slate pencil fragment(lower left), copper alloy buttons (upper left), and copperalloy shoe buckle (center).

and for basic construction. Nail fragmentsdenoted shafts (with or without ends) with headsno longer extant, and while they were cataloged,fragments were not included in any counts. Atotal of 811 nails were recovered.

Wrought nails comprised 90.63% of thetotal (735 out of 811). They were divided nearlyequally in terms of size: 49.52% measuredbetween two and four inches in length, and39.86% were less than two inches; 10.61% wereof indeterminate length, the points not beingextant. Most of the wrought nails had faceted“roseheads;” L-headed, T-headed, and headlessnails were fewer in number. One horseshoe nailand one strake nail (used to attach an iron band or“tire” to the wooden wheel of a wagon orcarriage) probably attest to the proximity of theThird Roundabout.

Machine-cut nails made up only 9.37% ofthe assemblage; nearly all (64 out of 76) measuredless than two inches. Of these short nails,nineteen were hand-headed, 5 had L-heads, fourhad machined, square heads, two were headless,and 34 had heads of indeterminate manufacture.Seven machine-cut nails measured between twoand four inches; all were hand-headed except forone indeterminate head. Of five nails ofindeterminate length, two were hand-headed, onehad a machined, square head and two wereindeterminate. The preponderance of shortlengths and hand-headed manufacture indicatesthat these nails date from the late eighteenth-earlynineteenth century, when production of machine-cut nails began.

MiscellaneousAs noted above, Elizabeth Hemings’s recoverablehousehold goods included furniture tacks,buttons, a shoe buckle, and a slate pencil fragment(Figure 37). The six copper alloy upholsterytacks, with domed heads and square-sided shaftswith pointed ends all measured approximately onecentimeter, both in length and head diameter.Upholstery tacks secured leather or fabriccovering to chairs, and leather straps to woodentrunks. Both buttons were one-piece, pewterdisks with loop shanks. The small, copper alloyshoe buckle was decorated with a chased designand fit the shoe of a woman or adolescent. Threepieces of lead round shot and one fragment of

scrap lead were also found, as was a slate pencil.The slate pencil was seven-sided, half a centimeterin diameter, and measured just 3.8 cm in length.

54

5. SummaryThe archaeological investigation at the ElizabethHemings site provided for the first time insightinto the life of an enslaved African Americanliving off of Mulberry Row. The projectinvestigated how the site location fit into thelarger Monticello Plantation. It revealed that whatinitially appeared to be an isolated site location,was actually a central location between importantsources of water and Mulberry Row whereHemings’s children and grandchildren workedand lived.

Archaeological testing showed thatElizabeth Hemings lived for the last decade of herlife (approximately 1795 until 1807) in a singleroom structure approximately fourteen by twelvefeet in size. The house was most likely built oflogs and contained at least one glazed window,and a 7.5 foot square hearth. The lack of greatquantities of brick and stone and moreimportantly a chimney prop post hole showedconclusively that Hemings’s chimney was made ofwattle and daub. A cobble scatter measuring 23by 12 feet was found sixty feet to the southeast ofElizabeth’s dwelling. The scatter with its straightnorthern edge represents the results of fieldclearing along a boundary such as a fence. Alikely explanation is that the area cleared was agarden south of the dwelling. Additionalsampling for pollen and phytoliths in this areacould resolve the ambiguities.

Phytolith analysis shows that while thesite lies in a hardwood forest today, duringElizabeth Hemings’s occupation, the area wasopen and dominated by grasses and to a lesserextent shrubs. The area immediately surroundingHemings’s house was the exception; loweramounts of chloridoid grasses which thrivein hot, dry environments suggests that some treesremained to shade the dwelling.

By living next to the Third Roundabout,Elizabeth was able to enjoy a much larger activityspace than either the enslaved or free workersliving along Mulberry Row. Multiple lines ofevidence, including landscape analysis, costsurface modeling, soil and sediment chemistryand artifact distributions, point towards Elizabethorganizing her activity space in a pattern similar to

those documented on other archaeological sites.General activities such as social interaction, foodpreparation and sleeping occurred in or near thedwelling. Special activities such as waste disposal(fireplace ash, food waste, and trash dumping)took place further from the structure. Due to theslope of the site (20% average), the generalactivity area was lozenge-shaped as opposed tothe more common circular pattern. This is theresult of the higher energy cost for traveling up ordown slope as opposed to along the contours.The Third Roundabout, 30 feet uphill or to thenorth and the cobble scatter 65 feet to thesoutheast (along the slope) are two of theboundaries between the general and specialactivity areas. From this estimate, ElizabethHemings’s yard space was at least ten times thatof the people living along Mulberry Row.

Analysis of the ceramic assemblageshowed that Elizabeth Hemings had access tofashionable ceramics and was selective in whatshe acquired. Hemings, like her contemporaries,replaced pewter vessels with more costly ceramicversions. Cheaper creamware ceramics wereacquired for tea consumption, but she acquiredmore expensive pearlware and porcelain plates forfood consumption. This pattern is a mirrorimage to the ceramic assemblage of WilliamStewart, a free blacksmith living at Monticellofrom 1801-8. The difference appears to be relatedto different patterns of social advertising. ForHemings, meals were the venue for more costlydisplay, while tea drinking was a more informalaffair. In contrast, Stewart used the emergingritual of tea consumption to impress unfamiliarcompetitors and allies. More work is needed todetermine if this patters holds for the rest ofMonticello’s enslaved workforce and to explorefurther its meaning.

55

References Atchison, J. 1982 The statistical analysis of compositional data (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical

Society, Series B, 44, 139-177.

Ankerman, Don and Richard Largen.d. Soil and Plant Analysis Agronomy Handbook. A&L Agricultural Laboratories, Memphis.

Baxter M. J. 1994 Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press.

Bear, James A., Jr. (editor)1967 Jefferson at Monticello. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Bear, James A., Jr. and Lucia C. Stanton, (editors)1997 Jefferson’s Memorandum Books: Accounts, with Legal Records and Miscellany, 1767-1826. The Papers of

Thomas Jefferson: Second Series. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Beaudry, Mary C.1981 A Vessel Typology for Early Chesapeake Ceramics: The Potomac Typological System. In Approaches

to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, George L. Miller, Olive R. Jones, Lester A. Rossand Teresita Majewski, compilers, The Society for Historical Archaeology, pp. 11-36.

Betts, Edwin M. (editor)1944 Thomas Jefferson’s Garden Book 1766-1824 With Relevant Extracts from his other Writings. The American

Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.

Betts, Edwin M. (editor)1987 Thomas Jefferson’s Farm Book with Commentary and Relevant Extracts from other Writings. University Press

of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Betts, Edwin M., and James A. Bear, Jr. (editors)1966 The Family Letters of Thomas Jefferson. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Binford, Lewis R.1983 In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, London.

1987 Researching Ambiguity: Frames of Reference and Site Structure. In Method and Theory in Activity AreaResearch, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 449-512. Columbia University Press, New York.

Boone, James L.1998 The Evolution of Magnanimity: when is it better to give than to receive? Human Nature 9(1).

Boyd, Julian P. (editor)1956 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 13. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

1958 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 14. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

56

Boyd, Julian P. (editor)1971 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 18. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Boyer, William P.1983 Archeological Survey at Monticello and Tufton: A Report on the 1981 Season. Ms. on file,

Monticello Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville,Virginia.

Brown, Marley R. III and Joanne Bowen1995 An Archaeological Perspective on the Material Life of Williamsburg’s Artisan Community. In

Common People and Their Material World: Free men and Women in the Chesapeake, 1700-1830, edited byDavid Harvey and Gregory Brown, pp. 55-64. Printed by Dietz Press, Richmond, VA for ColonialWilliamsburg Research Publications.

Carr, Lois G. and Lorena Walsh1994 Changing Lifestyles and Consumer Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake. In Of Consuming Interests,

The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, edited by Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert,pp. 59-166. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Carson, Cary1994 The Consumer Revolution in Colonial British America: Why Demand? In Of Consuming Interests, The

Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, edited by Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert,pp. 483-700. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Clarks Lab1997 Idrisi For Windows User’s Guide Version 2.0. Clark Labs for Cartographic Technology and

Geographic Analysis. Clark University, Worcester, MA.

Cook , Sherburne F. and Robert F. Heizer1965 Studies on the Chemical Analysis of Archaeological Sites. University of California Publications in

Anthropology 2. Berkeley, CA.

Crader, Diane1990 Slave diet at Monticello. American Antiquity 55(4):690-718.

Deetz, James1988 Material Culture and World View in Colonial Anglo-America. In The Recovery of Meaning: Historical

Archaeology in the Eastern United States, edited by M.P. Leone and P.B. Potter pp. 219-235. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington DC.

Eidt, Robert C.1977 Detection and analysis of anthrosols by phosphate analysis. Science 197:1327-1333.

1985 Theoretical and practical considerations in the analysis of anthrosols. In Archaeological Geology, editedby G.R. Rapp. Academic Press, San Diego.

Ericson, Jonathon E. and R. Goldstein1980 Workspace: a new approach to the analysis of energy expenditure within site catchments. In

Catchment Analysis: Essays on Prehistoric Resource Space, edited by F.J. Findlowand and J.E. Ericson,pp.21-30. Department of Anthropology, UCLA.

57

Foster, E. A., M. A. Jobling, P. de Kniff, R. Meremet, T. Zerjal, and C. Tyler Smith1998 Jefferson Fathered Slave’s Last Child. Nature :196.

Gawalt, Gerald W.1994 Jefferson’s Slaves: Crop Accounts at Monticello 1805-1808. Journal of the Afro-American Historical and

Genealogical Society, pp. 19-38.

Golden Software, Inc.1999 Surfer 7© User’s Guide: Contouring and 3D Surface Mapping for Scientists and Engineers. Golden Software,

Inc., Golden, Colorado.

Gordon-Reed, Annette1997 Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. University of Virginia Press,

Charlottesville.

Griffith M.A.1980 A Pedological Investigation of an Archaeological Site in Ontario, Canada. An examination of the

soils in and adjacent to a former village. Geoderma 24:327-336.

1981 A Pedological Investigation of an Archaeological Site in Ontario, Canada. Use of chemical data todiscriminate features at the Benson Site. Geoderma 25: 27-34.

Heath, Barbara J.1991 A Report on the Archaeological Excavations at Monticello, Charlottesville, VA: The

Stewart/Watkins House 1989-1990. Ms. on file, Monticello Department of Archaeology, ThomasJefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.

1999 “‘Your Humbel Servant’: Free Artisans in the Monticello Community.” In “I, Too, Am America”:Archaeological Studies of African-American Life. Theresa A. Singleton, editor. University Press ofVirginia, Charlottesville.

Heidenreich, C.E. and V.A. Konrad1973 Soil analysis at the Robitaille Site, Part II: a Method Useful in the Determination of Longhouse

Patterns. Ontario Archaeology 21: 33-62.

Hitchcock, Robert1987 Sedentism and Site Structure Organization in Kalahari Basarwa Residential Locations. In Method

and Theory in Activity Area Research, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 374-423. Columbia University Press,New York.

Kelso, William1997 Archaeology at Monticello. Monticello Monograph Series, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial

Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Keeler, Robert W.1978 The Homelot on the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake Tidewater Frontier. Ph.D. dissertation,

University of Oregon, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Kern, Susan A.1995a Field Notes: 1995 Summer Archaeological Project - No. 2, 6/28/95. Memorandum on file,

Monticello Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville,Virginia.

58

Kern, Susan A.1995b Field Notes: 1995 Summer Archaeological Project - No. 3, 7/12/95. Memorandum on file,

Monticello Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville,Virginia.

1996 Personal Communication.

Kimball, Fiske1968 Thomas Jefferson Architect: Original Designs in the Coolidge Collection of the Massachusetts

Historical Society With an Essay and Notes. Da Capo Press, New York.

King, Julia A.1988 A Comparative Midden Analysis of a Household and Inn in St. Mary’s City, Maryland. Historical

Archaeology 22(2):17-39.

Konrad, Victor A., R. Bonnichsen, and V. Clay. 1983 Soil chemical identification of 10,000 Years of Prehistoric Human Activity at the Munsungun Lake

Thoroughfare, Maine. Journal of Archaeological Science. 10:13-28.

Leone, M.1988 The Georgian order as the order of merchant capitalism in Annapolis, Maryland. In The Recovery

of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States, edited by M.P. Leone and P.B. Potter pp.235-261. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC.

Madsen, Andrew David1995 “All Sorts of China Ware...Large, Noble, and Rich Chinese Bowls:” Eighteenth-Century Chinese

Export Porcelain in Virginia. Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, the College of Williamand Mary in Virginia.

Martin, Ann Smart1989 The role of pewter as missing artifact: consumer attitudes toward tablewares in late 18th-century

Virginia. Historical Archaeology 23(2):1-27.

1994 “Fashionable Sugar Dishes, Latest Fashion Ware”, The creamware revolution in the eighteenthcentury Chesapeake. In Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, edited by Paul A. Shackel and BarbaraJ. Little, pp. 169-187. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

McLaughlin, Jack1988 Jefferson and Monticello: The Biography of a Builder. Henry Holt and Company, New York.

Metz, John, Lisa Kealhoffer, Leslie McFaden, Fraser Neiman and Derek Wheeler2000 Archaeological Investigation of the Garden Terrace, Kitchen Dependency and Corner Terraces.

Manuscript on file, Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation,Charlottesville, Virginia.

Middleton, William D., and T. Douglas Price1996 Identification of Activity Areas by Multi-element Characterization of Sediments from Modern and

Archaeological House Floors Using Inductively Coupled Plasma-atomic Emission Spectroscopy.Journal of Archaeological Science 23:0-15.

59

Miller, George1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of Nineteenth Century Ceramics. Historical Archaeology 14: 1-

40.1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics

from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25(1):1-25.

Neiman, Fraser D.1980 The “Manner House” before Stratford: Discovering the Clifts Plantation. Robert E. Lee Memorial

Association, Stratford VA.

1993 Temporal Patterning in House Plans from the 17th Century Chesapeake. In The Archaeology of 17th-Century Virginia. Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 30. The Dietz Press,Richmond, Virginia.

1997 Conspicuous Consumption as Wasteful Advertising: a Darwinian Perspective on Spatial Patternsin Classic Maya Terminal Monument Dates. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory andArchaeological Explanation, edited by C. Michael Barton and Geoffrey A. Clark, pp. 267-290.Archaeological papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 7, Washington, D.C.

2000 Coincidence or Causal Connection? The Relationship between Thomas Jefferson’s Visits toMonticello and Sally Hemings’s Conceptions. William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series LVII(1):198-210.

Neiman, Fraser, Leslie McFaden, John Metz, and Derek Wheeler1999 Settlement and Land-Use Dynamics at Monticello Plantation: 1770-1826. Paper presented at the

1999 Society for Historical Archaeology Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Nichols, Frederick1978 Thomas Jefferson’s Architectural Drawings: Compiled and with Commentary and Check List. The

University of Virginia Press, New York.

O’Connell, James F.1987 Alyawara Site Structure and its Archaeological Implications. American Antiquity 52:74-108.

O’Connell, James F., Kristen Hawkes, and Nicholas Jones.1991 Distribution of Refuse Producing Activities at Hadza Residential Base Camps: Implications for

Analyses of Archaeological Site Structure. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, editedby Ellen M. Kroll and T. Douglas Price, pp. 61-76. Plenum Press, New York.

Piperno, Dolores.1988 Phytolith Analysis: An Archaeological and Geological Perspective. Academic Press, San Diego.

Pogue, Dennis1988 Anthrosols and the Analysis of Archaeological Sites in a Plowed Context: The King’s Reach Site.

Northeast Historical Archaeology, 17:1-15.

Roth, Rodris1961 Tea Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America: Its Etiquette and Equipage. Bulletin No. 225 paper 14.

Contributions to the Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution.

60

Sanford, Douglas1995 The Archaeology of Plantation Slavery at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello: Context and Process in an American Slave

Society. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia,Charlottesville.

Sherwood, W. Cullen1981 Rock Materials Used in the Garden and Exit Walls at Monticello. Ms. on file, Monticello

Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Shuldenrein, Joseph1995 Geochemistry, Phosphate Fractionation, and the Detection of Activity Areas at Prehistoric North

American Sites. In Pedological Perspectives in Archaeological Research, pp.107-132. Soil Science Societyof America, Special Publication 44. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.

Smith, Eric Alden and Rebecca Lynn Bliege Bird2000 Turtle Hunting and Tombstone Opening: Public Generosity as Costly Signaling. In Evolution and

Human Behavior, in press.

South, Stanley1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Stanton, Lucia1996 Slavery at Monticello. Monticello Monograph Series. Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation,

Charlottesville, Virginia.

(in press)Free Some Day: The African-American Families of Monticello. Monticello MonographSeries. Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Sullivan, Kelly1999 Personal Communication.

Twiss, Page C.1992 Predicted World Distribution of C3 and C4 Grass Phytoliths. In Phytolith Systematics. Edited by G.

Rapp, Jr. and S.C. Mulholland, pp. 113-128. Plenum Press, New York.

Tylers Quarterly Magazine1924-5 John Wayles's will, 15 Apr. 1760. Tyler's Quarterly Magazine, 6 (1924-25).

USDA1985 Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service.

Veblen, Thorstein1899 The Theory of the Leisure Class. (1992) Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.

Wandsnider, LuAnn1996 Describing and Comparing Archaeological Spatial Structures. Journal of Archaeological Method and

Theory. 3(4):319-384.

Yellen, John E.1977 Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past. Academic Press, New York.

61

Appendix I. Artifact Inventory

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element0430 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged0430 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged0430 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Empontilled Body0430 1 Bone Faunal Specimen Medium Mammal Natural/Unworked0430 1 Brick Brick Hand Made1859A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Undecorated Base1859A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Press Molded Undecorated Base1861A 1 Iron Nail Tire/Strake Wrought/Forged1863A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Porcelain Porcellaneous Wheel Thrown Undecorated Body1864A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1864A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Wheel Thrown Undecorated Body1864A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Painted Under Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Base1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

62

1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Annular Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Annular Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Annular Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Indeterminate1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Indeterminate1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

63

1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1864A 1 Faunal Specimen1864A 1 Charcoal1864A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1864A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1864A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1864A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1864A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1864A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Body1864A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1864A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1864A 1 Glass Window Glass1864A 1 Glass Window Glass1864A 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown1864A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Free Blown Base1864A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Free Blown Base1864A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Free Blown Base1864A 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Copper Wheel En Free Blown Body1864A 1 Brick Brick Bat1864A 1 Brick Brick Bat1864A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged1864A 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged1864A 28 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1864A 4 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1864A 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged1864A 42 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1864A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1864A 8 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1864A 4 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged1864A 2 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1864A 4 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1864A 2 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1864A 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1864A 3 Iron Nail L-Head Pointed End Machine-Cut1864A 1 Iron Nail Horseshoe Pointed End Wrought/Forged1864A 1 Iron Nail Fragment Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1864A 4 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1864A 6 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Machine-Cut1864A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

64

1864A 1 Slate Pencil1864A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1864A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1864B 1 Brick Fragment1864B 4 Faunal Specimen1864B 4 Charcoal Organic Substance1864B 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1864B 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1864B 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1864B 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1864B 2 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1864B 1 Kaolin Tobacco Pipe Imported Press Molded Bowl1864B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Wheel Thrown Undecorated Body1864B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Handle1864B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base1864B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1864B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1864B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Annular Body1865A 1 Charcoal Organic Substance1865A 1 Plastic Button One Piece Molded1865A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Free Blown Base1865A 7 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1865A 9 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1865A 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1865A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim1865A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

65

1865B 1 Copper Alloy Ring Cast1865B 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1865B 4 Iron Nail Wrought/Forged1865B 1 Brick Brick1865B 1 Copper Alloy Ring1865B 7 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1865B 11 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1865B 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1865B 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1865B 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Wrought/Forged1865B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1865B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1865B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1865B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1865B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1865B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1865B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1865B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1865B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1865E 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1867A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Free Blown/Empontilled1867A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1867A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1868A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1869A 4 Charcoal Organic Substance1870A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Free Blown/Empontilled Body1872A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1877A 2 Charcoal Organic Substance1879A 1 Bone Faunal Specimen Medium Mammal Natural/Unworked1879A 3 Iron Wire Barbed Drawn1879A 22 Iron Nail Machine Round H Pointed End Wire1879A 6 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Wire1883A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Free Blown/Empontilled Body1888A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1888A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1890A 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Free Blown/Empontilled Body1891A 1 Charcoal Organic Substance1891A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1897A 1 Charcoal Organic Substance1897A 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

66

1897A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1897A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1897A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1897A 1 Glass Container Beer/Pop Bottle Green Mold Blown Body1897A 1 Glass Container Beer/Pop Bottle Aqua Mold Blown Body1897A 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Aqua Free Blown Body1897A 1 Glass Window Glass1897A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Wheel Thrown Undecorated Body1897A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1897A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1897A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Printed Under Body1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1897A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1898A 1 Quartzite Stone Architectural1898A 1 Glass Button One Piece White Mold Blown1898A 2 Faunal Specimen1898A 1 Charcoal Organic Substance1898A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1898A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1898A 1 Glass Container Bottle Aqua Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1898A 3 Glass Window Glass1898A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1898A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1898A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1898A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1898A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1898A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

67

1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1898A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim1899A 1 Brick Fragment1899A 1 Quartzite Stone Architectural1899A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1899A 3 Window Glass1899A 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1899A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1899A 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1899A 1 Iron Nail L-Head Pointed End Wrought/Forged1899A 1 Coarse Earthenware Black-Glazed Redware Wheel Thrown Body1899A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1899A 1 Stoneware White Salt-Glazed Wheel Thrown Body1899A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1899A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1899A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1899A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1899A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Finish1900A 1 Brick Fragment1900A 1 Brick Watertable1900A 1 Copper Alloy Ring1900A 1 Charcoal Organic Substance1900A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Finish1900A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1900A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1900A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1900A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1900A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1900A 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Aqua Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1900A 3 Glass Window Glass1900A 3 Glass Window Glass1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Base1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Base1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Rim1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Rim1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Body1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

68

1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Rim1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Indeterminate1900A 87 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1900A 8 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1900A 19 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1900A 2 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1900A 5 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1900A 2 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1900A 4 Iron Nail HeadLess Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1900A 63 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1900A 1 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1900A 4 Iron Nail HeadLess Pointed End Wrought/Forged1900A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged1900A 2 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1900A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Blunt Cut End Wrought/Forged1900A 2 Iron Nail Machine-Square Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1900A 7 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1900A 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1900A 8 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1900A 3 Faunal Specimen1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

69

1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

70

1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

71

1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Over Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

72

1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

73

1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

74

1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Over Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Over Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

75

1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

76

1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Free Blown Stem1900A 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Free Blown Base1900A 2 Copper Alloy Upholstery Tack Cast1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base1900A 1 Copper Alloy Buckle Shoe Cast1900B 10 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1900B 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1900B 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1900B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1900B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1900B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1900B 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1900B 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1900B 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Body1900B 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Indeterminate1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Over Body1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

77

1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1900B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body1902A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1902A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1902A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1902A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1902A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1902A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1902A 1 Brick Fragment1902A 1 LEAD SCRAP Cast1902A 1 Copper Alloy Upholstery Tack Cast1902A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1902A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1902A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1902A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Finish1902A 2 Iron Nail L-Head Pointed End Wrought/Forged1902A 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1902A 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1902A 23 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1902A 24 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1902A 5 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1902A 4 Faunal Specimen1902A 1 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1902A 1 Iron Nail Fragment Wire1902A 2 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1902A 1 Iron Nail L-Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1902A 17 Iron Wire Barbed Drawn1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

78

1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Over Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Base1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

79

1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body1902A 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1902B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Wheel Thrown Undecorated Body1902B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1902B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Painted Under Body1902B 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1902B 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded1902B 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Rim1902B 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Body1902B 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Green Free Blown/Empontilled Body1902B 1 Copper Alloy Button One Piece Cast1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim1902B 15 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1902B 3 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1902B 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged1902B 6 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1902B 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1902B 22 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1902B 8 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1902B 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1902B 4 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1902B 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Wrought/Forged1902B 1 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged1902B 1 Iron Nail Machine-Square Machine-Cut1902B 1 Iron Unid Hardware Wrought/Forged1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

80

1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Painted Under Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Painted Under Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

81

1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Brown Press Molded Painted Under Rim1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Base1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Base1902B 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim1903A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1903A 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Wheel Thrown Undecorated Body1903A 1 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1904A 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1904A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1905A 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Undecorated Body1906A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1906A 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1906A 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1911A 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1911A 1 Slag/Clinker1918A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made Body1918A1 1 Iron Nail Machine Round H Wire1918A1 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Wire1918A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made Body1918A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made Body1918A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made Body1918A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

82

1918A2 1 Stoneware White Salt-Glazed Scr/Fill:Debased Blue Press Molded Body1918A2 1 Iron Nail Machine Round H Wire1919A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Colored Glass Amber Machine Made Body1919A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Colored Glass Amber Machine Made Body1919A1 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Colored Glass Amber Machine Made Body1919A2 1 Glass Bottle Glass Beer/Pop Bottle Colored Glass Machine Made Body1919A2 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Wire1920A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1921A1 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Undecorated Indeterminate1921A1 100 Tinned Iron CAN Food/Condiment Rolled/Sheet1921A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base1922A1 2 Tinned Iron CAN Food/Condiment Rolled/Sheet Rim1922A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1922A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1922A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1923A3 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1923A3 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1924A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1926B2 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Rim1926B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Other Mold Decoration Blue Press Molded Rim1927A2 2 Brick Fragment1928A1 1 Refined Earthenware Bennington Press Molded Rim And Body1928A1 1 Refined Earthenware Bennington Press Molded Rim And Body1931A2 1 LEAD Ammunition Round Shot Dropped1933A1 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Wire1933A2 1 Iron Nail Machine Round H Pointed End Wire1933A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1934A1 7 Iron Nail Machine Round H Pointed End Wire1934A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1934A3 2 Iron Nail Machine Round H Pointed End Wire1935A1 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Wheel Thrown Undecorated Base1935A1 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Wheel Thrown Body1935A1 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Wheel Thrown Body1935A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1935A2 1 Glass Window Glass1936A1 2 Glass Window Glass1943A1 12 Charcoal Organic Substance1943A1 12 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

83

1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body1943A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body1943A2 7 Charcoal Organic Substance1944A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1944A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body1944A1 6 Charcoal Organic Substance1946B1 2 Charcoal Organic Substance1947C1 1 Quartz Unmodified Stone1951A1 1 Glass Container Unidentified Colorless Colorless-Ld Body1951A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1951A2 1 Quartz Unmodified Stone1953A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1953A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1955B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1955B1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1955B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1955B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1955B2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1955B2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1955B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1955B3 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1956A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1956A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Indeterminate Tip Wrought/Forged1956B1 1 Brick Fragment1956B1 1 Iron Nail L-Head Wrought/Forged1956B1 1 Iron Nail L-Head Wrought/Forged1956B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1956B1 7 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1956B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1956B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1956B2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1956B2 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1956B2 2 Iron Nail HeadLess Wrought/Forged1956B2 2 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

84

1956B2 4 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged1957A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1957A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1957A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1957A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1957B1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1957B1 1 Brick Fragment1957B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1957B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim1957B1 2 Brick Fragment1957B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1958A2 2 Charcoal Organic Substance1958A2 23 Brick Fragment1958A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1958A2 5 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1958B1 8 Brick Fragment1958B1 1 Charcoal Organic Substance1958B1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1958B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1958B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1958B1 2 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Machine-Cut1958B1 1 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1961B1 1 Brick Fragment1962A1 1 Quartz Unmodified Stone1962A2 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1962B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1963A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1963B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body1963B1 1 Brick Fragment1963B2 1 Floral Floral Specimen1964A1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Mold Blown Indeterminate1964A1 1 Glass Window Glass1964A1 3 Brick Fragment1964A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1964A2 1 Copper Alloy Upholstery Tack Cast1964A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1964A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1964A2 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1964A2 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Pointed End Machine-Cut1964A2 16 Brick Fragment

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

85

1964B1 1 Brick Fragment1965A1 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1965A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1965A1 4 Brick Fragment1965A1 1 Brick Bat1965A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1965A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1965A2 2 Brick Fragment1965A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1965A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1965A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1968A1 1 Floral Floral Specimen1968A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1968A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1968A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1968A2 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Mold Blown Rim1968A2 1 Glass Table Glass Colorless Leaded Mold Blown Body1968A2 1 Glass Table Glass Colorless Leaded Mold Blown Indeterminate1968A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1968A2 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1968A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Pointed End Wrought/Forged1968A2 1 Iron Nail T-Head Wrought/Forged1968A2 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Pointed End Machine-Cut1968A2 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Machine-Cut1968A2 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Chisel Point Machine-Cut1968A2 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Machine-Cut1968A2 10 Brick Fragment1968A2 1 Brick Bat Molded Brick1968A2 1 Brick

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

86

1968B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1968B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1968B1 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Machine-Cut1968B1 1 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged1968B2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1969A1 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1969A1 5 Brick Fragment1969A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1969A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Under Rim1969A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1969A2 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1969A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Wrought/Forged1969A2 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Machine-Cut1969A2 2 Iron Nail Fragment Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1969A2 30 Brick Fragment1969A2 1 Brick Bat Molded Brick1969A2 1 Brick Bat Molded Brick1969A2 1 Brick Bat1969B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim1969B1 1 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1969B1 1 Iron Nail T-Head Wrought/Forged1969B1 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1969B1 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Machine-Cut1969B1 2 Brick Fragment1970A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1970B1 1 Copper Alloy Upholstery Tack Cast1971A1 1 Brick Fragment1971A1 1 Slag/Clinker1971A1 1 GreenStone Unmodified Stone1971A2 1 Brick Fragment1971A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1972A1 2 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1973A1 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1974A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Indeterminate1976A1 1 Coarse Earthenware Black-Glazed Redware Wheel Thrown Body1977A1 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Indeterminate1978A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1978A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1978A1 1 Brick Fragment1978A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

87

1978A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Body1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1978A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1978A2 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Mold Blown Base1978A2 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Mold Blown Body1978A2 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1978A2 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1978A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Indeterminate Tip Wrought/Forged1978A2 2 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1978A2 8 Brick Fragment1978A2 1 Brick Molded Brick1978B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1978B1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1978B1 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1978B1 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Pointed End Machine-Cut1978B1 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Machine-Cut1978B1 1 Brick Fragment1978B1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Indeterminate1978B1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Indeterminate1978B1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Copper Wheel En Free Blown Body1978B1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Body1978B1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Body1978B1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Body1978B1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1978B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim1978B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim1979A1 5 Brick Fragment1979A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1979A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

88

1979A2 6 Brick Fragment1980A1 3 Brick Fragment1980A1 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim1980A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1980A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1980A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1980A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1980A2 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Wrought/Forged1980A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1981A1 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1981A1 3 Brick Fragment1981A1 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base1981A2 1 Brick Fragment1981A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim1981A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1981A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1981A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1982A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1982A1 1 Glass Window Glass1982A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1982A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim1983A1 2 Faunal Specimen1983A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Rim1983A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim1983A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Body1983B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1984A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1984A2 6 Brick Fragment1984A2 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Rim1984A2 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1984B1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1984B1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1984B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1984B1 2 Brick Fragment1985A1 4 Brick Fragment1985A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1985A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1985A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1985A2 6 Brick Fragment1985B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

89

1985B1 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1985B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1985B1 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1985B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1985B1 1 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged1985B1 20 Brick Fragment1985B2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1986A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1986A2 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1986A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1986A2 1 Iron Nail Machine-Square Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1986A2 6 Brick Fragment1987A3 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1987A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1987A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1987A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1987A3 3 Brick Fragment1987A3 1 Copper Alloy Button One Piece Cast1987B1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1987B1 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1987B1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1987B1 1 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1987B1 1 Iron Nail T-Head Wrought/Forged1987B1 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1987B1 11 Brick Fragment1987B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1988A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1988A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1988A1 1 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1988A1 3 Brick Fragment1988A1 1 Quartz Unmodified Stone1988A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1988A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1988A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1988A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1988A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1988A2 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1988A2 1 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1988A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1988A3 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

90

1988A3 1 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1988A3 1 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged1988A3 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim1989A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1989A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1989A2 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1989A2 2 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1989A2 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Machine-Cut1989A2 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Body1989A2 1 Brick Bat1989A2 10 Brick Fragment1989A3 1 Brick Fragment1990A1 3 Charcoal Organic Substance1990A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim1990A2 1 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1990A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1990A2 1 Brick Fragment1990A2 1 Brick Bat1990A2 1 Brick Bat1991A1 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1991A1 1 Iron Staple Pointed End Wrought/Forged1991A1 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1991A1 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body1991A2 1 Brick Fragment1992A1 1 Brick Fragment1992A2 1 Quartzite Stone Architectural1992A2 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Body1992C1 1 LEAD Ammunition Round Shot1993A1 1 Quartzite Mineral Sample1993A1 1 Brick1993A1 1 Porcelain Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1993A1 1 Porcelain Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1993A2 3 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1993A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1993A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1993A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body1993A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base1993A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1993A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1993A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

91

1993A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1993A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged1995ZZ 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1995ZZ 1 Brick Bat1995ZZ 1 Brick Bat1995ZZ 1 Brick Bat1995ZZ 1 Brick Bat Watertable1995ZZ 1 Brick1995ZZ 1 Brick Bat1995ZZ 1 Brick Bat1996A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1996A1 1 Iron Wire Barbed Drawn1996A1 1 Charcoal Organic Substance1996A1 1 Brick Fragment1996A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1996A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1996A2 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut1996A3 4 Brick Fragment1996A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim1996A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1996A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1996B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged1996B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1996B1 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1996B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1996B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged1996B1 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Pointed End Wrought/Forged1996B1 1 Brick Fragment1996B1 1 Charcoal Organic Substance1996B1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1996B1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1996B1 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body1996B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1996UU 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1996UU 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1996UU 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base1996UU 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1996UU 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1996UU 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body1996UU 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

92

1997A1 1 Iron Nail Machine Round H Pointed End Wire1997A1 1 Charcoal Organic Substance1997A3 1 Brick Fragment1997B1 1 Charcoal Organic Substance1997B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body1998A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1998A2 4 Brick Fragment1998A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Body1998A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Body1998A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1998A3 1 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged1998A3 7 Brick Fragment1998B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1998B1 1 Iron Nail L-Head Pointed End Wrought/Forged1998B1 1 Iron Nail Machine Round H Pointed End Wire1999A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1999A1 10 Brick Fragment1999A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body1999A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1999A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1999A2 1 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1999A2 1 Iron Nail Machine Round H Pointed End Wire1999A2 11 Brick Fragment1999A3 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1999A3 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1999A3 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Chisel Point Wrought/Forged1999A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged1999A3 1 Iron Nail Fragment Wrought/Forged1999A3 4 Brick Fragment1999A3 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Base2000ZZ 1 Quartz Biface Stage Two WORKED2001A1 1 Iron Nail Machine Round H Wire2001A2 1 Brick Fragment2001B1 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body2002A1 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2002A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body2002A2 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut2002A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim2002A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body2003A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

93

2003A2 5 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2003A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Pointed End Wrought/Forged2003A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged2003A2 3 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2003A2 4 Iron Nail Indeterminate Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut2003A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim2003A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2003A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2003A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2003A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2003A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2003A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2003B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2003B2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2003B2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2003B2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged2003B2 1 Iron Nail Fragment Pointed End Wrought/Forged2003B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2003B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body2004A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2004A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2004A2 1 Iron Nail Fragment Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2004A2 11 Brick Fragment2004A2 1 Quartz Mineral Sample2004A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body2004A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body2004A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2004A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2004A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim2004A3 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2004A3 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2004A3 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2004A3 1 Iron Nail L-Head Wrought/Forged2004A3 1 Iron Nail Fragment Indeterminate Tip Wrought/Forged2004A3 4 Brick Fragment2004A3 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim2004A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim2004A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body2004A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2004A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

94

2004A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2004A3 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2004B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2005A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2005A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2005A2 1 Iron Nail L-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2005A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2005A2 1 Quartzite Fire-Crack Rock2005A2 2 Quartz Mineral Sample2006A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body2006A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Handle2006A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2006A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged2006A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged2006A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2006A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2007A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim2007A1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2007A2 1 LEAD Ammunition Round Shot Cast2007A2 8 Brick Brick Fragment2007A2 1 Copper Alloy Upholstery Tack Hand-Headed2007A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body2007A2 1 Glass Table Glass Stemmed Glass Colorless Leaded Free Blown Base2007A2 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Indeterminate2007A2 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Free Blown Rim2007A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2007A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Red Press Molded Painted Over Body2007A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2007A2 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2007A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged2007A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2007A2 1 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2007A2 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged2007A2 2 Iron Nail Fragment Indeterminate Tip Wrought/Forged2007A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged2007A2 1 Iron Nail Machine-Square Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut2007A2 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Machine-Cut2007B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2007B1 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged2007B1 1 Iron Nail Machine-Square Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

95

2007B1 1 Faunal Specimen2007B1 1 Glass Window Glass2007B1 1 Glass Table Glass Unidentified Colorless Leaded Copper Wheel En Body2008A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Polychrome Press Molded Painted Under Rim2008A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2008A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged2008A2 2 Iron Nail T-Head Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2008A2 1 Iron Nail HeadLess Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2008A2 9 Brick Fragment2008A2 1 Glass Window Glass2008A2 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Rim2008A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim2008A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2008A3 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Pointed End Wrought/Forged2008A3 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2008A3 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged2008A3 7 Brick Fragment2008B1 1 Brick Fragment2009A1 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Body2009A1 1 Porcelain Chinese Porcelain Blue Wheel Thrown Painted Under Body2009A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Rim2009A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base2009A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body2009A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2009A2 2 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut2009A2 1 Brick Fragment2009A2 1 Slag/Clinker2009A2 1 Refined Earthenware Refined Earthenware Press Molded Body2010A2 1 Brick Fragment2010A2 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body2010A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body2011A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged2011A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body2011A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body2011A2 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body2011A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2011A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2011A3 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Base2011A3 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body2012A1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

96

2012B1 2 Faunal Specimen2012B1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body2012B1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body2012B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim2012B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Rim2012B1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2012B2 1 Faunal Specimen2012B2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body2013A1 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2013A1 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body2013B1 1 Refined Earthenware Creamware Press Molded Undecorated Body2013B1 4 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2013B1 1 Faunal Specimen2014A2 3 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged2014A2 2 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2015A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2015A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2015A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged2015A2 1 Glass Window Glass2016A2 1 Iron Hinge Strap Wrought/Forged2016A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Indeterminate Tip Wrought/Forged2016A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Wrought/Forged2016A3 1 Brick Fragment2017A2 1 ORGANIC Chinese Porcelain Red Wheel Thrown Painted Over Body2018A2 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Aqua Free Blown/Empontilled Body2018A2 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Aqua Free Blown/Empontilled Body2019A2 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Aqua Free Blown/Empontilled Body2019A2 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Aqua Free Blown/Empontilled Body2019A2 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Aqua Free Blown/Empontilled Body2019A2 1 Glass Container Pharm Bottle Aqua Free Blown/Empontilled Body2020ZZ 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body2020ZZ 1 Glass Container Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Empontilled Body2021ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim2022ZZ 1 Iron Staple Pointed End Wrought/Forged2023ZZ 1 Porcelain Closure Lightening-Type Porcellaneous White Press Molded2024ZZ 1 Glass Container Beer/Pop Bottle Aqua Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Complete2024ZZ 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body2024ZZ 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body2024ZZ 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body2024ZZ 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Finish

Context Count Material Form Subform Ware Decorative Technique Color Manufacturing Technique Applied Decoration Element

97

2024ZZ 1 Glass Container Cylind Wine Bottle Mold Blown/Non-Empontilled Body2024ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base/Foot2024ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Green Press Molded Rim2025ZZ 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2025ZZ 1 Iron Nail L-Head Blunt Cut End Machine-Cut2025ZZ 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Pointed End Machine-Cut2025ZZ 1 Iron Nail Hand-Headed Machine-Cut2025ZZ 1 Glass Container Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made Body2025ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Yellow Press Molded Painted Under Base2025ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Shell Edge Blue Press Molded Rim2025ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2025ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2026ZZ 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Body2026ZZ 1 Glass Wine Bottle Colorless Non-Ld Other Mold Decoration Machine Made Complete2027A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base2028A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Blue Press Molded Painted Under Body2028A2 1 Refined Earthenware Pearlware Press Molded Undecorated Base2028A2 1 Faunal Specimen2028A2 3 Quartz Mineral Sample2029A1 5 Iron Wire Barbed Drawn2030A1 1 Brick Fragment2031A2 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2032B1 1 Glass Container Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made2032B1 1 Glass Container Beer/Pop Bottle Amber Machine Made2033ZZ 1 Iron Nail Rosehead Chisel Point Wrought/Forged2034Z 1 Stoneware White Salt-Glazed Scr/Fill: Debased Blue Wheel Thrown Body

98

Appendix 2. Test Unit LocationsTest Unit Easting Northing Length E-W (ft.) Length N-S (ft.) Area (ft.2)

1858 19 -1 2 2 41859 39 -1 2 2 41860 79 -1 2 2 41861 59 -1 2 2 41862 99 -1 2 2 41863 119 -1 2 2 41864 135 -5 10 10 1001865 155 -2.5 10 5 501866 179 -1 2 2 41867 199 -1 2 2 41868 219 -1 2 2 41869 239 -1 2 2 41870 139 -21 2 2 41871 119 -21 2 2 41872 99 -21 2 2 41873 79 -21 2 2 41874 79 -41 2 2 41875 59 -21 2 2 41876 39 -21 2 2 41877 19 -21 2 2 41878 59 -41 2 2 41879 139 19 2 2 41880 39 -41 2 2 41881 19 -41 2 2 41882 239 -21 2 2 41883 219 19 2 2 41884 199 -21 2 2 41885 179 -41 2 2 41886 119 -41 2 2 41887 179 -21 2 2 41888 159 -21 2 2 41889 139 -41 2 2 41890 159 -41 2 2 41891 159 19 2 2 41892 239 -41 2 2 41893 99 -41 2 2 41894 199 -41 2 2 41895 259 -41 2 2 41896 299 -41 2 2 41897 225 -15 10 10 1001898 225 -25 10 10 1001899 214 -15 10 8 801900 145 5 10 10 1001901 179 -61 2 2 41902 145 15 10 10 1001903 208 -18 4 4 16

Test Unit Easting Northing Length E-W (ft.) Length N-S (ft.) Area (ft.2)

99

1904 232 -19 4 2 81905 208 -32 4 4 161906 208 -25 10 4 401907 219 -61 2 2 41908 239 -61 2 2 41909 259 -61 2 2 41910 279 -61 2 2 41911 219 -81 2 2 41912 239 -81 2 2 41913 259 -81 2 2 41914 279 -81 2 2 41918 101.25 38.75 2.5 2.5 6.251919 103.75 38.75 2.5 2.5 6.251920 121.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.251921 123.75 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.251922 111.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.251923 111.25 16.25 2.5 2.5 6.251924 101.25 28.75 2.5 2.5 6.251925 101.25 26.25 2.5 2.5 6.251926 21.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.251927 1.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.251928 1.25 38.75 2.5 2.5 6.251929 256.25 21.25 2.5 2.5 6.251930 258.75 21.25 2.5 2.5 6.251931 256.25 41.25 2.5 2.5 6.251932 256.25 43.75 2.5 2.5 6.251933 161.25 36.25 2.5 2.5 6.251934 161.25 33.75 2.5 2.5 6.251935 231.25 3.75 2.5 2.5 6.251936 233.75 3.75 2.5 2.5 6.251937 41.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.251938 41.25 38.75 2.5 2.5 6.251939 1.25 58.75 2.5 2.5 6.251940 41.25 58.75 2.5 2.5 6.251941 41.25 78.75 2.5 2.5 6.251942 21.25 78.75 2.5 2.5 6.251943 191.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.251944 193.75 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.251945 216.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.251946 216.25 16.25 2.5 2.5 6.251947 38.75 78.75 2.5 2.5 6.251948 1.25 78.75 2.5 2.5 6.251949 61.25 78.75 2.5 2.5 6.251950 148.75 33.75 2.5 2.5 6.251951 148.75 31.25 2.5 2.5 6.251952 58.75 98.75 2.5 2.5 6.251953 191.25 1.25 2.5 2.5 6.251954 193.75 1.25 2.5 2.5 6.25

Test Unit Easting Northing Length E-W (ft.) Length N-S (ft.) Area (ft.2)

100

1955 148.75 23.75 2.5 2.5 6.251956 148.75 21.25 2.5 2.5 6.251957 156.25 18.75 2.5 2.5 6.251958 156.25 16.25 2.5 2.5 6.251959 41.25 98.75 2.5 2.5 6.251960 61.25 38.75 2.5 2.5 6.251961 81.25 58.75 2.5 2.5 6.251962 166.25 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.251963 168.75 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.251964 166.25 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.251965 168.75 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.251966 206.25 51.25 2.5 2.5 6.251967 206.25 53.75 2.5 2.5 6.251968 151.25 3.75 2.5 2.5 6.251969 153.75 3.75 2.5 2.5 6.251970 176.25 13.75 2.5 2.5 6.251971 176.25 11.25 2.5 2.5 6.251972 201.25 28.75 2.5 2.5 6.251973 201.25 26.25 2.5 2.5 6.251974 181.25 26.25 2.5 2.5 6.251975 183.75 26.25 2.5 2.5 6.251976 148.75 58.75 2.5 2.5 6.251977 148.75 56.25 2.5 2.5 6.251978 151.25 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.251979 153.75 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.251980 151.25 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.251981 153.75 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.251982 161.25 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.251983 161.25 -8.75 2.5 2.5 6.251984 156.25 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.251985 158.75 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.251986 156.25 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.251987 158.75 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.251988 156.25 3.75 2.5 2.5 6.251989 158.75 3.75 2.5 2.5 6.251990 151.25 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.251991 148.75 53.75 2.5 2.5 6.251992 148.75 51.25 2.5 2.5 6.251993 146.25 -6.25 2.5 2.5 6.251994 148.75 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.251996 151.25 11.25 2.5 2.5 6.251997 153.75 11.25 2.5 2.5 6.251998 156.75 11.25 2.5 2.5 6.251999 158.75 11.25 2.5 2.5 6.252001 148.75 48.75 2.5 2.5 6.252000 150 60 1 1 12002 128.75 8.75 2.5 2.5 6.252003 138.75 5.75 2.5 2.5 6.25

Test Unit Easting Northing Length E-W (ft.) Length N-S (ft.) Area (ft.2)

101

2004 151.25 13.75 2.5 2.5 6.252005 136.25 -16.25 2.5 2.5 6.252006 136.25 -18.75 2.5 2.5 6.252007 136.25 5.75 2.5 2.5 6.252008 153.75 13.75 2.5 2.5 6.252009 128.75 6.25 2.5 2.5 6.252010 116.25 -6.25 2.5 2.5 6.252011 118.75 -6.25 2.5 2.5 6.252013 116.25 -23.75 2.5 2.5 6.252014 146.25 -26.25 2.5 2.5 6.252015 148.75 -26.25 2.5 2.5 6.252016 98.75 -26.25 2.5 2.5 6.252017 98.75 -28.75 2.5 2.5 6.252018 136.25 -48.75 2.5 2.5 6.252019 138.75 -48.75 2.5 2.5 6.252020 130 -20 0.5 0.5 0.252021 140 -10 0.5 0.5 0.252022 130 -10 0.5 0.5 0.252023 70 10 0.5 0.5 0.252027 108.75 -41.25 2.5 2.5 6.252028 111.25 -41.25 2.5 2.5 6.252029 301.25 38.75 2.5 2.5 6.252030 291.25 28.75 2.5 2.5 6.252031 167.25 24.75 2.5 2.5 6.252032 126.25 28.75 2.5 2.5 6.252033 160 10 1 1 1