Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Boundary/Drainage Ditch (M1)

The Middle Plantation-period ditch feature found at the Charlton House was cut directly into the sterile subsoil and was oriented along a linear NE to SW axis through the project area (Figure 21). The ditch was located at the lowest stratigraphic level, sealed under a relatively thick layer of intact early eighteenth-century sheet refuse. Two separate sections of the ditch feature were found in the course of the excavations, one lying to the west of the extant Charlton House, and the second to the north of the 36 Figure 21. Plan of the Middle Plantation boundary/drainage ditch feature. house. Although discontinuous, the two sections were oriented along the same alignment and were clearly part of the same feature with the intermediate section having been destroyed in the mid-eighteenth century as a result of the excavation of the Charlton House's basement. The fact that the basement excavation cut through the ditch clearly indicates that the ditch pre-dates the construction of the house and was no longer in use by that date. Equally significant in determining the age of the feature was the fact that the ditch was not oriented along the north-south/east-west town grid to which nearly all of Williamsburg's eighteenth-century structures, roads, fence lines, and other man-made landscape features are aligned. The combination of each of these factors-intruding only subsoil, irregular orientation, and being sealed under a layer of early eighteenth-century plowzone-strongly suggests that the ditch dates to the Middle Plantation period rather than to the Williamsburg period (see Figure 22 for the ditch in relation to other known Middle Plantation features).

The exposed portion of the ditch extended approximately 15.4 meters (51 feet), including the portion destroyed by the basement excavation, and continued out of the archaeological trenches to the northeast and the southwest, thus prohibiting a determination of the feature's full length. All portions of the ditch feature that were exposed in 2002 were fully excavated; however only at its southwest end was the full width of the feature evident, measuring 1.2 meters (4 feet) wide. The northeastern end of the ditch existed only partially intact on account of the disturbance from the excavation of the Charlton House basement, thus barring a measurement of the ditch's width at its north 37 Figure 22. Known Middle Plantation-period archaeological features. eastern end. Both sections of the ditch were excavated to subsoil, and both contained only a single homogeneous layer of brown to dark brown silt loam fill (Munsell color 10YR4/4). Artifacts recovered from the ditch fill consisted of only a single wrought nail fragment and three wrought iron strap fragments. Two brickbats and a number of small brick fragments were also recovered from the fill, but were not retained. Interestingly, all the artifacts, as well as the brick fragments, were recovered from the southwestern section of the ditch, while no artifacts or brick was recovered from the northeast section. The scarcity of artifacts associated with the ditch is consistent with similar Middle Plantation-period ditch features excavated at the Shields Tavern and Peyton Randolph sites that similarly contained few artifacts.

The excavation of the ditch fill revealed a distinctive difference in the depth to which each end of the ditch intruded into the dense clay subsoil. The depth of the southwestern end of the ditch measured only 0.2 meters (0.65 feet) deep, while the northeastern end measured 0.7 meters (2.3 feet) deep. However, the difference in the relative elevation of the ditch's bottom measured only 10 cm (0.33 feet) from end to end for a slope of 65 mm per meter (.0064 feet per foot), with the northeast end being lower than the southwestern end. Although the slope of the ditch was slight, the fact that someone took the trouble to excavate the ditch so deep through the clay subsoil at one end and not the other suggests that the gentle slope was intentionally engineered.

In comparison with the Middle Plantation-period ditches found at the Peyton Randolph site, Shields Tavern, or the Nicholas-Tyler site, none were observed to 38 have any discernible slope. Generally, these features have been interpreted as boundary lines delineating property divisions. Similar ditch features are also well-known from other seventeenth-century sites outside of Williamsburg, including Martin's Hundred (Noël Hume 2001), Kingsmill (Kelso 1984), and Governor's Land (Outlaw 1990). In most of these examples, the ditches were also interpreted as property boundary markers or as internal property divisions.

In contrast, excavations at the John Page site revealed a sloped ditch that has been hypothesized to have been used for irrigation purposes relating to a small industrial complex for brick and tile manufacturing. The slope of the Page irrigation ditch descended four feet over the trench's 300-foot length (slope = 0.0133/1.0 feet), apparently in order to lead water from a distant spring in to the site (Metz et al. 1998:41-42). Assuming the slope of the ditch at the Charlton House remained at a constant, the ditch would descend a total of two feet over the same 300-foot length. Although not as dramatic as the Page ditch, the fact that any slope was evident in the Charlton House ditch likewise suggests that the ditch may have been designed to transport or direct water. The direction of the water transport, however, either to carry water to or away from the site, remains unknown. Given the similarities, it is an intriguing possibility that the Charlton ditch similarly relates to an as-yet-undiscovered industrial complex similar to the one found at the Page Site. As Middle Plantation grew more prominent in the late seventeenth century, it would be expected that various industrial and trade related sites would have been established in the vicinity to support Middle Plantation's small yet growing population.

A more conclusive determination of the ditch's function would require additional excavation (extending out of waterproofing project area) to determine the ends of the ditch, and to further measure its slope. Unfortunately, expansion of the project area to further delineate the ditch's length in 2002 was not feasible. While the function of the ditch as either a boundary or irrigation feature remains ambiguous, its significance is derived from the fact that it represents one of only a handful of features that can be reliably attributed to the poorly understood pre-Williamsburg period (pre-1699). In addition, the fact that ditches are among the most common seventeenth-century features discovered in Williamsburg suggests that they were significant elements on the Middle Plantation landscape. The growing database of Middle Plantation archaeological evidence is beginning to illustrate how in addition to the construction of structures, the residents of Middle Plantation were deliberately manipulating their environment via the excavation of these ditches for a variety of purposes in order to transform the area's wilderness into an environment suitable for settlement that was consistent with the needs and pre-conceptions of the colonists.

Early Sheet Refuse Layer (M2)

Sheet refuse, or a sheet midden as it is sometimes known, is an aggregate feature formed in part by the daily discard behavior of a site's occupants. The discarding of household refuse around a structure, or within a structure's yard, was a common and convenient method of disposing household refuse when below-ground features such as privies, wells, cisterns, or cellars were not available or were inconveniently located for receiving the everyday trash produced by a household. Accordingly, deposits of sheet refuse can be valuable sources of information about the material culture of daily life of a particular site's occupants (Versaggi 2000:45-47).

During the Charlton House excavations, an early layer of sheet refuse was found which represented the earliest evidence of the property's occupation during the Williamsburg period (post-1699). The sheet refuse layer consisted of a stratum of olive brown silt loam (Munsell color 2.5Y4/3) that ranged in thickness from 10 to 36 cm (0.33 to 1.18 feet). The variation in the depth of the layer was as a result of twentieth-century utility lines displacing the upper portions of the layer. Intact portions of the layer were encountered along the north and west elevations of the house, but not along the southern elevation. The identification of this layer to the west of the Charlton House was surprising given the fact that this area had been previously excavated by Glenn Kirk in 1966. However, an examination of the field documentation revealed that the 1966 excavations were not always carried out all the way down to sterile subsoil. This turned out to be the case to the west of the Charlton House, where the excavators in 1966 stopped their excavations on the top surface of a layer they termed "Brown Subsoil" (Kirk 1967), which is evidently analogous to the early sheet refuse layer (M2) identified in 2002. The fact that they did not continue their excavations any further is also why they did not locate the earlier Middle Plantation-period ditch, which was buried beneath the early sheet refuse layer and ran diagonally through their project area.

As described above, along the south elevation of the house, no evidence of the early sheet refuse layer was identified. Most likely, all evidence of the layer was obliterated by the construction of the nineteenth-century additions to the house and the twentieth-century reconstruction excavations. Archaeological excavations carried out by Lisa Fischer in 1999 similarly did not find any evidence of this early sheet refuse layer at the southeastern corner of the Charlton House, although to the west of the lot, behind the reconstructed Kings Arms Tavern Barber Shop on Lot 23, a layer of dark yellowish brown sandy loam containing early eighteenth-century glass and ceramics was found with a TPQ of 1700 (Fischer n.d.). The early date for the layer indicates that it is contemporary with the early sheet refuse layers found in 2002 around the Charlton House.

40

The early sheet refuse layer sealed the Middle Plantation-period drainage/irrigation ditch, as well as the sterile subsoil, to the north and west of the house. The layer contained a scatter of artifacts mixed with a small number of brick fragments and charcoal. The artifacts were typically found closer to the top of the layer while the bottom 5 to 10 cm of the layer directly above subsoil was nearly devoid of any artifacts. A total of 486 artifacts were recovered from the layer, consisting of a wide variety of late seventeenth and early eighteenth-century household refuse such as ceramics, glass, animal bone, personal items, as well as architectural debris such as nails and window glass (Table 1). Household refuse accounted for 79% of the artifact total from the layer, while architectural debris accounted for the remaining 21% of the artifacts. Where the debris came from, however, remains a mystery. Lot 22 is not known to have had any domestic occupation at this early date. One possibility is that the debris originated from one of the adjacent developed properties. The most likely point of origin is Lot 24, which had been developed as early as 1707.

Among the ceramics recovered from the layer, delftware and coarse earthenwares, ware types typically associated with food production and storage, made up the majority of the ceramic fragments. Stoneware fragments were also recovered, but in a substantially smaller quantity, although there did exist a great diversity in the number different stoneware ware types recovered including English, German, and American manufactured wares. The majority of the ceramic finds recovered were typically produced in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, although a small number of fragments of later ware types were also recovered (Philadelphia coarse earthenware and English Bristol stoneware). These fragments, however, are believed to not have been part of the original accumulation of the layer, and instead are believed to be intrusive artifacts, which were unintentionally introduced into the layer at a later date.

Of all the different artifacts, vessel glass was the most abundant artifact type recovered, accounting for nearly a quarter of the entire assemblage (Figure 23). Although primarily consisting of wine bottle glass, small quantities of table, container, and pharmaceutical glass were also recovered. Animal bone was also found in the layer, and accounted for 23% of the total assemblage. The bones undoubtedly represent the refuse from early eighteenth-century meals consumed on or very near Lot 22. A small number of personal items were also found, including a small clear leaded glass jewelry stone. Tobacco pipes accounted for the rest of the small quantity of personal items. Lastly, architectural debris consisting of mostly nails, a small number of window glass fragments, and a single slate fragment possibly used as roofing material, were all also recovered from the early refuse layer. Brickbats and brick fragments were also recovered but not retained.

The early sheet refuse layer artifact assemblage includes a wide variety of items manufactured in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The most recent non-intrusive artifact from the assemblage was a piece of English dip-molded wine bottle glass, a technique of wine bottle glass manufacturing which has a terminus post quem of 1730. The artifacts from the layer all suggest that the sheet refuse layer had accumulated in the early eighteenth century, probably ever since the earlier drainage/irrigation ditch had silted in and was no longer in use, and continued to accumulate into the second quarter of the eighteenth century.

41

Table 1.
Artifacts from Early Eighteenth-Century Sheet Refuse Layer (M2)

	Total	Percent
Tin Glazed
Delftware	31	6.4
Coarsewares
Red Sandy	33	6.8
Yorktown	3	0.6
Philadelphia	1	0.2
Stonewares
White Salt Glazed (dipped)	1	0.2
White Salt Glazed	4	0.8
Frechen	1	0.2
Fulham	1	0.2
Burslem	2	0.4
Yorktown-type	1	0.2
Westerwald	2	0.4
Nottingham	1	0.2
Other	4	0.8
Glass
Wine Bottle	120	24.7
Pharmaceutical	3	0.6
Container	7	1.4
Table	4	0.8
Tobacco Pipes	37	7.6
Architectural
Nails	80	16.5
Window Glass	20	4.1
Slate	1	0.2
Fuanal	112	23.0
Oyster Shell	8	1.6
Other	9	1.9
Total	486	100.0

Early Fence Line (M3)

Utilized to define property boundaries and internal yard divisions (i.e., gardens, animal pens, etc.), fence lines on urban sites are important features for understanding the eighteenth-century cultural landscape. At the Charlton House, a single such fence line was found during the excavations to the north of the present house, oriented east-west, and parallel to Duke of Gloucester Street (Figure 24). The location and orientation of the fence line suggests that the fence delineated the northern margin of Lot 22.

The fence line consisted of a series of six postholes in a single line. Five of the postholes were approximately spaced at 2.6 meter (8.5 foot) intervals between one another. The sixth posthole identified within the line may have represented the location of a gatepost, since it did not conform to the regular spacing of the other five posts. In actuality, the postholes were located outside the limits of the project area, but were 42 Figure 23. Artifacts from the early eighteenth-century sheet refuse layers. visible in the north wall profiles of the archaeological trenches excavated across the north elevation of the Charlton House. Further complicating the investigation of the postholes was the fact that the posthole features remained only partially intact, as later eighteenth-century features had cut through many of the postholes, leaving only small sections of each of the postholes intact. Nevertheless, from what did remain of their profiles, it was clear that each of the postholes had been excavated through the early sheet refuse layer and into the sterile subsoil, thus post-dating the fenceline after the accumulation of the layer in the first quarter of the eighteenth century. Neither the end nor the corner posts of the fence line were determined, thus it has been assumed that the fence line continued to both the east and the west beyond the limits of the archaeological trenches.

The sizes of postholes varied individually in width from 50 cm (1.64 feet) to 65 cm (2.1 feet), although they were all consistently excavated to a depth of 40 cm (1.3 feet) below the top surface of the early sheet refuse layer. Postmolds were evident in only the two easternmost postholes out of the six. The postmolds and measured 12 cm (0.4 feet) in diameter and had flat bottoms that corresponded with the bottom of their respective posthole. A small quantity of nail fragments, wine bottle glass, and animal bone was recovered from the posthole fills. The artifacts were of the same variety as those recovered from the layer of early sheet refuse, although none of artifacts could be attributed to a particular date.

43

Figure 24. Profile drawing of the Early Fence Line postholes (M3).

44

Earthfast Structure (M4)

Possibly the most exciting discovery of the 2002 excavations at the Charlton House was the identification of a previously unknown earthfast structure that dated to the first half of the eighteenth century. The discovery of the building is noteworthy not only because it is one of only a small handful of earthfast structures known within eighteenth-century Williamsburg, but also because its location directly on Duke of Gloucester Street (Willie Graham, personal communication).

Earthfast buildings have a long tradition in Virginia, dating to the earliest days of the colony at Jamestown. Recent research on the origins of the phenomenon suggests that the Chesapeake's earthfast buildings were local adaptations of a longstanding building tradition brought over from England (Carson et al. 1981; Deetz 2002). Briefly described, an earthfast structure is a timber framed structure that is built directly on the ground without the benefit of a brick or stone foundation. As part of the construction of an earthfast building, postholes are dug into the ground along the perimeter of the building into which the main vertical timbers of a structure's frame are seated. The postholes are then backfilled around the wooden posts to hold them in place.

Although the settlers at Jamestown did eventually build a number of brick buildings, countless archaeological excavations across the region have shown that as the colony expanded beyond Jamestown, the vast majority of structures built in the first century of the Virginia colony were earthfast (e.g., Kelso 1984; Noël Hume 2001). On the region's many plantations, earthfast buildings were used as dwellings, outbuildings, tobacco barns, warehouses, and stables, or for any other purpose that an individual might require. In addition to their multi-purposefulness, archaeological excavations over the last thirty years have shown that earthfast buildings were used as dwellings by nearly all segments of society from the very poor to the very rich (Carson et al. 1981). Not until the third quarter of the seventeenth century did the construction of brick dwellings emerge. Brick houses were built by the colony's elite to express their social rank and economic prosperity (Brown 1998:103). By the early eighteenth century, Georgian brick houses had almost completely replaced earthfast dwellings among the colony's elite, although earthfast houses remained common among the middling, poor and enslaved, who composed the vast majority of the colony's population. Nevertheless, even among the elite, earthfast buildings remained as a practical building option for plantation outbuildings, warehouses and stables.

In contrast to the prevalence of earthfast buildings in Williamsburg's surrounding rural countryside, few earthfast buildings are known from within the city limits. Their absence has traditionally been attributed to a distinction between urban and rural building preferences. While earthfast buildings were an acceptable form on the farm, city buildings were thought to have been constructed of brick, or with a minimum of a brick foundation. Until recently, archaeological research had seemingly supported this belief as very few earthfast buildings had been discovered in eighteenth-century Williamsburg. However, the lack of archaeological examples may just as likely be attributed to recovery biases related to excavation technique, as much as an actual lack of earthfast examples. From the 1930s to the 1950s archaeological cross trenches which were singularly focused on locating brick foundations were dug diagonally across much of 45 Colonial Williamsburg's Historic Area. Although the cross trenching method proved effective for locating the masonry ruins of brick buildings, ephemeral soil stain features related to earthfast buildings were not typically recorded, or even noticed during the cross-trenching campaigns.

Beginning in the 1950s, open area excavation blocks became standard practice at Colonial Williamsburg. At the same time, archaeologists in the greater Chesapeake were growing increasingly aware of the pervasiveness of earthfast buildings, and the archaeological remnants of these buildings. However, the focus of the bulk of the archaeological work at Colonial Williamsburg since the 1950s has been restricted to known eighteenth-century brick structures, thus selecting against the possibility of discovering earthfast buildings that may have stood among the brick ones. Recently, this situation changed somewhat with the large open-area excavations at the Douglass Theater site in the late 1990s, and at the James Wray site in 2002-03. In the course of both excavations, large earthfast buildings were discovered, although their functions varied considerably from one another. At the Douglass Theater site, located at the east end of town near the Capitol, the earthfast building found there was an elaborate two-story tall theater building dating to the period of 1760-80, complete with a stage area, seating area, and support rooms (Lisa Fischer, personal communication). At the other end of town, at the James Wray site, a series of eighteenth-century earthfast buildings were used for a variety of industrial associated functions including: a saw pit shelter, a large barn, brick drying shelter, and as storage buildings or workshops (Harwood et al. 2003:1-13). The results from both of these excavations, combined with the evidence from the Charlton House excavations suggests that earthfast buildings may have had a much larger role in the development of Williamsburg than has long been supposed. They were used for both public and private buildings, as well as, for both large and small buildings.

Beginning in the 1950s, open area excavation blocks became standard practice at Colonial Williamsburg. At the same time, archaeologists in the greater Chesapeake were growing increasingly aware of the pervasiveness of earthfast buildings, and the archaeological remnants of these buildings. However, the focus of the bulk of the archaeological work at Colonial Williamsburg since the 1950s has been restricted to known eighteenth-century brick structures, thus selecting against the possibility of discovering earthfast buildings that may have stood among the brick ones. Beginning in the late 1990s, however, large excavation blocks were excavated in areas within Colonial Williamsburg's Historic Area that were not in direct association with extant brick buildings. In the course of recent excavations at the Douglass Theater site and the James Wray site, large earthfast buildings were discovered. The results from both of these excavations, combined with the evidence from the Charlton House excavations, suggests that earthfast buildings may have a much larger role in the development of Williamsburg than has long been supposed.

The location of the building directly on Duke of Gloucester Street adds a further layer of significance to the structure's discovery. Duke of Gloucester Street was the main street through the colonial capital, and the lots adjoining it were among the most desirable in town. As a result, one might expect that the kinds of structures that occupied these locations would have reflected their privileged geographic position. The 46 archaeological evidence, however, indicates just the opposite. Instead of an expensive or lavishly constructed brick structure, the early eighteenth-century structure on Lot 22 was a rather unimpressive and relatively common earthfast building. The building's location on Duke of Gloucester Street suggests that, just as today, rather than architectural sophistication, location was the most important variable towards evaluating the value of a property. Rather than investing large amounts of capital for the construction of a brick warehouse, an equally suitable earthfast structure was built for a fraction of the cost of a structure seated on brick. Much like the tobacco planter of the seventeenth century, the financier of Lot 22's earthfast building was trying to maximize the return on his investment by limiting his capital expenditures. By selecting a desirable location within the city, the status of the property was assured, and thus much less effort and money were required toward developing the lot without reducing the appeal or status of the property.

The archaeological evidence of the structure consisted of no more than a line of five deep postholes located to the north of the present house. The postholes were oriented east-west and parallel to Duke of Gloucester Street (Figures 25, 26 and 27). The line of posts is believed to represent the northern-most wall of the structure, but no evidence of either gable end or the structure's south wall was found during the excavations. More than likely, construction of the present Chartlon House in the middle of the eighteenth century destroyed the evidence of the post structure's eastern and southern extents, while potential evidence of the structure's west gable end may have survived in the unexplored area to the west of the house.

The structure's posts measured 2.6 meters (8.5 feet) apart on their centers with the presumption that a sixth post would have been located under the present Charlton House porch-an area that was not available for investigation in 2002. The 8.5-foot spacing between posts is consistent with other eighteenth-century examples of earthfast structures. During the seventeenth century, 10-foot spacing had been the most common span between vertical timbers in earthfast structures; however, by the eighteenth century it became necessary to reduce the distance between timbers as 4-foot long clapboards became standardized in the construction of new buildings (Willie Graham, personal communication).

At present, the total distance between the centers of the eastern and western-most posts of the building measures 13 meters (42.5 feet). There was probably at least one additional post to the west (out of the excavation area), because no evidence of a gable-end framing posthole was found to the south of the western-most posthole. If this post had been the structure's corner post, a return post should have been found to its south within the archaeological trench excavated along the west elevation of the Charlton House. The lack of a posthole to the south suggests that an additional post with a return post to its south would be located further to the west within the unexplored area. Conclusively determining the east end of the structure is based primarily on negative rather than direct evidence. Construction (and reconstruction) of both the Charlton House and the Kings Arms Tavern Barber Shop likely destroyed any evidence of the post-in-ground structure's east gable end. However, because the eastern-most post is located within only a few feet of the Lot 22 property boundary, it is reasonable to 47 Figure 25. Plan of Early Post-In-Ground Structure postholes (M4). Figure 26. Photograph of Early Post-In-Ground Structure postholes to the east of the front porch. Figure 27. Photograph of Early Post-In-Ground Structure postholes to the west of the front porch. conclude that the structure did not continue any further to the east, and its east gable end likely paralleled the eastern property boundary. Based on these conclusions, it is reasonable to estimate that the minimum length of the structure would have been at least 15.6 meters (51 feet) along Duke of Gloucester Street. The structure's width, however, still remains unknown.

The original structural posts for the building cut through the postholes of the earlier fence line, as well as the early sheet refuse layer, thus post-dating both the fence and the layer. The excavation and interpretation of the structure's postholes was somewhat 48 complicated by the installation of a subsequent series of replacement posts into the building, as well as because of two mid-century planting features. Careful excavation of each posthole complex ultimately revealed the sequence of each replacement posthole overlapping each original posthole. The fact that the building stood long enough to warrant the replacement of its structural posts suggests that it had stood for a relatively long period of time. In general, wooden posts set into the ground would last approximately fifteen years before rotting and requiring replacement. Thus, a building whose posts have all been replaced may have stood as long as 30 years before it was ready to collapse.

The structure's original postholes were very large, rectangular in shape, with average dimensions measuring 73 x 64.2 cm (2.4 x 2.1 feet) in plan (Table 2). Each of the postholes was excavated to an average depth of 94 cm (3.08 feet), cutting through both the earlier fence line and refuse layer, and deep into the clay subsoil. The great depth of the structure's postholes is particularly remarkable when compared to other post-in-ground buildings in Williamsburg. Among them, the postholes of the Douglass Theatre, a large and probably multi-storied structure, measured on average only 64 x 57 x 53 cm (Lisa Fischer, personal communication). The Douglass Theater postholes were all smaller and not as deep as those on Lot 22. Based on the relatively large size and depth of the postholes on Lot 22 it is likely that the postholes were also intended to support a very substantial structure, possibly extending as tall as two stories or more above ground. In light of the comparison with the Douglass Theater posts, the structure on Lot 22 could have easily been just as large if not larger than the theater. Colonial Williamsburg architectural historian Willie Graham has further suggested that the large size of the postholes may have been to allow the walls of the structure to be raised as a unit, and to allow them to be jostled into place without the constraints of tight holes. It is unlikely that such jostling would be necessary with fence construction, thus further supporting the association of the postholes with a building rather than a fenceline (Willie Graham, personal communication).

No postmolds were found in association any of the original postholes, although they were clearly evident in the later replacement postholes. In addition, the fill within the original posthole, and the subsequent replacement posthole, was continuous across the two, suggesting that they were both filled at the same time. To account for the apparent absence of the original postmolds and the simultaneous filling of both the original and the replacement postholes, it is hypothesized that at the time the original posts were replaced, the original timbers were re-excavated and removed. In this scenario, once the replacement postholes were excavated, and new timbers were seated within the postholes to carry the load of the building, the original postholes were re-excavated and what remained of the original timbers was removed. After the removal of the original timber, both the original and replacement postholes was backfilled at the same time resulting in a continuous layer of fill across the two features.

Each of the repair postholes overlapped the eastern edge of each of its corresponding original posthole. The horizontal dimensions of the repair postholes were larger than the original posts, but were excavated to depths nearly equal to the originals (see Table 2). Each of the postmolds for the repair posts had flat bottoms and 49

Table 2.
Early Post-In-Ground Structure Postholes

Posthole # (W-E)	Original Posthole Context	Length (E-W)	Width (N-S)	Depth	TPQ	Replacement Posthole Context	Length (E-W)	Width (N-S)	Depth	TPQ
1	09PC-152,-153	70	60	85	1720	09PC-131,-132	**	75	85	NDA
2	09PC-164,-165	74	50	96	NDA	09PC-117,-118	90	75	97	1730
3	09PC-155,-156	**	69	97	NDA	09PC-115,-116	95	72	96	1720
4	09PC-169,-170	75	72	95	1720	Unexcavated
5	09PC-167,-168	**	70	97	NDA	Unexcavated
Average		73	64.2	94		92.5	74	92.66

50 Figure 28. Photograph of a posthole profile from the Early Post-In-Ground Structure. Figure 29. S. Cobbs wine bottle seal. measured between 20 and 25 cm (0.75 to 0.85 feet) in diameter while extending the full depth of the posthole. In addition to the fact that the fill was continuous between each set of postholes (original and repair), the same vertical fill pattern was also observed between each set of postholes, with a minor variation in the thickness of each layer (Figure 28). In the bottom of each of the postholes, a thin lens of medium brown silt (Munsell color 7.5YR5/4) had accumulated. The silt was generally thickest within the bottom of the replacement post, possibly indicating that the postholes may have been left open longer while the original posts were being removed prior to the posthole's filling. Deposited over the silt lens was a 12-cm thick layer of brown sandy loam (Munsell color 7.5YR5/4) that contained a small quantity of early eighteenth-century artifacts. On top of that layer, a 35-cm thick layer of sterile orange sandy clay (Munsell color 2.5YR7/6) was deposited, which was followed by a 33-cm thick layer of heavily mottled light yellowish brown silty clay (Munsell color 7.5YR6/6), which also contained eighteenth-century artifacts. The most recent artifacts recovered from any of the postholes were fragments of dip-molded wine bottle glass (TPQ = 1730). In addition, among the many wine bottle glass fragments, an impressed wine bottle seal bearing the name "S. Cobbs" was recovered from the bottom of one of the postholes (Figure 29). The seal belonged to Samuel Cobbs, a tavern keeper and merchant who was in business in Williamsburg by 1719. By 1737, Cobbs moved from town to Amelia County, 51 Virginia, where he died in 1757. A similar seal bearing the name Cobbs was also found during Kirk and Noël Hume's investigations of the northwest corner of Lot 22 (William Pittman, personal communication). In summary, although the name of the individual who had the building constructed has not been recorded, the archaeological evidence suggests that it may have been built as early as 1730, which corresponds with William Byrd II's ownership of the property.

To the south of the line of structural posts, within what would have been the interior of the building, indirect evidence suggests that the building had an earthen floor rather than a wooden floor. As the loose silt that had accumulated within the seventeenth-century drainage/irrigation ditch (M1) began to settle and compact, a linear depression formed at ground surface corresponding with the alignment of the ditch. In an effort to level the ground surface, and probably corresponding with the construction of the earthfast building, a dense layer of orange clay (09PC-166) was deposited within the depression, resulting in a compact flat surface. Unfortunately, however, no artifacts were recovered from the clay which could have helped to more accurately determine the date of its deposition. The fact that the depression was filled in suggests that the ground was exposed and was not hidden under a wooden floor. If the building did have a wooden floor, the depression would have been concealed and it seems unlikely that anyone would have bothered to fill in an unseen depression.

Additional evidence that the structure had an earthen floor was found across the surface of the early sheet refuse layer and to the south of each of the structural posts. Deposited over the early sheet refuse was a thin lens of orange clay and sand (09PC-171) that contained a small quantity of artifacts including tobacco pipe stems, wine bottle glass, and nails. None of which, however, had a meaningful TPQ date. The fact that the lens was restricted to only the south sides of each of the large structural posts, suggests that the posts formed a barrier preventing the accumulation/deposition of the lens to the north of the wall. Although only a very narrow portion of the lens remained intact, the lens may have represented the remnants of a floor surface within the building.

Additional features in association with the post-building included two large post features that were located only 1 meter (3.28 feet) south of the structure's north wall (see Figure 25) and may have been interior postholes for the building (09PC-157-158, -161-162). The western post was significantly truncated by twentieth-century disturbances which prevented its measurement, however, the eastern post was mostly intact. The feature was slightly larger than either the original or replacement posts of the structure, measuring 103 x 57 cm (3.38 x 1.87 feet), with an interval between the features measuring 3.2 meters (10.5 feet) on center from one another. Neither of the features had any evidence of a postmold, nor did the features exhibit any evidence of having been repaired or replaced. It remains possible that the features were postholes that had their posts excavated and removed, but not replaced. If they are interior postholes, their function, however, still remains a mystery. Among the possibilities is that the posts may have part of an internal partition within the building, or they were used as part of an internal support system upholding the structure, or they may have been part of a repair to the building. Similar interior postholes were also identified within a supposed tobacco barn at the King's Reach site in Calvert County, Maryland 52 (King 1999), which architectural historian Willie Graham has proposed may have been used to brace or support a tobacco press within the building (Willie Graham, personal communication). It remains an intriguing possibility that a similar press was used in Williamsburg.

Corresponding documentary evidence of a structure in the first half of the eighteenth century is not nearly as abundant as the archaeological evidence. Although James Shields, William Byrd II, and James Crosby are all identified as successive owners of the lot prior to 1750, there exists no clear mention of a structure on the property until 1749/50 when Crosby conveyed Lots 22, 23, and 24 to Alexander Archibald Buchanan and Company. In the conveyance, at least two structures are described as situated on the property including a warehouse and stable. Although the stable was more likely positioned on the back part of the lot, it is possible that the warehouse may have been located along the street. The earthfast structure found during the 2002 excavations might be the warehouse described in Crosby's deed. Unfortunately, no conclusive indication of the structures function was recovered to link the archaeological evidence to the documentary record. The archaeological data does however indicate that the construction of the building dates to after 1730 and that it had its vertical timbers replaced at least once, suggesting that the building stood for as long as 20 to 30 years, which corresponds very well with the documentary data that indicates that the structure was standing in 1749/50.

Shields, Byrd, and Crosby-Period Faunal Analysis

A small number of faunal remains were recovered from the early sheet refuse layer (M2); the early fenceline (M3); and the features associated with the earthfast structure (M4). Because of the small number of bones from each of these contexts, the animal bone was combined into a single macro-assemblage representing the 1707-1750 occupation of Lot 22. Even so, the pre-1750 faunal assemblage consisted of only 50 identifiable (28.9%) and 123 unidentifiable bones (70.1%), for a total of 173 bones (Table 3). From this relatively small assemblage of identifiable bone, only three different species were identified, all of which are domestic mammals: domestic cow (Bos taurus), domestic pig (Sus scrofa), and sheep/goat (Ovis aries/Capra hircus).⁴ The bones were undoubtedly the remains of meals consumed on or directly adjacent to the property, and were mostly likely purchased at a local market provisioned directly from the nearby countryside (Walsh et al. 1997:175).

Beef and veal elements were the most abundant from the assemblage, regardless of how they were quantified, with pig and sheep/goat elements recovered in substantially lesser quantities. Domestic cow was almost universally raised on plantations, although some urban-dwellers kept a cow or two on their lots to provide them with milk, butter, and cheese. Unlike pork, beef did not preserve well, and salt beef was never as important as salt pork (Price and Schweigert 1971; Bowen 1989). Thus it is likely that most of the beef eaten by urban-dwellers was purchased from farmers or at 53

Table 3.
Faunal Remains from 1707-1750 Period Contexts

		Weight		Biomass
	NISP	Pct.	(g)	Pct.	(kg)	Pct.
Mammals
Class Mammalia (Mammal)	51	29.5	25.9	3.8	0.492	4.6
Class Mammalia I (Large Mammal)	6	3.5	28.3	4.2	0.533	5.0
Class Mammalia II (Medium Mammal)	64	37.0	44.2	6.6	0.796	7.5
Order Artiodactyla I (Sheep, Goat, Deer, or Pig)	1	0.5	3.1	0.4	0.073	0.6
Order Artiodactyla II (Sheep, Goat, Deer)	1	0.5	4.2	0.6	0.096	0.9
Sus scrofa (Domestic Pig)	11	6.4	55.0	8.2	0.969	9.2
Bos taurus (Domestic Cow)	29	16.8	428.2	64.0	6.144	58.3
Ovis aries/Capra hircus (Domestic Sheep or Goat)	4	2.3	62.5	9.3	1.087	10.3
Mammal	173	100.0	668.6	100.0	10.530	100.0
Total Identified	50	28.9	562.9	84.2	19.070	81.1
Total Unidentified	123	70.1	105.7	15.8	1.990	18.9
Grand Totals	173	100.0	668.6	100.0	10.530	100.0

the town market, usually as quarters or smaller sections. Butchers would often purchase entire animals from plantation owners, slaughtering and cutting them up for later sale at market.

Domestic pigs were kept throughout the South and have over the years become almost a symbol of Southern foodways, although recent archaeological evidence suggests that beef was actually much more important (Bowen 1986). Pigs were kept principally on outlaying plantations and farms, and were easy to care for, requiring little watchfulness and an unspecialized diet (Reitz 1979). Because pigs would yield 65-80% of their weight as dressed meat, as apposed to 50-60% for cattle and 45-55% for sheep, raising them was a profitable commercial enterprise (Reitz 1979:78). Virtually all plantation owners kept hogs, and virtually every part of the slaughtered animal was eventually utilized. The animals were typically killed during the late fall or winter, and excess meat was ordinarily smoked, salted, pickled, or potted.

Sheep or goats accounted for the remainder of the assemblage. Sheep were commonly raised on eighteenth-century plantations and farms, although they never became really profitable since they were unable to defend themselves from predators and would not freely reproduce (Gray 1958; Reitz 1979). Goats were occasionally raised, although primarily for their milk rather than their meat (Noël Hume 1978:20). Neither sheep nor goat was a primary food source, and their importance pales in comparison with pigs and cattle.

Unfortunately, the small number of identifiable bones is too small to provide reliable information on the relative dietary importance of the animals represented in the 54 assemblage. In general, however, the assemblage data is consistent with other pre-1750 faunal assemblages from Williamsburg, which consistently demonstrate that large domestic mammals were more important food resources than fish, fowl or wild animals.

Mid-Eighteenth-Century Sheet Refuse Layer (M5)

Directly overlaying the postholes of the early post-in-ground building was a layer of sheet refuse. The fact that the sheet refuse collected over the posthole features indicates that the layer post-dates the construction of the structure. The layer consisted of an 8 to 10 cm (0.33 feet) stratum of mottled brown (Munsell 2.5Y4/3) silty clay loam, and contained a relatively dense concentration of mid-eighteenth-century artifacts (n=2189) that included a variety of ceramics, glass, animal bone, personal items, and architectural debris (Table 4).

Ceramic fragments accounted for 16.7% of the total artifact assemblage (Figure 30). Among the ceramics, delftware and red sandy coarse earthenware accounted for the largest percentage of the ceramic fragments. In addition, fragments of Border ware, North Midland slipware, Buckley ware, North Devon gravel tempered, Yorktown, and Derbyshire coarse earthenwares were all also recovered from the refuse layer. Imported stonewares accounted the most of the remainder of the ceramics and included fragments of white salt-glazed stoneware, Fulham, Westerwald, and Nottingham. A small quantity of Chinese porcelain was also recovered, in addition to a very small number of refined earthenwares, which consisted of only a single fragment of Jackfield, a single fragment of Whieldon, and a single fragment of creamware. The recovery of the creamware, typically not found in Williamsburg until after 1762, is inconsistent with the rest of the ceramics recovered from the layer, which are all typically representative of early to mid-eighteenth-century assemblages. Thus it is possible that the lone creamware fragment is a later intrusion into the layer.

Domestic glass from the layer, which included fragments of wine bottle glass, pharmaceutical glass, container glass, case bottle glass, and table glass, accounted for 30.8% of the total assemblage, the majority of which was wine bottle glass. Architectural debris consisting of nails, window glass, and roofing slate accounted for 21.2% of the layer, while tobacco pipes accounted for 8.2% of the layer. Several of the tobacco pipes had maker's marks with a letter "F" on the left side of the base, and a 55

Table 4.
Artifacts from Mid-Eighteenth-Century Sheet Refuse Layer (M5)

	Number	Percent
Tin Glazed
Delftware	129	5.9
Coarsewares
Border	2	0.1
North Midlands Slip	4	0.2
Buckley	1	0.1
North Devon	3	0.1
Red Sandy	116	5.3
Yorktown	19	0.9
Derbyshire	1	0.1
Stonewares
White Salt Glazed (dipped)	23	1.1
White Ssalt Glazed	5	0.2
Fulham	16	0.7
Westerwald	10	0.5
Nottingham	20	0.9
Other	1	0.1
Refined Earthenwares
Creamware	1	0.1
Whieldon	1	0.1
Jackfield	1	0.1
Porcelain
Chinese	10	0.5
Refractory Clay	2	0.1
Glass
Wine Bottle	508	23.2
Pharmaceutical	3	0.1
Container	61	2.8
Table	30	1.4
Case Bottle	73	3.3
Tobacco Pipes	180	8.2
Architectural
Nails	314	14.3
Window Glass	148	6.8
Slate	1	0.1
Faunal	450	20.6
Oyster Shell	28	1.3
Other	28	1.3
Total	2189	100.0

56 Figure 30. Artifacts from the mid-eighteenth-century sheet refuse layer (M5). letter "S" on the right side, with a crown surmounting each letter. Unfortunately, that particular mark remains unattributed to a specific pipemaker. Pipes with a second variety of maker's mark was also recovered. The mark consisted of the letter "W" on the left side of the base, and the "M" on the right. The mark most likely represents the mark of one of several different William Manbys, all of whom belonged to the same family of London pipemakers who produced pipes from 1681 to 1770 (Oswald 1975:142). Faunal remains accounted for 20.5% of the sheet refuse layer and comprised the remainder of the recovered material.

Determining the age of the layer was established by means of several different complementary techniques, including the above referenced dates from the tobacco pipe maker's marks. The TPQ of the layer was determined to be 1762 based on the single fragment of creamware. This date, however, is questionable due to speculation that the single creamware fragment was intrusive into the layer. The next most recent artifact was a single fragment of Derbyshire coarse earthenware that has a TPQ of 1750, which may be a more realistic date for the accumulation of the layer, as the rest of the artifacts all have much earlier manufacturing dates that consistently date to the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Following the techniques pioneered by J.C. Harrington (1954) and Lewis Binford (1962), the imported tobacco pipe stems with measurable stem bore diameters were used as an additional method of determining possible deposition date for the refuse layer. The sample consisted 111 pipe stems, which were measured using a set of graduated drill bits that ranged in size from 6/64 inches to 4/64 inches. Interestingly, pipe stems with bore diameters measuring 5/64 inches 57 and 4/64 inches were equal in number, followed by a small number of stems measuring 6/64 inches (Figure 31).

In general, both Harrington and Binford's techniques are based on the premise that through time, pipe stem bore diameters decreased in size. Harrington developed a histogram assembling different sized pipe stem bore diameters into temporal groupings (Figure 32). Using Harrington's method, the distribution of measurable pipe stems from the sheet refuse layer does not match any single time period. Instead the distribution appears to span almost the entire eighteenth century, 1710-1800. Although it is unlikely that the sheet refuse was continually accumulating for an entire century, the flat distribution does suggest that accumulation of the layer centered around 1750. Alternatively, Lewis Binford developed a straight-line regression formula using the measured diameters of pipe stems to determine a mean date for a particular sample of pipe stems. By applying Binford's formula to the pipe stem sample from the sheet refuse layer, the calculated mean date is 1758.13, which approximately correlates with the Harrington date.

Although the dates are variable, by considering all the different dating techniques together, it may be possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the layer's accumulation. Initially, the TPQ for the layer was determined as 1762, based on the recovery of a single fragment of creamware. The late date of the artifact in comparison to the dates of all other artifacts from the layer, however, suggests that it may be an intrusion, and thus would be misrepresentative of the layer's accumulation. The next most recent TPQ is 1750, based on a fragment of Derbyshire coarse earthenware, a date which is more characteristic of the rest of the assemblage. Similarly, Harrington's pipestem histogram technique also indicates a circa 1750 date for the accumulation of the layer, and Binford's formula produces a mean date of 1758. Although varying slightly, each of the dating estimates places the layer's age at, or shortly after, mid-century.

Planting Features

Two large and deep planting features, both of which date to mid-century, were also found along the northern boundary of Lot 22 (Figure 33). The eastern planting feature Figure 31. Pipestems from mid-eighteenth-century sheet refuse layer (M5). 58 Figure 32. Harrington histogram (from Harrington 1954). Figure 33. Plan of planting features. (09PC-120-121) measured 75 x 85 cm (2.46 x 2.79 feet) across the top, although a twentieth-century utility pipe had disturbed much of this feature. The depth of the feature measured 115 cm (3.77 feet), and cut through the mid-eighteenth-century sheet refuse layer (M5) and a posthole (09PC-131-132, -152) from the earlier post-in-ground structure. The substantial width and the depth of the planting hole indicate that it held a fairly large plant at one time, possibly a small tree or large bush. The fact that the planting feature was aligned along the same orientation as the earlier posthole features, and the fact that the planting feature intruded a posthole made it very difficult for the excavators to discern the planting feature's fill from the posthole fill. A relatively high number of artifacts (n=186) were recovered from the planting feature fill, 59 although their recovery was not particularly surprising given the fact that the feature cut through the artifact-rich layer of mid-eighteenth-century refuse. Similar to the refuse layer, a TPQ of 1730 was attributed the planting feature based on the recovery of dip-molded wine bottle glass, although the feature clearly post-dates the accumulation of the sheet refuse which has been attributed to circa 1750.

The western planting feature (09PC-148-149) also cut through the mid-eighteenth-century sheet refuse layer (M5), as well as another one of the earthfast structure's postholes (09PC-169-170). The feature measured 105 x 90 cm (3.44 x 2.95 feet) across its top and had tapered sides sloping to the middle. The depth of the feature measured 96 cm (3.15 feet) deep. Similar to the eastern planting feature, a relatively high number (n=184) of artifacts were recovered from the planting fill. The TPQ for the feature was also 1730 based on fragments of dip-molded wine bottle glass. However, once again, the planting feature clearly post-dated the mid-century layer of the sheet refuse.

Alexander Archibald Buchanan & Company and John Carter-Period Faunal Analysis

Once again, several different contemporary contexts were combined into a single macro-assemblage for the purposes of the faunal analysis. In this instance, the faunal remains recovered from the three planting features were combined with contemporary with the sheet refuse layer into a single macro-assemblage that accumulated between 1750 and 1769. The assemblage consisted of a total of 492 bones, of which only 63 were identifiable (12.8%), leaving 429 as unidentified (87.2%).

Domestic mammals-cow (Bos taurus), pig (Sus scrofa), and sheep/goat (Ovis aries/Capra hircus)-accounted for all the identified mammals, and once again for the majority of the total assemblage (Table 5). Their relative abundance, once again, reflects the increasing reliance of Williamsburg's residents upon domestic animals for food. As previously mentioned, the meat from these animals was likely purchased at a local market, rather than raising and butchering the animals on site (Walsh et al. 1997:175).

In addition to the large number mammal bones, nearly two dozen bird bones were also recovered. Unfortunately, however, only two were identifiable to species, both of which were chicken (Gallus gallus). According to diaries and traveler's accounts, chicken was, with beef and pork, among the most common meats of the colonial and post-colonial period. Almost every household, even in towns and cities, probably kept at least a few chickens (Noël Hume 1978:22), since they were easy to keep and furnished eggs as well as meat.

Fish bones rounded out the assemblage, including two different species of fish: sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus) and black drum (Pogonias cromis). Only a single sheepshead element was recovered. Sheepshead were abundant in the colonial Chesapeake, and were often mentioned in descriptions of the area (Murdy et al. 1997). Sheepshead can be found in the lower Chesapeake during the summer, and typically congregate near jetties, wharves, pilings, and shipwrecks. A single bone from a black drum was also recovered. Black drum are large ocean-going fish, an average 60

Table 5.
Faunal Remains from
1750-1769 Period Contexts

		Weight			Biomass
	NISP	Pct.	(g)	Pct.	(kg)	Pct.
Fish
Class Osteichthyes (Bony Fish)	5	1.0	0.4	0.0	0.014	0.0
Archosargus probatocephalus (Sheepshead)	1	0.2	1.0	0.0	0.030	0.1
Pogonias cromis (Black Drum)	1	0.2	5.8	0.4	0.118	0.5
Birds
Class Aves (Bird)	17	3.4	5.7	0.4	0.100	0.4
Class Aves/Mammalia III (Bird/Small Mammal)	4	0.8	0.6	0.0	0.013	0.0
Gallus gallus (Chicken)	2	0.4	5.3	0.3	0.093	0.4
Mammals
Class Mammalia (Mammal)	167	33.9	51.8	3.7	0.918	4.3
Class Mammalia I (Large Mammal)	127	25.8	634.7	26.2	5.318	25.3
Class Mammalia II (Medium Mammal)	106	21.5	109.5	7.8	1.801	8.5
Class Mammalia III (Small Mammal)	1	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.002	0.0
Order Artiodactyla I (Sheep, Goat, Deer, or Pig)	2	0.4	4.8	0.0	0.108	0.5
Sus scrofa (Domestic Pig)	12	2.4	51.1	3.6	0.907	4.3
Bos taurus (Domestic Cow)	21	4.2	547.9	39.4	7.671	36.5
Bos taurus (Domestic Cow/Calf)	13	2.6	124.0	8.9	2.014	9.5
Ovis aries/Capra hircus (Domestic Sheep or Goat)	13	2.6	116.6	8.3	1.906	9.0
Fish	7	1.4	7.2	0.4	0.162	0.6
Bird	23	4.6	11.6	0.7	0.206	0.8
Mammal	462	93.6	1640.4	97.9	20.645	97.9
Total Identified	63	12.8	851.7	61.3	12.739	60.6
Total Unidentified	429	86.4	537.5	38.7	8.274	39.4
Grand Totals	492	100.0	1389.2	100.0	21.013	100.0

about 25 pounds in weight (Miller 1984). They are bottom feeders, living on clams, oysters, and other mollusks (Lippson and Lippson 1984:190-191).

Early Brick Foundation

During the 1966 excavations of Lot 22 the heavily disturbed remnants of a narrow brick foundation were identified in the northwest corner of the lot.⁵ At the time, only portions of the west and south brick foundation walls of the structure were found, 61 while the north and east walls were assumed to been eradicated by the construction of a later building built on the same location. Artifacts from the foundation's builder's trench, and an accompanying debris layer, suggested a construction date in the second quarter of the eighteenth century (Kirk 1967:14-16). Unexpectedly, during the waterproofing excavations of the Charlton House in 2002, a previously undiscovered portion of the same early brick foundation was unearthed (Figure 34), consisting of the northeast corner of the structure's brick foundation (09PC-91). The northeast corner of the foundation had escaped notice in 1966, because it was preserved under a baulk left in place around a tree that had stood at the northwest corner of the Charlton House in 1966. At the time, it was taken for granted that nothing of the foundation remained under the tree. The tree has since been removed, thus allowing for the archaeological investigation of the area, which ultimately resulted in the discovery of the foundation.

All that remained intact of the foundation was the bottom course of bricks. Evidently, the planting hole for the tree, which had prevented the exposure of the foundation in 1966, displaced the upper courses of the foundation and all the overlaying strata. The north wall was two bricks wide, with the bricks laid as stretchers lengthwise in the wall (Figure 35). The foundation's east wall was one brick length thick with the bricks laid as headers along the wall. A shell-based mortar, typical of eighteenth-century masonry, was used to bond the bricks together. The sizes of the bricks measured on average 77 8 x 4 x 2 inches (20 x 10 x 5 cm). In comparison, the bricks from the structure's east and original south wall measured 73 8 x 3½ x 2 inches (18.75 x 9 x 5 cm) and 7¼ x 3½ x 1 7/8 inches (18.5 x 9 x 4.75 cm) (Kirk 1967:49).

In 1966 the exterior dimensions of the structure were estimated at 6.35 m (20'10") deep (north-south) and at least 4.65 m (15'3") wide (east-west) with a 3.05 m (10') shed addition to the rear. These measurements were based on the assumption that the location of the building's north wall corresponded with the north wall of a later building on the same location, and that the structure's east wall was destroyed by the construction of the present Charlton House. However, with the identification of the building's northeast corner a more precise measurement of the building's dimensions can now be determined. The corner of the foundation was not found in line with the north wall of the later building as previously assumed, but instead excavators discovered an addition 90 cm (3 feet) further to the north. Nor had the construction of the Charlton House completely destroyed the east wall, instead the wall stood 72 cm (2.4 feet) to the west of the Charlton House. In light of this new evidence, the revised dimensions of the first period structure measured 7.16 m (23'6") deep (north-south), and 4.95 m (16'3") wide (east-west), plus the 3.05 m (10.0') shed addition to the rear.

The archaeological evidence from 2002 also suggests a slightly later construction date for the building than had previously been concluded. In 1966, the date of the building's construction had been estimated at 1740. However, during the 2002 excavations, the evidence of the structure's northeast corner was clearly built over the mid-eighteenth-century sheet refuse layer (M5), which has been dated to circa 1750, thus dating the construction of the building after 1750. Unfortunately, no evidence of the structure's builder's trench was found in order to more specifically determine the building's age.

62

Figure 34. Plan of Early Brick Foundation.

Figure 35. Photograph of northeast corner of the Early Brick Foundation.

Neither the 1966 nor the 2002 excavations recovered any evidence to indicate the function of the building. Similarly, there exists no documentary evidence to suggest what purpose this structure may have served. However, the small size of the building and its prominent location along Duke of Gloucester Street, both suggests that the building was probably used a small shop occupied by either a merchant or crafts/trades person. The small structure stood only for a short while, as it was replaced with a new building on the same location in the late 1760s.

Charlton House Construction Features

In spite of the thorough excavations around three sides of the Charlton House in 2002, the archaeological evidence of its construction was minimal, primarily due to the extensive redesign of the rear of the house in the nineteenth century which destroyed all traces of the original portions of the house's southern elevation. Similarly, the restoration of the house in 1929-30, and a later attempt to waterproof the house's foundation, combined to obliterate nearly all evidence of construction-related features around the north and west elevations of the house. Consequently, the surviving evidence pertaining to the construction of the Charlton House is limited to a thin lens of mottled clay construction debris (09PC-145), and a heavily disturbed portion of its builder's trench (09PC-138-139). The only additional physical evidence regarding the construction of the house was a variation in the brickwork of the basement walls noted during a previous architectural evaluation that identified three distinct phases of construction for the house's basement. As a result of this lack of evidence, our ability to expand upon the existing documentary and architectural inferences was significantly hampered by the scarcity of intact archaeological evidence.

Both the lens of construction debris, and the builder's trench, were located along the north elevation of the house and to the east of the reconstructed front porch. The construction debris measured only 3 cm thick and consisted of yellowish brown clay (10YR5/4) mottled with pockets of dark brown clay (10YR3/3). Although thin, the layer contained artifacts (n=199) and numerous brick fragments (Table 6). A TPQ of 1740 for the layer was determined based on the recovery of fragments of molded white salt glazed stoneware and Whieldon-type refined earthenwares, although the stratigraphic position of the layer indicates that the layer post-dates the circa 1750 sheet refuse layer and planting features.

The second construction related feature was a heavily disturbed section of builder's trench (09PC-138-139) along the eastern end of the Charlton House's north elevation. Previous waterproofing of the house's foundations displaced the portion of the builder's trench directly against the house, leaving only a narrow remnant of the feature 64

Table 6.
Artifacts from Charlton House
Construction-Related Contexts

	Construction Debris Lens	Builder's Trench	Total	Percent
Tin Glazed
Delftware	-	2	2	0.5
Coarsewares
Red Sandy	1	3	4	1.0
Stonewares
White Salt Glazed	-	1	1	0.3
Fulham	-	1	1	0.3
Other	1	-	1	0.3
Refined Earthenwares
Whieldon	1	-	1	0.3
Porcelain
Chinese	-	2	2	0.5
Refractory Clay	-	-	-	-
Glass	-	-	-	-
Wine Bottle	18	9	27	7.1
Pharmaceutical		1	1	0.3
Container	1	11	12	3.2
Tobacco Pipes	5	3	8	2.1
Architectural
Nails	23	23	46	12.1
Window Glass	73	84	157	41.4
Slate	-	-	-	-
Faunal	51	49	100	26.4
Oyster Shell	3	4	7	1.9
Other	3	6	9	2.4
Total	180	199	379	100.0

fill along the exterior cut of the trench. Not enough of the feature, however, was preserved in order to discern the vertical profile of the builder' trench. The small amount of feature fill consisted of a yellowish brown (Munsell color 10YR5/8) clay loam and yielded both artifacts (n=180) and brick fragments (see Table 6). Similar to the layer of construction debris, the TPQ for the builder's trench was also 1740, which in this instance was determined from the recovery of a fragment of Whieldon-type refined earthenware, although the stratigraphic position of the trench also post-dates the circa 1750 accumulation of sheet refuse (M5). The location of the builder's trench to the east of the front porch corresponds with the third phase of brickwork in the structure's basement as determined from the previous architectural investigation.

65

As indicated above, however, no intact archaeological features were found corresponding with either the first phase of brickwork at the west end of the north elevation, or the second phase along the rear of the house. As a result, no comparison of construction-related features from the different phases of the Charlton House's construction was possible.

The layer of construction debris, as well as the supposed builder's trench, contained artifacts and brick fragments. Particularly remarkable about the artifacts from each of these features was the high frequency of architectural debris recovered in proportion to the frequency of domestic refuse. Architectural debris from both features, consisting of nails and window glass, accounted for over fifty percent of all the artifacts recovered from each feature, while non-architectural debris such as ceramics, glass, and faunal remains, typically associated with domestic refuse, accounted for most of the remainder of each feature's artifact total. In comparison, the two earlier layers of sheet refuse overwhelmingly consisted primarily of household refuse, with only a minimal quantity of architectural debris (Figure 36). The dramatic increase in frequency of architectural debris versus domestic debris between the construction-related features and the earlier occupation layers likely reflects the activities that took place on the site while the features were forming and the layers accumulating. Logically, architectural debris most likely would have accumulated primarily during periods of construction and renovation, while domestic artifacts most likely would have accumulated as the result of the disposal of household refuse during an earlier occupation of the property. Accordingly, the accumulation of the layer of construction debris and the filling of the possible builder's trench feature, both of which contain high proportions of architecturally related material, likely correspond with the construction of the Charlton House.

Analysis of artifacts from the two construction-related features, and their relative stratigraphic positions, indicates a construction date somewhat earlier than suggested by the documentary research. Although all artifacts from the features are typical of Figure 36. Comparison of artifacts from the Charlton House construction-related features and the sheet refuse layers. 66 those recovered from pre-1750 contexts, both features overlay the circa 1750 layer of sheet refuse. Consequently, the construction of the Charlton House must also post-date the layer of sheet refuse. How much after 1750, however, is unclear. While the earliest documentary evidence of the existence of the Charlton House is from 1769, the archaeological evidence suggests a construction date as early as the mid-1750s. Most likely, the construction of the house probably occurred sometime between the two dates, probably sometime during the 1760s, possibly coinciding with Edward Charlton's purchase of the property.

Brick Sidewalk

Shortly after the construction of the Charlton House, improvements to the approach to the building were made. In particular, a brick-paved sidewalk (M7) stretched across the north end of Lot 22, in front of the Charlton House and the adjacent wigmaking/tailor shop. The addition of a sidewalk represented a significant alteration and improvement to the lot, making the ground surface cleaner and less treacherous for pedestrians and potential shoppers walking past the lot or into the area's many shops and businesses.

The sidewalk bricks were seated on a bed of ash and sand (M8) spread across the north end of Lot 22 in front of the house and shop. The layer consisted of overlapping lenses of dark gray ash (7.5YR4/1) and olive yellow sand (2.5Y6/6) that were deposited directly over the construction-related features of the Charlton House. The lack of any intervening stratigraphy suggests that the sidewalk was installed shortly after the construction of the house was completed. The bed of ash and sand was likely deposited in order to provide an even surface to lay the paving bricks for the sidewalk onto. Among the numerous artifacts recovered from the layer were several fragments of creamware (TPQ = 1762), indicating the sidewalk was not laid down until after 1762, a date that is consistent with the evidence of the Charlton House's construction, although a more precise date may be ca. 1770 which takes into account the relevant historical data.

The best-preserved portion of the sidewalk was found to the east of the reconstructed front porch (Figure 37), and continued to the north and east beyond the boundaries of the archaeological trenches. No evidence of mortar adhering to any of the bricks was found, indicating that the bricks were dry-laid directly on the bed of ash and sand. The bricks within the sidewalk were laid in no discernible pattern and consisted entirely of either half or three-quarter brickbats. No whole bricks were found to have been used anywhere within the sidewalk. Unfortunately, to the west of the porch, nothing more than a layer of jumbled and crushed brick remained of the original sidewalk. The brick rubble also extended to the north and west beyond the excavation trenches.

Charlton Period Occupation Layers

The eighteenth-century occupation of the Charlton House was evidenced by three distinct layers of artifact-rich sheet refuse recovered from along the north elevation of the house (Figure 38). The accumulation of the layers likely resulted from the disposal 67 Figure 37. Photograph of the intact brick sidewalk to the east of the reconstructed front porch. Figure 38. Sheet refuse layers to the north of the Charlton House. 68 of household refuse and debris. As the everyday trash was being removed from the house, it was being taken out either the front or back door of the house and was dumped into the yard or street. However, as previously discussed, extensive twentieth-century disturbance to the rear of the house destroyed any evidence of the eighteenth-century sheet refuse there, leaving only the sheet refuse layers which accumulated in front of the house.

The recovery of the sheet refuse layers from either side of the front porch suggests that there was no significant preference to which side of the porch the refuse was being deposited. Artifacts from each of the layers had TPQ's of no later than 1783, thus linking their accumulation with the occupation of house by the Charlton family-first by Edward and Jane Charlton, and followed by Richard Charlton's widow, Sarah, and her children.

The first layer consisted of a stratum of olive gray (2.5Y4/2) sand (09PC-130) that sealed the remains of the brick sidewalk. The fact that the sidewalk post-dated 1762 indicates that the accumulation of the sheet refuse had to come after 1762 as well. The layer measured only 5 to 8 cm thick and contained a large quantity of eighteenth-century artifacts (n=1047). Deposited directly over the sand was a 1 to 10 cm thick lens of dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6) sand, ash and burned material (09PC-128), which contained large chunks of charcoal, as well as a variety of eighteenth-century artifacts (n=124). The presence of the charcoal and ash suggests that the layer may have been formed partially as a result of the cleaning out of one of the large fireplaces within the Charlton House. The fact that none of the artifacts from the layer showed any evidence of having been burned further suggests that the ash and charcoal probably came from a contained fire, such as a fireplace or stove, rather than from a house fire which would have resulted in the burning of other materials in addition to wood. The third layer of debris was a very thin (<1 cm) lens of crushed brick (09PC-125). The layer included a small number of eighteenth-century artifacts (n=79), but unlike the first and second layers, the lens was found only to the east of the front porch.

Sealing the three layers of sheet refuse was a densely compacted clay cap (M9) that spread across the front of the entire north elevation of the Charlton House. Although the installation of a twentieth-century sewer line partially disturbed the western extent of the clay cap, there was no evidence that the clay extended beyond the northwest corner of the house. In other words, the clay was limited to only in front of the Charlton House, and was not present in front of the neighboring shop located on the northwest corner of the lot. To the east, the clay layer extended beyond the limits of the archaeological trench, leaving the eastern extent of the clay undetermined. The clay was yellowish brown (10YR5/8) in color, and varied in thickness from 2 to 40 cm, with the thickest section along the west side of the front porch, and drastically tapering to the west. Meanwhile, to the east of the front porch, the clay cap remained a consistent 20 cm thick. A total of 788 artifacts were recovered from the clay, consisting of a variety of eighteenth-century ceramics, glass, tobacco pipes, animal bone, and architectural debris. Although the TPQ for the layer was only 1720, the fact that clay was deposited over several third-quarter eighteenth-century contexts indicates 69 that the clay was also probably deposited either in the third or forth quarter of the eighteenth century.

Unlike the thin layers of sheet refuse found underneath the clay that had accumulated slowly over time, the dense homogenous nature of the clay cap indicates that the clay was probably deposited in a single short event. The deposition of the clay across the front of the house may have been an attempt to modify the landscape in front of the house. Although a brick sidewalk had previously stretched across the front of the house, it was evidently no longer in use as household debris, and debris from the street had been allowed to accumulate over the brick paving, which was covered by the clay cap. Accordingly, several possible hypotheses for why the clay cap was deposited are considered. The least likely scenario is that the clay may have been laid down to cover the unsightly mess of the ground surface around the house. It is unlikely that the residents of the house would have expended the time, energy and money to cover over the debris. If the accumulation of the debris was truly a problem for the residents, a simple sweeping would have sufficed to improve the appearance of the yard in front of the house. A more likely scenario is that the clay was deposited in order to build up the ground surface around the house. From a strictly utilitarian perspective, the clay may have been added for drainage purposes. By sloping the clay away from the house the goal may have been to drain or direct the water dripping off the roof of the house away from the building, rather than to allow it to pool around it the foundations, which over time would seep into the basement. An intriguing third alternative explanation is that the owners/occupants of the house were deliberately building up the ground surface around the house in order to give the appearance that the house had been built atop a small hill or knoll. When originally constructed, the Charlton House was built at the same elevation as the street and neighboring structures. However, by adding the clay along the front of the house, the illusion that the house was constructed atop of a small hill would be achieved, possibly serving as a symbolic metaphor for the elevated status of the house's occupants, or their own perceptions of what their status was among their neighbors. The symbolic expression of status through landscape manipulation was not uncommon in the eighteenth century, nor is it today. The use of vistas, formal gardens, and exotic plants, among other features, were commonly used among the eighteenth-century elite to express or convey their status (Yentsch 1994:113-129). As a wigmaker, Edward Charlton was not among Williamsburg's wealthy elite; however, as a skilled and successful craftsman, Charlton might have believed that they had realized a level of social and economic success beyond the achievements of his neighbors. It is interesting to consider the possibility that Charlton deliberately attempted to convey his elevated status by cosmetically altering the appearance of his property with features commonly associated with the homes of Williamsburg's rich and powerful.

Charlton Period Artifacts and Faunal Analysis

In addition to Edward Charlton's income from his wigmaking business, the family was no doubt further financially supported with income from Jane Charlton's millinery business. The benefits of their combined income probably afforded them a lifestyle better than most of Williamsburg's residents. The Charlton's economic success can be measured 70 on several levels, including the fact that they owned prominent city property, or because they were publicly regarded as successful business people, as well as, by their attempt to imitate the landscapes of the Williamsburg's elite society. Accordingly, the analysis of the artifacts associated with the Charltons would provide for an insight into the material life of a successful merchant/tradesperson in Williamsburg.

In total, 4231 artifacts were recovered from the various contexts associated with the late eighteenth-century occupation of the house by the Charlton family (Table 7).6 Household refuse accounted for 53% of the total assemblage, while architectural debris accounted for 47% (Figure 39). The higher percentage of domestic debris from the layer is consistent with the attribution of the layer having been formed primarily as the result of household refuse disposal, as opposed to construction debris.

The domestic refuse from the Charlton-period included of a wide variety of ceramics, glass, animal bone, personal items and small finds. Among the ceramics, which account for 11% of the total assemblage, delftware was the most common, followed by white salt glazed stoneware and Chinese porcelain. Other ceramic ware types included red sandy coarse earthenware, locally manufactured coarse earthenwares, Iberian coarseware, North Midlands slipware, North Devon coarse earthenware, English Fulham stoneware, Astbury-type stoneware, Nottingham stoneware, Staffordshire brown stoneware, Westerwald, creamware, pearlware, Whieldon-type ware, and English soft-paste porcelain. Interestingly, the ceramic assemblage included not only those ceramics used for food storage and preparation (i.e., coarse earthenware bowls and pots, etc), but also those used for food service (i.e., molded white salt glaze stoneware plates, etc.). In other words, the ceramics in the assemblage includes those one would expect to find associated not only in a kitchen, but also within a dining room. Unfortunately, the analysis of the Charlton-period ceramics has been limited to only a sherd-level of analysis, as at the time of this writing the cross-mending and a minimum vessel count of the ceramics have yet to be completed. As a result, there can be no discussion or comparisons of individual vessels or vessel forms present in the assemblage.

The ceramic assemblage consists of a number of ceramic ware types with long production ranges that extend through most of the eighteenth century. In addition, the recovery of primarily "older" ware types such as white salt glazed stoneware may be due to the increased care with which "newer" wares (i.e., creamware and pearlware) were being treated. It is possible that the older and out of fashion ceramics may have been considered disposable and thus were more casually handled, and as a result, they were subjected to a greater frequency of breakage, and their inclusion into the archaeological record. If so, this would suggest that the ceramics recovered from the sheet refuse layers do not necessarily reflect the ware types that were actually favored in the kitchen and dining room of the Charlton House. Instead, it may be argued that the ceramics recovered from the sheet refuse represent what the Charlton's disregarded as valuable or worth taking care of.

71

Table 7.
Artifacts from Charlton-Period Contexts

	Clay Cap	Brick Lens	Burn Lens	Sand	Sidewalk	Ash & Sand	Totals	Percent
Tin Glazed
Delftware	44	1	4	22	27	74	172	4.0
Coarsewares
North Midlands Slip	2	-	-	2	2	6	12	0.3
North Devon	-	-	-	-	1	5	6	0.2
Red Sandy	2	-	-	-	2	22	26	0.6
Black-Glazed Redware	2	-	7	2	-	-	11	0.3
Iberian	1	-	-	-	-	1	2	0.1
Colono	1	-	-	-	-	-	1	0.1
Buckley	-	-	-	1	-	-	1	0.1
Other	-	-	-	2	-	2	4	0.1
Stonewares
Astbury	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	0.1
Staffordshire Brown	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	0.1
White Salt Glazed (dipped)	1	-	-	-	-	9	10	0.2
White Salt Glazed	34	5	4	5	13	27	88	2.1
Fulham	1	-	-	-	1	10	12	0.3
Westerwald	2	4	-	6	4	2	18	0.4
Notthingham	2	-	1	1	2	2	8	0.2
English	4	-	-	-	1	-	5	0.1
Porcelain
English Soft-Paste	-	-	-	-	7	2	9	2.1
72
Refined Earthenware
Creamware	-	-	-	-	-	3	3	0.1
Refractory Clay	3	-	-	-	1	9	13	0.3
Glass
Wine Bottle	88	-	7	63	75	204	437	10.2
Container	62	2	4	22	23	83	196	4.6
Table	1	-	-	-	1	3	5	0.1
Case Bottle	14	-	-	12	12	15	53	1.3
Tobacco Pipes	16	3	1	47	8	46	121	2.9
Architectural
Nails	102	7	33	139	92	288	661	15.6
Window Glass	157	33	25	499	191	396	1301	30.8
Window Leads				3		3	6	0.1
Faunal	213	20	28	190	117	281	848	20.1
Oyster Shell	11	1	5	2	3	37	59	1.4
Other	18	2	4	25	21	24	94	2.2
Total	788	79	124	1047	607	1586	4231	100.0

73 Figure 39. Comparison of household refuse and construction-related artifacts from the Charlton occupation layers.

Interestingly, a small quantity of non-domestic ceramic clay crucible fragments was also recovered from the sheet refuse layers (n=15), accounting for less than 1% of the total artifact assemblage, and less than 5% of the total number of ceramics. Crucible fragments were found not only across the front of the Charlton House, but also from the occupation layers of the neighboring wigmaking/tailor shop. In general, crucibles are most commonly found on sites associated with apothecaries, farriers, or metalworkers. Similar crucible fragments were also during the excavations of Richard Charlton's coffeehouse (owned by Edward's brother) on the north side of Duke of Gloucester Street. At the Coffeehouse site the crucible fragments were found in association with a small brick furnace. Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) of the residue found adhering to the bottom of the Coffeehouse crucibles included traces of copper, gold and silver. The small scale of the furnace, and the identification of metals commonly used in colonial coinage, led the archaeologists excavating the site to propose that assaying may have been conducted on the property-i.e., the analysis of a metal alloys to ascertain their ingredients and their proportions. In particular, assayers in eighteenth-century Williamsburg would have tested coins to authenticate their metallic content, and hence their value (Garden et al. 2001). Although no assaying furnace has been located on Lot 22, it remains an interesting possibility that assaying may have also existed on the property as well.

Fragments of tobacco pipes were also common among the household artifacts. The tobacco pipes with measurable bore diameters were also used to date the accumulation of the layers. A mean date was calculated for tobacco pipe stems with measurable bore diameters using Lewis Binford's straight-line regression formula. Although based on an admittedly small sample size (n=90), the calculated date for the pipe stems was 1773.62. A Harrington histogram of the distribution of the tobacco pipe stems bore diameters was also produced (Figure 40) which exhibited a distribution that most closely corresponds to the Harrington histogram time period of 1750-1800. In general, the tobacco pipe stem mean date and date range are both consistent with 74 Figure 40. Tobacco pipe stems from the Charlton occupation layers. the association of the layer with the Charlton family in the second half of the eighteenth century. The household refuse also included various different glass fragments representing a variety different vessel types and forms. Glass from the Charlton-period contexts accounted for 16% of the total assemblage, and included fragments of wine bottle glass, container glass, case bottle glass, and table glass. Similar to the ceramics, glass vessels associated with both storage (wine, case, and container glass) and dining (table glass) were found mixed together across the front of the house also suggesting a mixed deposit of kitchen and table refuse.

A small quantity of personal items and small finds were also recovered accounting for less than 3% of the total assemblage. Personal items included a child's marble, a glass jewelry stone, fan parts, and a bone hatpin. Other small finds included gunflints, numerous upholstery tacks, and a table knife. Artifacts probably spilling over from the refuse of the neighboring wigmaking and tailoring businesses were also recovered including straight pins, buckles, and a bone button blank.

Also included as household refuse was animal bone and oyster shell. The bone and shell recovered from the Charlton-period contests represented the remains of the meals consumed by the Charlton family in the late eighteenth century (Table 8). In comparison to the other artifact categories, the bones and shells combined to comprise 20% of the total assemblage. The Charlton-period faunal assemblage contained some 1036 bones, 129 identifiable (12.5%) and 907 unidentifiable (87.5%). At least twelve different species were identified: one fish, one amphibian, four birds, and six mammals. Four domestic species were identified: chicken, pig, cow and sheep/goat. Other species included one commensal animal (a rat) and two species of wild animals.

Sturgeon (Acipenser spp.) was the only fish species identified from the deposit. Sturgeon is a bottom dwelling andromenous fish which spawns in fresh or brackish water in the spring. A mature Sturgeon may be more than six feet long and weight over one hundred fifty pounds (Lippson and Lippson 1984). The sturgeon remains 75

Table 8.
Faunal Remains from 1770-1795 Period Contexts

	NISP		Weight		Biomass
	No.	Pct.	(g)	Pct.	(kg)	Pct.
Fish
Class Osteichthyes (Bony Fish)	7	06.	0.6	0.0	0.021	0.0
Acipenser spp. (Sturgeon)	10	0.9	6.2	0.4	0.150	0.6
Amphibians and Reptiles
Order Testudines (Turtle)	3	0.2	2.0	0.1	0.050	0.2
Birds
Class Aves (Bird)	31	2.9	6.7	0.4	0.117	0.5
Class Aves/Mammalia III (Bird/Small Mammal)	26	2.5	5.7	0.4	0.100	0.4
Duck spp. (Duck)	5	0.4	3.8	0.2	0.069	0.3
Family Phasianidae (Grouse, Partridge or Pheasant)	1	0.1	1.8	0.1	0.035	0.1
Meleagris gallopavo (Turkey)	2	0.1	1.7	0.1	0.033	0.1
Gallus gallus (Chicken)	4	0.3	2.7	0.1	0.050	0.2
Mammals
Class Mammalia (Mammal)	409	39.4	114.6	8.0	1.876	8.5
Class Mammalia I (Large Mammal)	137	13.2	309.7	21.8	4.590	20.9
Class Mammalia II (Medium Mammal)	281	27.1	247.8	17.4	3.756	17.1
Class Mammalia III (Small Mammal)	9	0.8	3.8	0.2	0.087	0.3
Sylvilagus spp. (Cottontail)	1	0.1	0.3	0.0	0.009	0.0
Rattus spp. (Old World Rat)	1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.002	0.0
Order Artiodactyla I (Sheep, Goat, Deer, or Pig)	4	0.3	16.3	1.1	0.324	1.4
Order Artiodactyla II (Sheep, Goat or Deer)	3	0.2	10.6	0.7	0.220	1.0
Sus scrofa (Domestic Pig)	53	5.1	120.0	8.4	1.956	8.9
cf. Sus scrofa (Domestic Pig)	3	0.2	3.9	0.2	0.090	0.4
Odocoileus virginianus (White-tailed Deer)	4	0.3	21.4	1.5	0.414	1.8
Bos taurus (Domestic Cow)	29	2.8	478.4	33.7	6.789	31.0
cf. Bos taurus (Domestic Cow)	1	0.1	5.1	0.3	0.114	0.5
Bos taurus (Domestic Cow/Calf)	6	0.5	32.6	2.3	0.605	2.7
Ovis aries/Capra hircus (Domestic Sheep or Goat)	6	0.5	21.5	1.5	0.416	1.9
Fish	17	1.5	6.8	0.4	0.171	0.6
Amphibian and Reptile	3	0.2	2.0	0.1	0.050	0.2
Bird	69	6.3	22.4	1.3	0.404	1.6
Mammal	947	90.7	1386.0	97.1	21.248	96.4
Total Identified	129	11.7	7014	49.9	10.782	49.3
Total Unidentified	907	88.3	715.9	50.1	11.091	50.7
Grand Totals	1036	100.0	1417.3	100.0	21.873	100.0

76 consisted of ten scutes-bony plates that cover the exterior of the fish. In addition, seven additional fish bones were also recovered, but were unidentifiable. Sturgeon was an important fish during the colonial period and their remains are commonly recovered from colonial period sites in Williamsburg.

Three turtle bones were recovered from the Charlton period layers and features, but a species-level of identification was not possible. The most common species found in the area are the snapping turtle (Chelhydra serpentina) and the box turtle (Terrepene carolina). The snapping turtle is a large turtle, and prefers shallow water with soft mud bottoms, but also enters brackish tide pools (Ernst and Barbour 1972). On the other hand, box turtles favor open woodlands, pastures, and marshy meadows.

Birds species represented in the assemblage included duck (Duck spp.), chicken (Gallus gallus), turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and a game bird whose species could not be accurately determined (Family Phasianidae). Duck was the most common, followed by chicken, and turkey and the game bird.

Wild mammals identified from the assemblage include Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus spp.), rat (Rattus spp.), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Rabbits were easily hunted and were prepared by roasting or in stews. While-tailed deer, represented by only four elements, was a common food source during the colonial period. However, as the colony expanded, and deer were over-hunted, their populations declined significantly by the late eighteenth century from their seventeenth-century numbers. Nevertheless, deer remained an important part of the colonial diet. The rat was not likely part of the colonial diet, but rather was a commensal species that lived in the vicinity, possibly under the Charlton porch.

Pig, cow, and sheep/goat made up the domestic mammals, and were most likely the remains of meals, the vast majority of which was purchased at the local market. Pig and cow were by far the most abundant species represented in the assemblage. Pig remains accounted for 43.4% of the NISP, followed by cow which accounted for 27.9%. In terms of biomass, the values are reversed. Cow accounts for 34.2% of the total biomass from the assemblage, while pig accounts for only 9.3%.

Finally, the architectural debris that accounted for 47% of the sheet refuse artifacts from the layer consisted of nails, window glass, and a small number of window leads. The nails accounted for 18% of the total assemblage, window glass accounted for 29%, and window leads for less than 1%.

Shop Foundation⁷

In 2002, only a portion of the east wall (09PC-60) of the shop was exposed, although Glenn Kirk's 1966 excavations exposed the foundations of nearly the entire building (Figure 41). As previously discussed, the building measured 9.15 m (30'0") deep and 7.93 m (26'0") wide, with the front two-thirds of the building separated from the rear portion by a large chimney and partition wall located 5.95 m (19'6") south of the front wall. A portion of the south foundation wall of the original shop was preserved and reused as a footing for a partition in the new building. A variation in the brickwork in the east wall to the south of the dividing wall further suggests that the southern third of the structure may have originally been a shed rather than a continuation of the north portion. Additionally, the footings of a front stoop were found positioned off center along the north elevation of the building, and a brick pier used to support a wood floor was found within the interior of the building (Kirk 1967:19-24).

Figure 41. Charlton/Slate shoop foundations (Figure 2, G. Kirk 1967)

As a result of his excavations Kirk determined that the second-period building's construction occurred around 1770 (Kirk 1967:25). He also found "no intervening stratigraphy representing either the destruction of the first period building or an accumulation which could have been deposited after the destruction of the first building and before the construction of [the second building]." As a result Kirk further concluded, "the destruction of the first period, therefore, would appear to have been quickly followed by the construction of the [second building]" (Kirk 1967:19) .

The extant foundation examined in 2002 consisted of three courses of brick, one brick thick, and laid in English bond (alternating courses of stretchers and headers; Figure 42). Although only the east wall of the structure was exposed, the limited excavations confirmed many of Kirk's earlier conclusions regarding the building. In particular, the foundation bricks were laid directly over the Early Sheet Refuse Layer (M2), with no evidence of a builder's trench in which to seat the foundation, and with no evidence of any destruction rubble from the earlier structure, thus reaffirming Kirk's assessment that the construction of the building occurred shortly after the demolition of the first. In addition, the lack of a builder's trench suggests that the building's foundations were seated directly on the ground surface.

Shop Occupation Layers

Corresponding to the brick foundation, Kirk's excavations also identified several debris layers that were determined to have accumulated during the occupation of the shop which have been useful for interpreting the occupation and use of the building. A layer of rubble and trash (ER1143N, ER1145R)⁸ was enclosed within the interior of the building's foundations and was sealed by a layer of plaster associated with a late-eighteenth-century renovation of the structure (ER1143K, ER1154H, ER1145Q, ER1154C; see Figure 18). Kirk observed that the foundation enclosed the entire area of the rubble and trash, and there was no indication that an opening had been created through which the artifacts could have been thrown in. Cracks in the floor were also discounted as a portal through which the artifacts could have made their way into the interior of the foundation because of the large size of many of the artifacts. Instead, 78 Figure 42. Photograph of the east foundation wall of the Charlton/Slate shop. 79 Kirk proposed that at some point the floor or a portion had to have been removed or was opened to allow the objects to be deposited. Kirk further supported his hypothesis on the basis of the layer's late eighteenth-century artifacts recovered from the layer, most of which were not manufactured until well after the construction of the building (Kirk 1967:27-30).

Intact portions of the rubble and trash layer (M6) were also excavated in 2002 and were similarly found abutting the interior of the late shop's foundation, confirming that the accumulation had to post-date the construction of the shop. In addition, the layer was also sealed by a continuation of the same layer of plaster (09PC-62) that Kirk observed, thus confirming that the rubble and trash layer had accumulated during the life of the building. The excavated rubble and trash layer measured approximately 10 cm thick and consisted of a very dark grayish brown (2.5Y3/1) silt loam and contained a large number of artifacts (n=485). Among the artifacts were sherds of late eighteenth-century ceramics such as creamware and shell-edged pearlware-similar to examples that were recovered during the 1966 excavations (Kirk 1967:29). A TPQ for the rubble and trash excavated in 2002 was 1780. Other artifacts that were recovered included fragments of wine bottle glass, table glass, container glass, tobacco pipes, nails, window glass, animal bone, in addition to small items such as buttons, clothes buckles, and straight pins, among others (Table 9). Once again, determining how the rubble and trash layer got under the floorboards of the building remains unclear, although Kirk's hypothesis that the floor was temporarily removed is certainly a plausible scenario.

Along the exterior of the shop's foundation, between the shop and the Charlton House, portions of two additional layers of refuse that correspond with the occupation of the shop were also identified. Abutting the exterior of the east foundation wall, and deposited directly over Early Sheet Refuse Layer (M2), was a 3 cm thin layer of light yellowish brown (10YR6/4) sand (09PC-67). Directly over the sand was an equally thin layer of mottled brown (7.5YR4/3 and 7.5YR5/2) clay (09PC-61; see Table 9). A handful of eighteenth-century artifacts were recovered from the two layers (n=94). The fact that both layers abut the foundation indicates that the layers formed around the foundation. Unfortunately, only a narrow length of each layer along the store foundation remained intact. The installation of a sewer line for the Charlton House in the nineteenth century displaced most of both layers between the two structures. Because it is impossible to discern the historical extents of either layer, it is impossible to determine why they were deposited, or how they were formed.

Two additional debris layers related to the occupation of the shop were also found to the north of the structure. These included a layer of mottled sand and debris (09PC-90) that was sealed by a layer of ash and charcoal (09PC-89). The TPQ's of the layers were 1775 and 1783 respectively. Both layers contained a fairly substantial quantity of late eighteenth-century artifacts (n=402) and probably represent sheet refuse deposited as the result of the daily discard of refuse by the occupants of the shop (see Table 9). Although neither layer was found in direct association with the shop ruins, both were located very close to the shop's north wall. Significantly, the artifacts recovered from both of these layers were dated to the same time period as 80

Table 9.
Artifacts from the Charlton/Slate Shop

	Rubble & Trash	East of Shop	North of Shop	Total	Percent
Tin Glazed
Delftware	2	-	18	20	2.0
Coarse Earthenware
N. Midlands Slip	-	-	2	2	0.2
Black Glazed Redware	-	-	1	1	0.1
Red Sandy	-	3	2	5	0.5
Stonewares
American	1	-	-	1	0.1
White Salt Glazed	-	2	5	7	0.7
Fulham	-	1	1	2	0.2
Other	-	-	1	1	0.1
Porcelain
Chinese	2	-	5	7	0.7
Other	1	-	-	1	0.1
Refined Earthenware
Whieldon	-	-	1	1	0.1
Creamware	5	-	14	19	1.9
Pearlware	9	-	1	10	1.0
Other	1	-	2	3	0.3
Refractory Clay	1	-	2	3	0.3
Glass
Wine Bottle	20	4	34	58	5.9
Container	26	1	10	37	3.8
Table	14	-	-	14	1.4
Case Bottle	4	-	5	9	0.9
Tobacco Pipes	10	12	12	34	3.5
Architectural
Nails	90	29	159	278	28.3
Window Glass	200	6	80	286	29.2
Slate	3	-	-	3	0.3
Faunal	11	-	-	11	1.1
Oyster Shell	11	-	-	11	12.5
Other	23	1	23	47	4.8
Total	485	94	402	981	100.0

81

Table 10.
Faunal Remains from Charlton/Slate Shop Contexts

	NISP		Weight		Biomass
	No.	Pct.	(g)	Pct.	(kg)	Pct.
Fish
Class Osteichthyes (Bony Fish)	2	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.001	0.0
Family Sciaendae (Croaker or Drum)	1	0.7	1.0	0.2	0.028	0.4
Birds
Class Aves (Birds)	8	6.1	2.1	0.5	0.040	0.5
Class Aves/Mammalia III (Bird/Small Mammal)	7	5.3	0.6	0.1	0.013	0.1
Duck spp. (Duck)	1	0.7	0.3	0.0	0.007	0.1
Gallus gallus (Chicken)	1	0.7	0.1	0.0	0.003	0.0
Mammals
Class Mammalia (Mammal)	61	46.9	19.6	4.8	0.383	5.5
Class Mammalia I (Large Mammal)	12	9.2	52.3	12.8	0.926	13.5
Class Mammalia II (Medium Mammal)	14	10.7	13.1	3.2	0.268	3.9
Ondatra zibethica (Muskrat)	1	0.7	0.3	0.0	0.009	0.1
Rattus spp. (Old World Rat)	1	0.7	0.2	0.0	0.006	0.0
Order Artiodactyla I (Sheep, Goat, Deer, or Pig)	1	0.7	0.4	0.1	0.012	0.1
Sus scrofa (Domestic Pig)	13	10.0	75.5	18.5	1.289	18.8
Ovis aries/Capra hircus (Domestic Sheep or Goat)	3	2.3	44.2	10.8	0.796	11.6
Fish	3	2.2	1.0	0.2	0.029	0.4
Bird	17	12.8	3.1	0.6	0.063	0.7
Mammal	110	84.2	403.9	98.7	6.762	98.3
Total Identified	26	20.0	320.3	78.5	5.223	76.2
Total Unidentified	104	80.0	87.8	21.5	1.631	23.8
Grand Totals	130	100.0	408.1	100.0	6.854	100.0

those recovered from along the east side of the shop and from its interior, thus collaborating the theory that the layers are associated with the occupation of the shop.

Only a very small number (n=130) of animal bones were recovered from the various shop occupation layers. Of these, only 26 could be identified to species, leaving 104 bones as unidentifiable (Table 10). Among the species recovered from these contexts include: fish (croaker or drum), duck, muskrat, rat, pig, cow, and sheep goat. With the exception of the rat, the rest of the bones were undoubtedly the refuse from past meals. Domestic mammals bones were by far the most common elements recovered. Pig bones (n=13) were most common, making up half of the total number of identifiable bones, and 18.8% of the total biomass. Although only four cow bones were recovered, they represented 44.8% of the total biomass. Finally, three sheep/goat bones were recovered, representing 11.6% of the total biomass. In an attempt to discern who may have occupied the structure, and what the function of the structure may have been, archaeologist Glenn Kirk noted, "the presence 82 of wig curlers in the vicinity of the second building" (Kirk 1967:25) . The recovery of the wig curlers in association with property owned by Edward Charlton, a well-known wigmaker, lead Kirk to conclude that this was the site of Edward Charlton's wigmaking shop.⁹ Kirk further argued that the irregularly-sized chimney in the structure might have been a specialized type of chimney designed specifically for the baking of wigs. In 2002, no wig curlers were found in the excavated layer of rubble and trash, nor were any wig curlers or any other wigmaking related artifacts found in any of the occupation layers to the east or north of the store ruins, although eighteen wig curlers were recovered from contexts around the neighboring Charlton House, sixteen of which were recovered from contexts dating to the Charlton period.

Edward Charlton is a logical candidate to have occupied the store, an assertion that is supported by the location of his residence next door and by the recovery of wig curlers from across the site. Unfortunately, there are no known documentary references to the location of Charlton's shop corresponding to this period.10 Further complicating the matter, recent documentary research has also determined that between 1774 and 1780, James Slate, a tailor, maintained his shop as "the second Door below Mr. Anderson's Tavern." Known today as Wetherburn's Tavern, "Mr Anderson's Tavern" is located on the adjacent lot to the west (Lot 21). To the east of the tavern, John and William Rowsay's jewelry shop stood on the northeast corner of Lot 21 "below Mr. Anderson's Tavern," thus making the building on the northwest corner of Lot 22 "the second Door below" the tavern, and therefore the likely location of Slate's shop. In addition to the documentary evidence, artifacts commonly associated with the tailoring trade were also recovered from the rubble and trash layer including a lead bale seal probably used for a bundle of wool, clothes buttons, copper alloy and iron alloy buckles, and straight pins (Figure 43). The 1966 excavations also recovered similar objects, including a thimble, scissors, and straights pins from the layer of rubble and trash, along with additional buttons, straight pins, buckles, etc. which were recovered from the destruction layers of the shop and other later and disturbed contexts as well.

By carefully considering all the archaeological and documentary evidence together, it is possible to piece together the early history of the small shop on the northwest corner of Lot 22 that includes both Edward Charlton and James Slate as occupants. The building was most likely constructed around the time of the construction of the present-day Charlton House, and came into the possession of Edward Charlton in the late 1760s. As previously discussed, an account book of Edward Charlton's documents his transactions as a wigmaker in Williamsburg between 1769 and 1774. During this period, Charlton probably used the small building next to his house as his shop until around 1774, the year in which entries in the account book end. Although there is 83 Figure 43. Tailor-related artifacts. no specific documentary references to the location of Charlton's shop during this period, the recovery of the wig curlers from around the building ruins suggest that it may have been located within the building. After 1774, the year in which the account book ends, and Charlton began to advertise the availability of his house for rent, and states his intension to return to his native England. That same year, James Slate began to advertise the opening of his tailor shop on Lot 22. Not surprisingly, tailoring-related items were common among the collection of artifacts recovered from the rubble and trash layer (TPQ = 1780), which is contemporary with the end of Slate's tenure in Williamsburg. In summary, from the above-described archaeological and documentary evidence, Edward Charlton was operating his wigmaking shop in the building possibly as early as 1769, and continued at that location until 1774. After Charlton closed his shop, he rented the empty storefront to James Slate, who opened his tailoring business in the building, and occupied it until the end of the decade when he relocated to Richmond.

Shop Renovation

William Russell's makeover of the Charlton/Slate workshop into an office was evidenced by a layer of plaster (09PC-62) deposited immediately over the rubble and trash layer (M6) associated with James Slate's occupation of the structure. The layer was found across the interior of the building in the 1966 excavations (ER1143K, ER1145H, ER1145Q, ER1154C), as well as, within the narrow excavations carried out in 2002 (Figure 45). A small number of artifacts were recovered from the layer in 2002, including a single creamware fragment, wine bottle glass, animal bone, oyster shell, nails and window glass. The TPQ of the plaster layer was 1775, determined from a cylindrical dip-molded wine bottle base, although Kirk's excavations recovered a Liberty head (with cap) one-cent piece of the design issued in 1795 and 1796, thus linking the deposit with Russell's acquisition of the property. Unfortunately, there exists no archaeological or historical evidence as to how Russell used the office or on the type of business that might have been conducted in the building (Kirk 1967:30).

Shop/Office Demolition

The archaeological evidence of the demolition of the shop/office suggests that the demise of the building occurred circa 1820, possibly corresponding with the purchase of the property by Leonard Henley from Catherine Russell. As mentioned above, the building was definitely no longer standing by 1823 according to an insurance plat made in that year which makes no mention of the building. Russell may have torn the nearly fifty-year-old building down, in order to make the property appear more attractive for sale, or perhaps Henley tore the building down after he purchased the property from Russell as part of a series of improvements to the property that would continue through the nineteenth century. In either instance, the dates of the artifacts recovered from the building's demolition layers clearly situate its demise at the time of the property transfer.

86

Figure 46. Copy of 1823 Mutual Assurance Society map of Lot 22.

Debris layers associated with the building's demolition were found and excavated in both 1966 (ER1143H, ER1145N) and 2002 (M10). The layer consisted of a dark brown (10YR3/3) silty clay loam mixed primarily with architectural debris including brick fragments, window glass, and nails, as well as, with a variety of early nineteenth-century domestic artifacts (Table 11). A total of 1670 artifacts were recovered from the demolition layers in 2002, only two of which had TPQs that post-dated 1820-a wire nail and a small fragment of Latent's patent glass, both of which were likely intrusive artifacts which worked their way into the loose jumble of debris from the shop. Similarly, Kirk reported that the artifacts recovered from his excavations in 1966 all dated to the period of 1810-1820 as well (Kirk 1967:30). The domestic artifacts included ceramics, mostly refined earthenwares, wine bottle glass, table glass, tobacco pipes, and animal bone, among others. While the bricks, nails and window glass were certainly deposited as a result of the shop/office's demolition, the early nineteenth-century date of the artifacts, along with the lack of a known domestic occupation of the shop/office suggests that the domestic refuse was likely associated with materials disposed of or left behind by Catherine Russell as she left the property.

Nineteenth-Century Refuse Layers

In addition to early nineteenth-century household refuse mixed in with the demolition debris from the office/shop, several thin layers of nineteenth-century refuse post-dating 1850 were also recovered from along the north and south elevations of the main house. The artifacts consisted of a typical assortment of late eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ceramic, bottle glass, nails, window glass, and animal bone. Along the south elevation, and to the east of the reconstructed rear porch, a nearly 10 cm thick stratum of very dark grayish brown (2.5Y3/2) sandy clay loam with brick rubble (09PC-12) was found and excavated. The layer had accumulated directly over subsoil, and filled in a 30 cm deep erosion gully that was oriented northwest-southeast and cut through the subsoil (Figure 47). The absence of any intervening stratigraphy between the layer and subsoil, along with the fact that the erosion gully was filled with the same post-1850 debris, indicates that not only that the debris accumulated within the gully in the nineteenth century, but also that subsoil must have been exposed at the 87

Table 11.
Artifacts from Shop Demolition Contexts

	Number	Percent
Tin Glazed
Delftware	21	1.3
Coarsewares
North Midlands Slip	3	0.2
North Devon	1	0.1
Black-Glazed Redware	1	0.1
Colono	4	0.2
Staff. Mottled	1	0.1
Yorktown-type	1	0.1
Other	5	0.3
Stonewares
Astbury	2	0.1
White Salt Glazed	13	0.8
Fulham	1	0.1
Westerwald	4	0.2
American Blue and Gray	1	0.1
Other	2	0.1
Porcelain
Porcellaneous	1	0.1
Chinese	17	0.1
Refined Earthenware
Whieldon	1	0.1
Creamware	82	4.9
Pearlware	98	5.9
Whiteware	4	0.2
Refractory Clay	1	0.1
Glass
Wine Bottle	83	5.0
Container	45	2.7
Table	4	0.2
Case Bottle	15	0.9
Tobacco Pipes	21	1.3
Architectural
Nails	408	24.4
Window Glass	505	30.2
Window Leads	1	0.1
Faunal	234	14.0
Oyster Shell	42	2.5
Other	47	2.8
Total	1670	100.0

88 Figure 47. Erosion gully to the south of the Charlton House. time in order for the erosion gully to have formed in the first place. In order to account for the formation of the erosion gully, and its subsequent filling in the nineteenth century, the bare subsoil must have been exposed-a scenario that most likely as a result of excavations around the house during its remodeling which reduced the depth of the house to nearly half of it's original depth. Although no documentary evidence remains to pin-point the year in which these architectural alterations were made, the formation and filling of erosion gullies through the area's subsoil at mid-century suggests that the architectural changes to the house may have been made around that time.

Around the front of the main house, along its north elevation, three thin overlapping post-1850 layers were also identified (Figure 48). Sealing the demolition debris from the adjacent shop/office was a lens of brownish yellow (10YR6/6) sandy clay (09PC-80) that ranged in thickness from 2 to 12 cm. The layer was thickest next to the house, and thinned out to the north. Directly overtop of the sandy clay was a 3 cm thin layer of marl (09PC-79) which was often used to surface or pave pathways around structures. The identification of the marl lens along the front of the house suggests that a crude marl path may have once encircled the house, possibly in order to help in covering the debris from the demolition of the adjacent structure. Finally, on top of the marl lens, a dark grayish brown (2.5Y3/2) layer of silty clay (09PC-78) had accumulated. Each of the three layers contained small amounts of architectural and domestic debris, although most of the artifacts were recovered from the layer of silty clay over the marl path. Similar to the layer of debris recovered from along the house's southern elevation, the artifacts consisted of various late eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ceramics, bottle glass, nails, window glass, and animal bone.

A total of 237 animal bones were recovered from contexts relating to the shop demolition and the nineteenth-century refuse disposal. Of these bones, 38 (16%) were identifiable to species, and 199 (84%) were not (Table 12). The species identified include freshwater catfish, black drum, duck, squirrel, pig, cow, and sheep/goat. Similar 89 Figure 48. Post-1850 layers north of the Charlton House.

Table 12.
Faunal Remains from Nineteenth-Century Contexts

	NISP		Weight		Biomass
	No.	Pct.	(g)	Pct.	(kg)	Pct.
Fish
Class Osteichthyes (Bony Fish)	9	3.8	0.5	0.2	0.018	0.4
Pogonias cromis (Black Drum)	1	0.4	1.5	0.6	0.039	0.8
Family Ictaluridae (Freshwater Catfish)	1	0.4	0.3	0.1	0.016	0.3
Birds
Class Aves (Bird)	16	6.7	2.4	0.9	0.045	1.0
Class Aves/Mammalia III	13	5.4	2.3	0.9	0.044	0.9
Duck spp. (Duck)	3	1.2	1.5	0.6	0.030	0.6
Gallus gallus (Chicken)	7	2.9	3.7	1.5	0.067	1.5
Mammals
Class Mammalia (Mammal)	92	38.8	37.9	15.6	0.693	15.5
Class Mammalia (Large Mammal)	33	13.9	50.4	20.7	0.896	20.0
Class Mammalia II (Medium Mammal)	33	13.9	34.7	14.3	0.640	14.3
Class Mammalia III (Small Mammal)	2	0.8	0.3	0.1	0.009	0.2
Sciurus spp. (Squirrel)	1	0.4	0.4	0.1	0.012	0.2
Order Artiodactyla II (Sheep, Goat, or Deer)	1	0.4	1.5	0.6	0.038	0.8
Sus scrofa (Domestic Pig)	20	8.4	56.1	23.1	0.986	22.1
cf. Sus scrofa (Domestic Pig)	1	0.4	2.1	0.8	0..051	1.1
Bos taurus (Domestic Cow)	2	0.8	41.6	17.1	0.754	16.9
Ovis aries/Capra hircus (Domestic Sheep or Goat)	2	0.8	5.5	2.2	0.122	2.7
Fish	11	4.6	2.3	0.9	0.073	1.5
Bird	39	16.2	9.9	3.9	0.186	4.0
Mammal	187	78.6	230.5	94.6	4.201	93.8
Total Identified	38	16.0	112.7	46.4	2.077	46.6
Total Unidentified	199	84.0	130.0	53.6	2.383	53.4
Grand Totals	237	100.0	242.7	100.0	4.460	100.0

90 to previous contexts, the majority of the identifiable remains were from domestic species, primarily pig and cow.

Nineteenth-Century Brick Piers

Although the main house had first been reduced in its depth at or before the mid-nineteenth-century, by 1900 the house had been expanded with the addition of several small projecting bays and wings supported on brick piers appended to the rear of the house (Figure 49; Kocher and Dearstyne 1950:1-6). Two small brick piers associated with those additions were found to the south of the house and west of the reconstructed rear porch (Figure 50). Both brick piers were constructed directly on the circa-1850 layer of sandy clay loam with brick rubble that filled the erosion gully and sealed subsoil to the south of the house. The facts that the piers were constructed on top of the layer indicates their construction must post-date 1850, thus giving a very rough approximation of the date after which the additions may have been added. The location of the brick piers to the east of the current reconstructed rear porch suggests that they likely were part of the support system of either the large southeastern addition, or they may have been part of the stair tower located in the center of the house's southern elevation. The remnants of at least three additional piers were found to the east of the reconstructed rear porch during the 1999 archaeological excavations (Fischer n.d.).

Figure 49. Circa 1928 photograph of the south elevation of the Charlton House.

91

Figure 50. Nineteenth-Century brick piers south of the Charlton House.