Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Table of Contents

Introduction

During the eighteenth century, Capitol Landing was the major link between Williamsburg and the York River. According to documentary sources, it was even more substantial than College Landing, which was the link to the James River. Being under less population stress in light of the increasing size of Williamsburg in recent years, Capitol Landing was seen as an ideal location not only to gain more insight into a major eighteenth century transportation and industrial site but also as a glimpse of the periphery of Williamsburg. The immediate goal of the Capitol Landing Project was to identify sites associated with the colonial port at Capitol Landing.

The Phase I investigation of the area formerly known as Capitol Landing and currently owned by Richard D. Mahone was accomplished through controlled surface collecting and limited sub-surface testing. A pedestrian reconnaissance of the entire property was conducted and four relative undisturbed areas were identified and deemed valuable for testing. These included ten acres of plowed field, a two-acre nursery, and two small terraces comprising an acre. The initial examination indicated that the surface visibility within plowed fields was greater than eighty percent. Based upon this finding, it was decided that a controlled surface collection would provide for a sufficient assessment of cultural re-sources within the field. In addition, shovel testing was selected as the most efficient means of locating artifact concentrations within the terrace areas. This Phase I effort was conducted between November 21 and December 11, 1991.

A further phase of testing was conducted in the area known as Capitol Landing in February of 1992. This investigation concentrated on those areas of the property located to the east of the previously tested area. This investigation was conducted in hopes of further identifying sites associated with the colonial inland port. This area was shovel tested in intervals ranging from five meters to fifteen meters depending upon location (e.g., mud flats were tested in fifteen meter intervals).

Previous Investigation

Maps of eighteenth-century Williamsburg clearly show Capitol Landing Road as the major link between the landing and the town.¹ No prior archaeological investigations have taken place on the property but Capitol Landing was nominated for the National Register of Historic Places in 1977. The nomination form identifies the remains of an eighteenth-century stone bridge in the marsh and includes a list of site types that might be found in the area (Hudgins 1977). The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Research Department has also conducted documentary research on Capitol Landing. In addition, eye-witness reports from members of the Mahone family indicate that two concentrations of brick had been discovered during plowing. This information provided further indication that this was indeed the location of the port.

Historical Overview

When the City of Williamsburg was surveyed by Theoderick Bland in 1699, Queen Mary's Port, also known as Capitol Landing, was established as one of two ports which would provide the colonial capital access to the larger rivers north and south of the Peninsula. Capitol Landing was located on Queens Creek, the closest navigable body of water to Williamsburg from the York River. To the south, Princess Anne's Port, also known as College Landing, provided an inlet from the James River. The survey map clearly identifies roads leading from town to the landings (Figure 1). The road to the landing is still known as Capitol Landing Road.

Land was set aside at the Capitol Landing in 1713 for the construction of two public warehouses in which goods such as tobacco could be stored until they were shipped. Incoming wares from all over the colonies and abroad were also stored here until they were purchased by the prospective buyers (Stephenson 1951:4). James Blair was appointed to oversee the operation of the public warehouse in 1714. Capitol Landing, like Williamsburg, grew quickly and by the mid eighteenth century, the road leading to the port was lined with homes and shops. A workhouse where the poor could be employed was built in the vicinity of the Landing sometime around 1756. This building appears on the Rochambeau Map (1781) of Williamsburg. A company known the "Williamsburg Manufactory" began producing linen in May 1777. The location of this operation is described as being "within a few steps of the Capitol Landing extremely convenient to the counties of York and Gloucester, and to the Eastern Shore, from whence any thing maybe easily conveyed by water" (Stephenson 1951:12).

At least four taverns are known to have been in operation near Capitol Landing during the eighteenth century. Two taverns were in operation by 1718 and another is mentioned in 1723. The fourth, known as "The Swan," started around 1728. The best documented of these was owned by a Ferryman by the name of Giles Moody. He was granted a license to run a ferry between Capitol Landing and Clay Bank in Gloucester in 1715 and was issued a license along with Philip Moody to operate an ordinary in 1718 (Stephenson 1951:3, 5). Moody's wife continued to operate the tavern after his death in 1729. A room-by-room inventory of his estate dated January 16, 1729 exists in the York County Records Office. Matthew Moody is listed as a tavern keeper at Capitol Landing in 1768. Records indicate that family was still residing at Capitol Landing in 1775 (Stephenson 1951:5).

The first mention of a bridge over Queens Creek appears in 1717 (Stephenson 1951:2). It is believed that this is the earliest of many bridges to span the creek during the eighteenth century. The location of this early bridge is said to have been near the mill and dam of Major John Custis. It appears from the petition that the inhabitants of York County used the mill dam as a means of crossing the creek until heavy rains made it impassable. Several inhabitants of "Bruton Parish" petitioned for a bridge after Major John Custis refused to repair his dam (Stephenson 1951:3). This bridge was probably constructed of wood and in need of repair or replacement by the 1740s when the bridge became an issue once again. A document dated 20 September, 1742, states that for the sum of fifty pounds, 6 Arthur Dickenson will construct a bridge and maintain it for twelve years (Stephenson 1951:7). Twelve years later, Alexander Finnie was commissioned to "rebuild" Dickenson's bridge with one constructed of "white oaks hewed free from sap" (Stephenson 1951:8).

The Williamsburg Masons began construction of the first stone bridge over Queen's Creek in October, 1774. In order to commemorate this event the masons buried a medal under the corner stone which contained the following inscription (Stephenson 1951:9):

REGE GEORGIO TERTIO
COMITE DUNMORE PRAEFECTO
PEYTON RANDOLPH LATOMORUM PRAESIDE SUPREMO
JOHANNE BLAIR PRAESIDE SUPREMO
ANNO LUCIS
5774.

The construction of this bridge began in earnest in May 1775 and completed by March 1777. Evidently the older wooden bridge was repaired and used until the new bridge was completed (Stephenson 1951:9, 10). The historical records indicate that upon completion a canal was dredged redirect the flow of the creek under the new stone bridge (Stephenson 1951:11, 12).

Figure 1. Bland Map

Project Area Description

The project area is located within the City Williamsburg. It is bordered on the north by Queens Creek, on the west by the first creek west of Route 143, on the east by he first creek east of Route 143, and on the south by the junction of Capitol Landing with Route 143. The project area consists of approximately 85 acres and is comprised of four parcels belonging to various members of the Mahone family.

Richard D. Mahone owns the property west of Route 143 within the project area. This section of the project area consists of a plowed field surrounded by woods to the west and to the north. The home of Richard Mahone, several sheds, and two rental units are located along the northern boundary of this parcel.

Margaret Mahone Whitten of Columbia, South Carolina owns the ten acre parcel east of Route 143 along Queen's Creek. This property consists of a small wooded terrace overlooking the creek to the north. A two-story, nineteenth-century frame structure occupies the terrace. The remains of a brick foundation eroding from the embankment along Route 143 are clearly visible.

The third parcel consists of over thirty acres and lies to the south of Mrs. Whitten's property. This was the estate of the late R.W. Mahone known as "The Beeches." The property includes a mansion constructed sometime during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, a barn, and several dilapidated sheds. Two fields are located to the east of the house. The remainder of the property is heavily wooded.

The parcel owned by Thomas D. Mahone is situated east of Route 143 and south of "The Beeches." A twentieth-century structure known as "Duck House" occupies this lot. A small grassy meadow is located south of the structure. This parcel consists of approximately two acres.

Figure 2.
Map of surveyed sites. [no digital image]

Environmental Setting

The project area is located within the Atlantic Coast Plain physiographic province. Elevation within the project area ranges from two feet above mean sea level (amsl) along Queen's Creek to sixty-six feet (amsl) on the terraces. The vegetation within the project area varies considerably. Along the northern boundary, Queen's Creek meanders through a wide salt marsh covered in reeds and swamp grasses. The low-lying areas along the terraces are swampy and subject to flooding from Queen's Creek. Despite this, the area is heavily wooded and contains thick tangles of underbrush. Yellow poplar, beech, and dogwood are prevalent. Several wide, flat bottomed ravines extend in a gentle slope from the marsh beside the water up to the higher terraces. It should be noted that these appear to be suitable for roads.

Most of the project area is situated on the uplands and terraces south of Queen's Creek. Mixed stands of mature beech, oak, hickory, and pine cover much of this area. The recently plowed field located on the property owned by Richard D. Mahone and the three grassy meadows east of Route 143 attest to the rich soils that have supported agricultural activity over the past two centuries. None of the fields within the project area are currently under cultivation.

The soils within the project area are generally Suffolk sandy clay loam and Kempsville sandy clay loam. Both of these soil types tend to be deep and well drained. These soils are typically associated with the Emporia-Bohicket-Slagle soils (Hodges et al. 1981:70, 79)

Field Methodology

The field methodology employed during the Capitol Landing survey varied according to terrain and surface visibility. Systematic shovel testing was employed in all of the areas considered, except for the plowed field located on the Richard D. Mahone parcel. Transects were established along a north/south axis and test units were placed at ten-meter intervals along these transects. Each shovel test measured thirty centimeters (30 cm) in diameter and was excavated to subsoil. All of the soil removed from the shovel tests was hand troweled to ensure artifact recovery. Upon excavation, each unit was inspected for evidence of cultural disturbance. The location of each test unit was recorded on a site map.

A test unit record was completed for each unit which produced artifacts. Information concerning stratigraphy, artifacts and features was included on each form. Furthermore, each test unit record was labeled with the corresponding context number. Munsell Color Charts were used to determine soil color. Artifacts were collected according to context.

A controlled surface collection was conducted within the plowed field due to the high degree of surface visibility. The field was divided into 328 ten-meter squares in order to facilitate the collection. The squares were numbered consecutively as aid in identification and subsequent analysis of artifact concentrations. Every artifact recovered from the ground surface was replaced with a pin-flag and a numbered tag. Each artifact was bagged separately and labeled with the tag number and the corresponding unit number. Upon completion of the surface collection a laser transit was used to record the vertical and horizontal position of each artifact recovered. This raw data was analyzed using the Surfer Statistical Package in order to determine the relative location of each artifact concentration.

Laboratory Methodology

All of the artifacts recovered during the course of the survey were sent to the laboratory at the Department of Archaeological Research for processing and analysis. Upon reception, the artifacts were washed, sorted, and labeled according to provenience. Each context was assigned a terminus post quem based upon the artifact with the most recent date of manufacture. The artifacts were inventoried using a standard descriptive typology. Obvious functional and morphological characteristics were included on the inventory as well. None of the artifacts recovered during the survey required conservation.

Results

The Phase I investigation of the eighty-five acre project area led to the identification of nine sites. Five sites were discovered on the parcel belonging to Richard D. Mahone, while the four remaining sites were discovered on the parcel belonging to Margaret Mahone Whitten (Figure 3). No sit were discovered on "The Beeches" parcel or the "Duck House" parcel. Each site has been given a temporary site number until the official site numbers are assigned.

Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Work

There are several areas that warrant further archaeological testing. The land north of the Mahone properties on the opposite side of Queen's Creek, for example, should be tested. There is a possibility that warehouses or other sites could be located there. A July, 1756 reference to the bridge over Queen's Creek indicates that at least one of the warehouses at the landing was located north, on the opposite side of Queen's Creek. It reads:

"... in pursuance of an order of the court of the County of York bearing the date the 17th of May last past have agreed with the above bound Alexander Finnie to erect and make a cause way from the foot of the Bridge over Queens Creek thro the Marsh to the main or high land next the Public Warehouse for the sum of seventy-five pounds..."(Stephenson 1951.8).

The remains of the brick foundation found on Mrs. Mahone-Whitten's property should also be investigated in more detail. Despite the destruction of an indeterminate portion of the building during the construction of Route 143, a section of the foundation remains intact. The integrity of the site on the remainder of the peninsula also appears to be fairly high. Likewise the concentration of brick at the edge of the water should be looked at more closely, preferably at low tide.

The area of the plowed field west of Route 143 would also benefit from a more detailed survey. Several concentrations were identified by plotting the artifacts using Surfer and a Phase II investigation would shed more light on the sites identified. The concentration shell/lime on the same property has not been tested adequately and this should also be accomplished.

All of the sites identified during the Phase I survey and described previously in more detail should be tested at the Phase II level. The phase I archaeological testing at Capitol Landing on the Mahone properties revealed a total of nine sites. Seven of these date to the historic period while two are multi-component sites containing both prehistoric and historic concentrations. Testing efforts successfully located the brick foundation of what appears be an eighteenth-century tavern. Despite this, the artifact concentrations throughout the project area were light to moderate at best. Given this, it is difficult to determine whether this is the main part of a major eighteenth-century landing. Findings at College Landing during salvage operations revealed an abundance of cultural resources. Clearly, there is no indication of what a landing should look like at the phase I level, so a comparison cannot yet be made. The documentary evidence also indicates that Capitol Landing was a hub of industrial and shipping activity in addition to having taverns and residences. The areas tested in the course of this survey do not reflect an abundance of sites that these activities would seem to generate. One wonders how much the natural landscape changed over the past 200 years. Is it possible that some of the warehouse buildings were in close proximity to the water to facilitate unloading and are now obscured by mud or completely destroyed by the ebbing and flowing of tides?

References Cited

Hodges, Robert L.P., Ben Sabo, David McCloy, and Kent Staples

1985

Soil Survey of James City and York Counties and the City of Williamsburg, Virginia. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

Hudgins, Carter

1971

"National Register of Historic Places—Nomination Form." Nomination form for Eighty-five Acre Queen's Creek Site. Copy on file at the Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Munsell

1975

Munsell Color Charts. MacBeth/Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland.

South, Stanley

1977

Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press. New York.

Stephenson, Mary A.

1951

Queen Mary's Port (Capitol Landing), Princess Anne's Port (College Landing), 1699-1800. Research report on file, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library.

Appendix A.
Artifact Inventory

Note: Inventory is printed from the Re:discovery cataloguing program used by Colonial Williamsburg, manufactured and sold by Re:discovery Software, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Brief explanation of terms: