44PG65: The Fortified Compound

• Overview
• Ethnohistorical and Documentary Evidence
• Excavation history, methods, procedures
• Research and Analysis

Overview

44PG65 is an archaeological site located in Prince George County, Virginia that has been occupied intermittently and intensively over millennia. Most archaeological resources uncovered at the site relate to two residential components — a Late Woodland Virginia Indian Weyanock town and a Colonial Period Fortified Compound built immediately atop the town by the English in the seventeenth century. Distributions of Native ceramic sherds indicate the Weyanock village was occupied during the latter part of the Late Woodland period. The English colonial settlement dates from the first to third quarters of the seventeenth century. It was part of a 1000-acre plantation known as Flowerdew Hundred, patented by George Yeardley in 1619.

Overall of 44PG65, post-excavation, dated 1982.

Dr. Norman Barka and Leverette Gregory directed excavations at the site with staff from Southside Historical Sites, Inc. and students from the College of William and Mary.  The most intensive field seasons were conducted from 1974–1978 by small crews of three to seven field archaeologists. This fieldwork uncovered thousands of lithic tools, debitage fragments and ceramic sherds that indicated the site had been occupied intermittently and intensively for over a millennium. In addition, hundreds of small circular shallow features uncovered below plowzone were interpreted as the remains of driven posts. While tracing the relationships between these various posts was difficult a particularly striking pattern was characterized as the remains of two circular palisades associated with a Late Woodland/Contact period Native settlement.

Over the course of six years archaeologists also uncovered a variety of features that delineated the remains of an extensive seventeenth-century “fortified compound” after which Barka and colleagues named the site. A nearly continuous trench feature enclosed an area roughly 236 feet in length and 100 feet in width that had an opening in the south.  The interior of the enclosed space was interpreted as three main areas: 1) a western third of the compound that was largely devoid of historic archaeological features, 2) a southern area adjacent to the entrance bounded on the north by a central trench feature, which contained two post-in-the-ground buildings, and 3) an area to the north that was situated between a central trench feature and the James River that contained a substantial brick-and-cobble hearth marking the location of a another structure.

The post-1607 archaeological assemblage associated with the Colonial fortified area’s footprint is rich and diverse, including artillery fragments, cannon balls, gun parts, sword parts, armor fragments, lead shot and sprue), as well as domestic artifacts, notably hundreds of sherds from Delft vessels and even the remnants of two Chinese Porcelain wine cups.  The fortified footprint and array of materials point to a multi-functional complex that likely served as a location to safeguard costly goods and supplies and house a contingent of the plantation’s inhabitants.

Ethnohistorical and Documentary Evidence

The settlement of the triangular tract now known as Flowerdew Hundred began thousands of years before the arrival of English colonists at Jamestown. In the Late Woodland Period (AD 900-1600) and into the Early Colonial Period (1600-1650), the land was part of the territory occupied by the Weyanock, an Algonquian-speaking Indigenous community that was loosely affiliated with the larger political entity of the Powhatan paramount chiefdom (Barbour 1986). The 1607 John Smith map displays Weyanock settlements on both sides of the James River in the vicinity of what would be patented as Flowerdew Hundred roughly a decade later. Archaeologists, anthropologists and historians have noted that the Weyanock, like many other Powhatan communities, were living in dispersed riverside towns in the decades leading up to English colonists’ arrival (Binford 1967; Gallivan 2018; Rountree 1989, Turner and Opperman 1993).

In the early 1600s, the English began driving the Weyanock from their home territory along the James River. Archaeological research indicates that English colonizers at Flowerdew exploited the same areas that the Weyanock had cultivated for hundreds of years, and many of the archaeological sites at Flowerdew contain abundant evidence of Indigenous occupations spanning thousands of years. A complete culture history of the Flowerdew Hundred tract is provided on the Flowerdew Hundred plantation page. Here we provide a review of what little is known from existing documentary sources about the earliest sites at Flowerdew that contain evidence of Indigenous, white, and Black occupations, 44PG65, and its related sites, 44PG64 and 44PG64/65.

Established in 1617, Flowerdew Hundred was one of the largest plantations granted through the Virginia Company. Only seven of the thirty-five or so plantations in the region contained holdings of over 1000 acres (Ayers 1984). Two of these, Flowerdew Hundred and Weyanoke, together comprising over 3000 acres, were the property of Sir George Yeardley (Nugent 1934). Flowerdew Hundred, located on the southside of the James River, was comprised of a 1000-acre tract. Historical documents suggest that in 1618 Yeardley purchased the property from Stanley Flowerdew, his father-in-law, who had likely started a colonial settlement at the site as early as 1617.  When Yeardley returned from England to serve as the governor of the Virginia colony in 1619, he brought 15 men (whether indentured servants or tenants is uncertain) who were tasked with cultivating tobacco at Flowerdew (Kingsley (ed.) 1906-1935; Morgan 1975).

In late August 1619, the White Lion, an English war ship, docked at Point Comfort, Virginia. The privateer “brought not any thing but 20. and odd Negroes” (McCartney 2019). These Africans, enslaved Angolans raided from the Portuguese slave ship São João Bautista off the coast of Campeche, were the first Africans to set foot in English North America. Yeardley, and the colony’s Cape Merchant, Abraham Peirsey, purchased these men and women. At least 11 were taken to Flowerdew Hundred and their unfree labor contributed to the success of Yeardley’s economic enterprises. The successful harvesting and trading of tobacco funded Yeardley’s acquisition of more unfree laborers in 1620 and 21, which resulted in substantial tobacco exports to England and Holland. By March 1620, 68 men, five women, and four children were living at Flowerdew Hundred (McCartney 2007:62). By 1622 as many as 114 tenants, servants, and enslaved individuals may have been laboring for Yeardley’s profit, mostly at Flowerdew Hundred and Weyanoke.

While Yeardley was technically an absentee owner since he resided 30 miles downriver in Jamestown, his choice to remain in Virginia enabled him to keep tighter control over the plantation’s development and maximize his profits (Musselwhite 2019). He also invested in the development of the property in a variety of ways. A letter from the Council of Virginia to the Virginia Company of London acknowledges Yeardley’s “good example” of constructing a windmill in 1621.

That windmill can be tied to Flowerdew specifically by its presence on a deed of sale in 1624. We know it was constructed, as the remnants of this windmill were identified during archaeological investigations at 44PG64/65 by Dr. James Deetz and students from the University of California Berkeley in 1995. Additionally, documentary evidence in the form of reports and testimony submitted to the court of the Virginia Company (Kingsbury 1906 II:374–375, 383) also demonstrate that by spring of 1623 a palisaded fortification with six pieces of mounted ordinance had been erected at Flowerdew. The archaeological site 44PG65 represents the remnants of this fortified compound.

Multiple documents show that the second wealthiest man in the colony, Abraham Peirsey, a businessman and Cape [Head] Merchant, purchased Flowerdew Hundred and at least some of the indentured and enslaved laborers from Sir George Yeardley on October 5, 1624.  A fragment of the deed recording the sale (Flowerdew Hundred Archives), a court deposition from Temperance Yeardley (George Yeardley’s widow) attesting to the sale (1627) and a patent to the property granted to Abraham Peirsey’s eldest daughter Elizabeth (Peirsey) Stephens in 1636 (Nugent 1934:30) all confirm the transaction. While Peirsey kept his primary residence in James City, a muster taken in 1624/1625 (depending on the use of a Julian or Gregorian calendar) lists a total of 10 households, presumably tenants, on the Flowerdew property, known at the time as Peirsey’s Hundred. A total of 21 people composed these households. Peirsey also had 29 indentured servants and seven unnamed African individuals listed as laborers. Thus, out of the total of 57 people living on the property 36 were either indentured or enslaved laborers.  The plantation contained 10 dwellings, three store houses, four tobacco houses, and one windmill (Barka 1993; Deetz 1993:20-23).

One major addition to Flowerdew that is likely not called out explicitly in the Muster is a sizeable dwelling house built upon an imported siltstone foundation. The archaeological site known as 44PG64 is the footprint of this structure and nearby features. The historical documentation of the house’s construction is scant. Unlike the windmill (44PG64/65), the dwelling house (44PG64) is not referenced explicitly in the 1624 deed of sale, although only the bottom fragment of the deed has been preserved. As a result, several hypotheses exist regarding whether Peirsey or Yeardley commissioned its construction, served as its primary occupants, and even its purpose within the plantation’s operations (Hodges et al. 2011:30-32).

Upon Peirsey’s death in January of 1628 property ownership passed to his widow, Frances (his second wife), and then to his daughter, Elizabeth Stephens when Frances died.  Eight years later, Elizabeth sold part of the property, which she had repatented as Flowerdew Hundred, to William Barker, a merchant and mariner.  Archaeological data, reviewed below, suggests that the dwelling house, 44PG64, was likely abandoned by the 1650s. Upon William Barker’s death in 1655 the plantation passed to his son John Barker. When John Barker died in 1673, Flowerdew’s ownership was transferred to his two sisters, Elizabeth and Sarah.

Excavation history, methods, procedures

Archaeological site map of 44PG65, created by DAACS staff from extant field records and maps generated during William and Mary’s field work

The archaeological resources at Flowerdew Plantation were first uncovered in 1961 by Gilford Holland and Benjamin McCary, who noted a series of early English historic sites super-imposed over Late Woodland or Contact Period Native American towns or occupations based on small test pits and surface deposits (University of Virginia/VDHR Archives, WM Summary Archaeological Activity n.d.). Archaeological investigations formally began at what would soon be dubbed 44PG65, the Fortified Compound Site, in 1972 after Leverette Gregory and State Archaeologist Edward Heite visited Flowerdew and conducted surface survey and testing that located early 17^th century sites. Gregory successfully convinced the landowner David A. Harrison III to allow archaeological investigations, which resulted in the start of fieldwork at what was then designated as 44PG3 in 1971-1973 (Gregory 1975). In 1974, Mr. Harrison established an agreement with the College of William and Mary to fund Southside Historical Sites, Inc., an organization charged with conducting field investigations under the direction of Dr. Norman Barka. The most intensive field seasons were conducted from 1974–1978 by small crews of three to seven field archaeologists. One or two laboratory and curatorial assistants washed, labeled, and bagged artifacts.

The site designation 44PG3 originally used by William and Mary encompassed a larger area that was later broken out into three separate sites — 44PG64 (the Stone House Foundation Site), 44PG64/65 (The Windmill Site) and 44PG65 (the Fortified Compound Site) . During the first few years of excavation, William and Mary established a single grid over the entirety of PG3.  Once it was determined that there were at least two distinctive settlements within PG3, excavators shifted to using separate designations for the sites. The sites were also nominated for inclusion on the National Register and assigned separate labels using the Smithsonian’s trinomial numbering system.

Hand drawn illustration of AGNU 40×60 foot grid block used in excavations of PG64, 65, and PG64/65. From Jane Townes’ Summary of Lab Procedures, Flowerdew Hundred Foundation Archives.

William and Mary and Southside excavators used an “AGNU” grid, which consisted of 40-by-60 foot grid blocks labeled with a three-digit number (e.g. 190, 191, 192 etc.).  Each block was further divided into 24 10-by-10 foot excavation quadrats which were given letters in alphabetical order across rows, starting in the northwest corner of the block and ending in the southwest corner. The letters “I” and “O” were excluded to minimize confusion with the numbers 1 and 0.

When PG3 was separated into three separate sites, excavators created a list of which 40-by-60 foot blocks should be assigned to each site. Vertical control was maintained by digging according to natural stratigraphy but at times arbitrary levels were also used within natural layers.  Index numbers were assigned to each separate deposit or level designated by excavators. A combination of block number, quadrat letter, and index number was used as the provenience system for tracking artifacts.  For example, artifacts labeled PG3/194A1 are from 44PG65, block 194 , quadrat A , and level index 1 (plowzone). Excavators recorded detailed information about each unit and level in the Level Book and captured plan views and profiles in drawn maps and photographic slides.

Over the course of seven years William and Mary and Southside associates excavated 360 10×10 ft units at PG65.  DAACS staff members were unable to determine accurately how artifacts were recovered from excavation contexts. We suspect that screens were used in some cases. But the circumstances under which screens were employed, which contexts were screened, and the mesh size used are not clear from the extant field records.

Research and Analysis

A full site report for the excavations conducted at PG65 does not exist.  The summary of research and interpretations below was developed by DAACS and draws from original field records, a summary report by Leverette Gregory (1975), Charlie Hodge’s MA thesis (2003), Barka’s (1993) only published description of the Fortified Compound Site , Hodges et al’s summary report of rescue excavations performed at PG65 (2011), and Carson et. al’s (1981) discussion of the fort in Impermanent Architecture.

Stratigraphic sequence

The seven years of archaeological investigations revealed dense artifact scatters that indicated the area had been occupied for millennia. Excavators identified and described several different deposit types at the site. Reading stratigraphy at PG65 was challenging due to annual flooding from the adjacent James River, the high water table, and an excavation schedule that had various crews periodically leaving and returning to the site, sometimes after a period of a few years. As a result, context designations, feature boundaries and plans drawings, descriptions, interpretations within individual quadrats changed at times over the course of excavation.

Based on DAACS’ review of extant field records, excavators seem to have had the most difficulty consistently identifying layers and features closer to the riverbank. This may have been a result of greater volumes of water moving in the soil profile, leaching organics on which archaeologists rely to identify cultural features.

Below is a summary of the overall stratigraphic sequence as recorded by excavators:

• Level 1. “Forest Humus”/”Topsoil”/”Plowzone”. The designations varied among excavators.
• Level 2. “Flood Deposits”. These were often excavated in  multiple arbitrary layers. Sediment descriptions are rare, but typically   feature the phase “gray sand and gravel”.
• Levels 3/4/5 etc. Either called “Occupation Stratum” or “Occupational Subsoil” or “Artifact Bearing Stratum” These layers were often excavated in multiple arbitrary layers .2 thick or more. Both the “Occupation Stratum” and the “Artifact Bearing Stratum” were described as “humic sandy soil”. ”Occupational Subsoil” was described as “mottled tan and yellow sandy soil”.

DAACS staff translated William and Mary’s sequence to the DAACS system of deposit types and stratigraphic groups (SG prefix) as follows:

• “Forest Humus” was entered with a deposit type of “Topsoil” as SG01
• “Plowzone” was entered as a deposit type of “Plowzone” as SG02
• “Flood Deposits” were entered with a deposit type of “Alluvium” as SG03
• “Artifact Bearing\Stratum” and ”Occupation Stratum” were entered with a deposit type of “Buried A” as SG04
• “Occupational Subsoil” was entered as a deposit type of “Transitional Subsoil” as SG05

Features

Excavators also recorded hundreds of features (see Feature page for a detailed list) that were sealed by and intruded these various layers. Periodic flooding and field crews’ cycles of departure and return made identification of the stratigraphic relationships particularly challenging.  In some quadrats excavators designated features as appearing within a deposit (most often in layer .2-.4 or .4-.6 of the occupational subsoil).  It is very likely that the dynamic depositional environment caused by repeated flooding obscured distinct transitions between deposits and made it difficult for excavators to consistently see and record distinct boundaries.

Our understanding of features on the site is hampered by gaps in the extant field records. For each quadrat, excavators made detailed plan drawings of features that the identified at successive levels. Copies of these plans survive for many quadrats in the University of Virginia archive. But plan drawings for many others are missing. Copies of plan drawings for previously missing quadrats were discovered at William and Mary in 2022. So there is hope for further discoveries. However, the original field drawings for each quadrat are missing and their fate remains a mystery.

In compiling a GIS-based site plan for PG65, DAACS staff relied on the detailed quadrat-level plans, when these were available. Where they were not, we relied on a plan of the site plan inked on mylar by Shearon Vaughn and dated 1977. DAACS staff, led by Leslie Cooper, digitized the key features from individual quadrat-level plans, placing them in relationship in a single GIS-based site plan that is now available for download through the Images and Maps section below.

Excavators identified several distinct residential components at PG65: intermittent seasonal occupations by Archaic and Woodland Native communities, an extensive Late-Woodland Weyanock town, and the eponymous early seventeenth century Fortified Compound.

FDH Kirk Serrated point 44PG65 Unit 260U Index number 02

Archaic/Woodland occupations and Weyanock Village

The earliest evidence of settlement at Flowerdew Hundred consisted of concentrations of lithic points including Early-Archaic, Side-Notched and Kirk Corner-Notched varieties.  Thousands of fragments of lithic debitage indicate the area was likely served as a tool production or repair site. Hearth features were the most common indicators of domestic activities. Thousands of ceramic sherds also provide evidence of Early and Middle-Woodland era occupations, and an especially intensive settlement in the Late Woodland/Contact era.

Excavators also uncovered hundreds of small circular shallow features that were interpreted as the remains of driven posts.  While tracing the relationships among these various posts was difficult, excavators recognized the remains of two circular palisades associated with a Late-Woodland/Contact Period Native settlement (see Features page and Maps and Images).

Hand drawn detailed plan view map (recorded by excavator Mike Barber) of 10×10 unit 262A Level 2 after recleaning. Note presence of 10s of features identified as posts. Feature 269 is part of the palisade wall.

Only the eastern palisade was excavated and is designated as Feature Group 01 in DAACS.  Further research revealed that Flowerdew was located in the home territory of the Weyanock (Gregory n.d.; Deetz 1993), and thus these features were associated with that Native group. The exact timing of the village’s abandonment is unknown but the presence of Gaston- type ceramics, which have been identified at sites with seventeenth century occupations (Coe 1964; Egloff and Potter 1982), along with the presence of a Weyanock village in the vicinity of Flowerdew on John Smith’s map suggest it coincided with the arrival of English colonists. Notably, Structures 1 and 2 (the two post-in-the-ground buildings, described below) were built immediately atop the eastern palisade.

Seventeenth-Century Fortified Compound

Over the course of four years archaeologists uncovered a variety of features and feature groups that were interpreted as the remains of an extensive seventeenth century fortified compound.  These features and feature groups are summarized below.

The Palisade Walls

Excavations uncovered a nearly continuous linear feature that enclosed an area roughly 236 feet in length and 100 feet in width that had an opening in the south.  While much of the north defensive wall was likely destroyed by erosion from the James, the surviving archaeological evidence suggests that the other three walls may have been constructed using two different types of defensive structures adapted to the specific needs of water side and land side defense. The west wall and the segment of the south wall west of the opening (DAACS Feature Groups 04 and 06) were represented archaeologically by a single ditch, paralleled by a line of postholes and molds.  The ditch likely held upright timbers set adjacent to one another to form a palisade.  Hodges (1993) suggested that the interior posts supported an elevated walk and firing step.

The nature of the wall’s construction east of the opening (DAACS Feature Groups 05 and 07) was more difficult to interpret based on archaeological evidence. The features associated with the palisade on the eastern third of the wall consisted of a series of two and sometimes three parallel ditches with hole set posts interspersed between. The dynamic depositional environment made it difficult for excavators to determine with certainty how or if posts were set into the ditches.  However, the presence of multiple ditches, along with historical documents that suggest there were at least six to 12 pieces of artillery mounted at Flowerdew has been used as evidence to suggest that the western side consisted of more substantial earthworks or ramparts.

Hodges (2003:322-323) provides a succinct summary of his interpretations of these features in his master’s thesis on the Fortified Compound:

“Differences in land-side and water-side defenses are often a practical design variability, defining essentially what amounts to a military cliché that is found throughout fortification history following the development of artillery. Given that artillery attacks would come from enemy ships, water-side [DAACS note — eastern] defenses consisted of an earthen rampart revetted with a parapet stockade and a parade curtain stockade. Archaeological results indicate that, on the land side [DAACS note – western] of the Flowerdew Fort, Yeardley installed a ditch-set wooden palisade that was partially braced by interior hole-set posts, which formed an elevated wall walk and a firing platform for musketeers.”

The Interior of the Fortification

Cary Carson, Norman F. Barka, William M. Kelso, Gary Wheeler Stone, and Dell Upton’s pioneering article “Impermanent Architecture in the Southern American Colonies” provides a model for using interdisciplinary methods to understand the past (1981). Their research takes the closest look at the impermanent architecture at Flowerdew Hundred, with a specific focus on the Stone House Foundation at PG64 and the Warehouse at PG65 and places these buildings in the context of impermanent architecture across early North America (1981).   

Barka (1993:330) divided up the interior space of the fortification into three areas: 1) the western third of the compound that was largely devoid of historic archaeological features, 2) a southern area adjacent to the entrance bounded on the north by a central trench feature, which contained two post-in-the ground buildings, and 3) an area to the north that was situated between the central trench feature and the James River that contained a substantial brick-and-cobble hearth and possible structure.

The western third of the compound was largely devoid of stratified evidence of human activity.  A linear alignment of posts was interpreted as a dividing wall, possibly to create an enclosure that animals could be driven into at night or at times of danger.

Well (F129), partially excavated, showing fill deposit and cobbles, bricks used for well casing (in unit 261L).

The southern area of the compound has been interpreted as the “residential area” and containedthree primary features; a well and Structures 1 and 2. The well, which was only about five feet deep, was lined with a combination of bricks and cobble stones. Postholes clustered around the exterior of the well feature have been interpreted as supports for a cover and/or rail.

A rectangular configuration of 34 postholes immediately east of the well was designated Structure 1 (DAACS Feature Group 02). The size of the postholes suggested the structure was supported by large posts set into the ground (an earth-fast structure), which probably extended up to the plate supporting the roof. The structure measured approximately 16 by 30 feet in plan.. The identification of an orange-brown deposit along with fragments of daub has been used as evidence to suggest the structure had an exterior chimney on the southwest corner. Hodges (2003:215-218) interpreted the structure as a Barrack or Quarter.

Overall of Structure II, showing excavation of associated postholes.

Structure 2 (DAACS Feature Group 03) was immediately east of Structure 1. Barka (1993:329-330) has previously described this structure and Carson et al. (1981:181-182) provide a detailed interpretative description of the structure in their overview of impermanent architecture in the Chesapeake, so only a brief synopsis is outlined here.  They note that the main structure measured 32 by 16 feet in plan. This building was also framed around hole-set posts. The researchers noted that the relatively sturdy and secure construction along with the lack of any evidence for a chimney (hearths or burned subsoil) suggested that the structure was built to store food, arms and gunpowder, trade goods, tools, or other valuable commodities.

A linear, irregular trench, oriented in an east west direction ran through the center of PG65.  The trench was 129 feet in length and varied between 1.8 to 4.7 feet in width.  It was generally shallow (between 0.1-0.8 feet in depth). The trench may have been dug to facilitate ground-water drainage, which was likely as much of a problem for the site’s seventeenth-century inhabitants as it was for its twentieth-century excavators.

Overall of hearth feature (F191), before excavation, with crew present (facing south).

North of Structures 1 and 2 excavators uncovered a rectangular 8-by-5 foot brick and cobble hearth with several nearby postholes. Initial interpretations suggested that the feature was a covered hearth associated with extensive forging activities based on “an analysis of iron and copper scrap and artifacts found in this area”.  Barka (1993:330) noted there is no clear association with a structure.  Hodges (2003: 221-230-238) suggests the structure could have served a variety of functions – as housing for various occupants, including Yeardley and Minister Givell Pooley).

Preliminary review of the entire collection by DAACS suggests that metal scrap fragments and slag are found all over the site. In addition, domestic artifacts suggest the structure was a house. The detailed plan view maps for this area were discovered at the College of William and Mary in 2022 (see the Before You Begin page for more details).  Using this newly discovered evidence to advance our understanding of the hearth, the structure it served, and any related features is a task for the future.

Collections History

Over the past fifty years, four different institutions have assumed responsibility for the curation of the Flowerdew collection. From 1971 to 2007, the archaeological assemblages were split between the Flowerdew Hundred Museum, located on the Flowerdew Hundred property, the College of William and Mary, and the Hearst (formerly Lowie) Museum at the University of California, Berkeley. It has only been in the last decade that most of the artifacts, field records, and sitemaps have been reunited at the University of Virginia. When the Harrison family sold Flowerdew Hundred in 2007, they donated the entire archaeological collection to the University of Virginia’s Harrison Institute-Small Special Collections Library. From 2007 to 2018, Ms. Karen Shriver, the collection’s curator and only permanent staff member, worked to reunite the archaeological assemblages with the smaller collections and field records held by William and Mary, UC Berkeley, and various PIs. The artifacts and field notes are in highly variable conditions. When housed at the Flowerdew Museum, a busy public program schedule, focus on field work, and general lack of funding for collections management meant that the limited staff processed the collections in a piecemeal fashion. The result is that a sizeable portion of the collection remains partially processed and cataloged. While a box inventory has been created, there is no systematized or complete itemized catalog for the entire collection. The collection’s current curator, Meg Kennedy, has been successful in locating additional archival materials at the College of William and Mary and is working to create a full inventory of the entire Flowerdew Hundred collection.

2018-2023 DAACS Analysis

In 2018, DAACS was awarded a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities for our project titled, The Origins of a Slave Society: Digitizing Flowerdew Hundred (PW-259091-18). The grant’s goals included the identification, analysis and cataloging of all the contexts, maps, and artifacts from four of the earliest sites at Flowerdew Hundred, 44PG64, 44PG65, 44PG64/65, and 44PG92. Jillian Galle and Elizabeth Bollwerk were co-Principal Investigators on the grant, and Bollwerk directed the work based at the DAACS Lab at Monticello and a satellite lab at the University of Virginia.

For 44PG65, and with the help of interns from the University of Virginia, DAACS staff rehoused, identified, analyzed, and cataloged 35,416 artifacts. They also analyzed and digitized the 2854 field records associated with William and Mary’s and UC Berkeley’s excavations of deposits and features at the site. DAACS Senior Archaeological Analyst Leslie Cooper compiled and digitized the numerous maps from all seasons of excavation, which are available through the images and maps section. Catherine Garcia finalized the 44PG65 maps. DAACS analysts responsible for identifying, photographing, cataloging and analysis of the artifacts from 44PG65 included Lily Carhart, Sarah Platt, Iris Puryear, Allison Mueller, Cate Garcia, and Elizabeth Bollwerk. Lindsay Bloch of Tempered Archaeological Services identified, analyzed, and cataloged the Indigenous ceramics from the site. We have relied on help of early 17th-century material culture specialists, Merry Outlaw and Bly Straube, coarse earthenware specialist Lindsay Bloch, small finds specialist Sara Rivers Cofield, and lithic specialists Dennis Blanton, Charles Cobb, and Christopher Egghart.  DAACS Diversity Interns from UVA included Shaheen Alikhan, Emily Anderson, Cindy Gwana, Adrienne Preston, Brittany Ivy, Jenna Owens, and Macie Clerkley.  All of this work was done in collaboration with the University of Virginia’s Special Collections Library, which curates the Flowerdew Collection, and we are grateful for the consistent and efficient help and continuing support of Meg Kennedy and Brenda Gunn. The site was launched on the DAACS website in December 2023. Detailed artifact and context data can be found in the Query the Database section of this website.  The physical collection (field records and artifacts) is curated at the Flowerdew Hundred Lab at the University of Virginia.

With the standardized archaeological data that resulted from this project, Fraser Neiman and DAACS staff developed a chronology for 44PG65, the detailed results of which can be found on the site’s Chronology page (link). The analyses suggest four distinct phases of occupation.  Phase 1, with a Binford Mean Pipe Stem date of 1625 includes deposits from Feature Group 8, the Northwestern Trench, and deposits in AGNU grid block 192, which is in the north central portion of the site. The second phase, with a Binford Mean Pipe Stem date of 1636, includes assemblages from the rest of the AGNU grid blocks and one feature: F023, a small pit located in block 191. Phase 3, with a Binford Mean Pipe Stem date of 1643 includes three feature groups: FG05, the palisade trench segments for the exterior eastern wall of the enclosure; FG07 the palisade trench segments that marked the western wall of the enclosure; and FG10, the brick-and-cobble hearth and associated features.  Phase 4, with a Binford Mean Pipe Stem date of 1657 includes F129, the well, F193, a small pit just to the east of the brick-and-cobble hearth (FG10); F024, a second pit to the west of the hearth in Block 191; and FG04, segments of the palisade trench that marked the western exterior wall of the enclosure. Phase 4 may represent continuing occupation of a small portion of the site.

Bollwerk and Neiman (2023) conducted the first comprehensive analysis of artifact distributions of the PG65 assemblage for a paper presented at the 2023 Society for Historical Archaeology Conference in Lisbon, Portugal.  The research questions were exploratory — How was the settlement organized internally?  Were laborers — enslaved and indentured — housed together in large barracks? The analysis used Generalized Additive Models to identify statistically meaningful spatial patterns in artifact abundance. GAMs use northing and easting coordinates of quadrats to make non-linear predictions of expected artifact abundance for each quadrat, under the assumption that the actual counts depart from expectations according to a specified probability distribution. Neiman and Bollwerk identified consistent zones of artifact densities at the site – a high-density zone across the northern half of the fort, with higher-density peaks to the northeast and northwest and a much lower-density cluster on the southwest.  These zones were mapped by several artifact classes — armor, personal adornment items, ceramics, and metal working waste. Bollwerk and Neiman inferred from the artifact distributions that there was a division of the space within the fort into a northern domestic zone and a southern zone devoted to storage. They also suggested that the patterns were evidence of multiple, functionally redundant households with little evidence for the specialized use of space within them.