44PG92: The Limbrey/Barker Site

Overview

44PG92 is an English colonial settlement that dates to the last half of the seventeenth century, located in Prince George County, Virginia.  It was once part of a 1000-acre plantation known as Flowerdew Hundred.  The site sits in the floodplain on the southside of the James River, approximately 200 feet west of the riverbank. The site was likely home to a relatively wealthy but middling (as opposed to elite) family that owned the property. Given the time period of occupation (roughly 1650-1700) and identification of an extensive area associated with laboring activities it is likely that indentured laborers and possibly enslaved individuals lived and labored at the site as well.

Dr. Ann Markell directed excavations at the site with assistance from Flowerdew Hundred staff members from 1985 to 1989 for her dissertation research at the University of California, Berkeley, under the direction of Dr. James Deetz.  Analyses of surface collected artifacts identified concentrations dating from the Woodland period to late 17^th century. Two artifact concentrations – one in the southeast and another in the northwest — were investigated with subsurface excavations. Fieldwork conducted over five seasons uncovered patterns of postholes and molds in the southeastern area that may have been associated with outbuildings for service activities. The posthole configurations are like those that Neiman (1978, 1980) interpreted as footprints of smoke houses at The Clifts plantation site (44WM33), domestic compound located on the south shore of the Potomac River in Westmoreland County, Virginia that dates between 1680 and 1730. Borrow pits in the southeastern area were filled with ash and charcoal. A number of these pits also contained tobacco pipes.

Excavations in the northwestern area identified a dug-in-ground cellar that is likely the only surviving structural evidence of a substantial timber-framed domestic dwelling. Unlike dwellings identified at domestic sites with similar occupation ranges, such as The Clifts, no evidence of the physical outline of the structure (foundation stones or posthole patterns) was located outside of the cellar. It is possible, however, that evidence could be out of the area of excavation or that the structure’s frame employed a ground-laid sill.  Postholes that only became visible in the lowest levels of excavation in the cellar suggested some framing support was built into that portion of the dwelling. Multiple hypotheses, which are detailed below, exist for the function of the posts. Besides evidence of posts excavations recovered architectural artifacts such as brick, roof tiles, window glass and window leads that suggest a substantial and elaborate wood framed structure stood over the cellar.  Other material classes associated with domestic or recreational activities include thousands of fragments of locally made and imported ceramics, glass vessels, and tobacco pipes have been used as evidence to argue the structure was a domestic dwelling. Perhaps the most notable material culture from these excavations was the recovery of 1,658 fragments of locally made tobacco pipes.

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 early 1600s, as the Weyanock, an Algonquian-speaking Indigenous community, were driven out of their home territory along the James, the land they had cleared and cultivated was taken by the English. Archaeological research indicates that English colonizers at Flowerdew Hundred were no exception; the earliest settlements at Flowerdew exploited the same areas that the Weyanock had cultivated for hundreds of years. By 1617, English settlement had started in the northeast corner of the 1000-acre Flowerdew Hundred tract, with the archaeological sites PG65, PG64, and PG64/65 providing details of early -to-mid 16^th century occupation at Flowerdew. Over the next three centuries, domestic, agricultural, and industrial sites flourished, spread and died out across the Flowerdew tract.

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 on 44PG92. The names of the 17th century occupants of the site are currently unknown thanks to records damage caused by the Civil War. We know from the few surviving documents that George Yeardley likely purchased the property from his father-in-law in 1617. He sold the property to Abraham Peirsey in 1624.  A census, or muster, in 1624/1625 provides the most detailed glimpse of inhabitants at Flowerdew Hundred from the early 17^th century. Peirsey died in 1826, and Peirsey’s daughter, Elizabeth Stephens, sold part of the property to William Barker, a merchant and mariner, by 1636 (Deetz 1993).  The Flowerdew property passed to his son, John Barker, in 1655, who in turn left the plantation to his two sisters, Sarah and Elizabeth.

In 1673 the plantation was divided between the two sisters by a boundary line that ran east/west roughly through the center of the property.  A document entitled ‘The Patent of flower de hundred Land April 24th 1673’ deeds the northern part to Sarah and her husband Robert Lucy, and the southern division to Elizabeth and her husband Phillip Limbrey. Although the side was occupied after the land division, archaeological evidence (pipe bore diameter estimates and Mean Ceramic Dates (MCDs)) suggest it was settled earlier, by 1660s.  There is no conclusive evidence that indicates that either John Barker or Elizabeth and her family were the primary residents of 44PG92 but it is possible that the domestic structure uncovered during excavations belonged to one of these individuals and their family.

Excavation history, methods, and procedures

The 1000 acres that composed the Flowerdew Hundred plantation was surface surveyed by crews of archaeologists from the College of William and Mary’s Southside Archaeological Foundation, under the direction of Norm Barka in the 1970s. The survey identified 54 sites that were recorded with the state. Students and Flowerdew Hundred staff walked transects through plowed fields. Artifacts encountered on the surface were collected and provenienced by site. There was no intra-site survey control for artifact provenience. 44PG92 was initially identified as two related sites, labeled 44PG36 and 44PG36a. The numbering system has since been changed to conform with the state trinomial system, and the two related sites were combined into one – 44PG92.

1985 Excavation Season

In the spring of 1985, the site designated PG92 was surveyed again.  Immediately after plowing and the first rain, a walking survey was conducted by Flowerdew staff archaeologists, Charles Hodges and Taft Kiser. Archaeologists flagged concentrations of artifacts along with any areas that exhibited possible sediment changes suggesting features. These artifacts were not collected but their distribution was mapped and guided decisions on excavation design.  The site was then gridded, using a point under an electrical power tower as the datum. The grid was laid in ten-foot quadrats, extending to the south, east and west of the datum. Grid designations are in units and distance from the datum, e,g. a unit 70 feet south and 10 feet west of the datum is designated 70S10W. It was decided that a single digit would be used as a substitute for the 10-meter increments so 07S10W became 7S1W. All unit designations were assigned starting from the northeast corner of the unit.

The surface collection was estimated to represent an approximate 25% sample of the plowzone and used to make finer-grained decisions about excavation of potential activity areas. The exact method for calculating these estimates couldn’t be located. Markell’s interpretation of the surface collection results indicated that there were two concentrations of artifacts at PG92 – one in the northwestern portion of the site and one in the southern portion.  The excavation team decided to explore the southern area first due to its size and nature of the artifacts retrieved.  These included concentrations of nails, fragments of bog iron, and areas of black sediment revealed by plowing.

Due to the limited time frame available for the excavation and small staff, the excavation team decided that the plowzone would be have to sampled. Markell and Flowerdew Hundred staff, in consultation with Dr. James Deetz, tested a few different methods. Excavators first sampled the plowzone in the southern concentration area at ten-foot intervals, using a coring tool to get a sense of overall depth.  The results were used to create a contour map of the subsoil. The average depth of the plowzone over these units was ~12”.

Two different methods of plowzone sampling were tested, and the results were compared with each other and the results of the controlled surface collection. The first method consisted of stripping a standard unit with shovels and screening sediment through 1/4” mesh screen. The number of five-gallon buckets required for the soil were also counted. Four units were sampled using this method and the depth of plowzone was recorded and compared with the results from the coring.

• 10S0W: [# of buckets not recorded] – 12” to subsoil
• 4S0W: 36 buckets – 19” to subsoil
• 9S5W: 27 buckets – 12” to subsoil
• 10S0W: 27 buckets – 12” to subsoil

Based on the counts, it was decided that five buckets would be screened for each subsequent unit, giving a 15% sample by volume. However, it was quickly determined that the process would still require more time and resources than were available.  Therefore, an alternative strategy was devised and tested. This entailed mechanically stripping all but the last 2-3″ (or 20-25%) of the overburden. This remaining 2-3″ would be troweled by hand, rather than shoveled, to eliminate the need for screening. This method allowed an immediate look at the interface between plowed soil and subsoil, in addition to providing a sample of the plowzone. The 10’x10’ units were broken down into four 5’x5’ squares, their designations assigned counterclockwise from NE corner — A(NE), B(NW), C(SW), D(SE).

After a comparison of the data generated from surface collection and the two plowzone sampling methods (bucket count, and mechanical stripping), it was decided that the stripping and troweling method, along with the information provided from the surface collection provided an adequate sampling of the site.  As a result, the remaining overburden was stripped with a Grade-All across the entire site down to the last 2-3”.

A total of four 10’x10’ units and 64 5’x5’ units were excavated during the 1985 field season.  Six features were also identified (see DAACS feature records for detailed descriptions). Three of the features (designated 1, 2, and 3) proved to be substantial pits and were quartered and excavated in multiple levels. While Feature 1 was only 4 feet in length, Features 2 and 3 were 10 and 11 feet in length respectively.  Depths for all these features was fairly shallow, rounding out at a little over 1.25-1.5 feet. All three features contained a heavy, black sediment with notable densities of charcoal, shell, and brick fragments.  Markell interpreted the three features as daub pits that were reused for trash disposal, although she noted that their location in sandy subsoil was counterintuitive because the heavy red clay that dominated the western portion of the site would have provided more suitable daub.  Markell also noted that the composition of the fill sediment, as well as the high densities of clay, brick, bog iron, and oyster shell could indicate that the fill was related to industrial activities, specifically, ironworking or smelting activities or lime processing for mortar or brick.  Her dissertation (Markell 1990a) and site report (Markell 1990b:25-40) provide more details of this component of the site.  Features 5 and 6 were interpreted as linear trenches but no field notes or associated artifacts were located, suggesting these features were not excavated.

1986 Excavation Season

Thirty-five 5’x5’ units were stripped and troweled during the 1986 field season.  Investigations continued to explore Features 1, 2, and 3. Markell noted that the rings of postholes around features 2 and 3 were potential evidence that roofs or impermanent structures or fences were built to enclose the areas around the pits.

Four additional substantive features (designated 7, 8, 9, and 15) were also uncovered.  Feature 15 was not excavated until 1988. Markell interpreted all three of the features that were excavated (7,8, and 9) as pits based on overall shape (circular/oval) and profile shape. Features 7 and 8 contained fill deposits similar in composition to Features 1, 2, and 3 with high densities of charcoal, brick, and clay inclusions.  The fill sediment of Feature 9 was primarily composed of a mix of ash and sand and had little in the way of artifacts. Features 8 and 9 were particularly shallow and the fill and shape of the features prevented clear interpretation.

Over the course of the 1985 and 1986 seasons 59 postholes and molds were identified and dug by Ann and the field crew.  Many of these postholes were aligned following linear patterns and interpreted to be the remnants of several post-in-ground structures concentrated in the southeastern area of the site. At least four possible structures were identified. These are depicted on the site map and detailed on the Features page. The location of these structures in the vicinity of the pits suggests a special use area similar to those found at other seventeenth century sites like Clifts.

1987 Excavation Season

The focus of excavation shifted during the 1987 field season. The southeastern area had been sampled and interpreted as an activity area based on feature and artifact evidence uncovered during the prior two seasons.  However, the paucity of domestic material made it difficult to draw conclusions about who was conducting this activity. Prior surface collection had indicated concentrations of domestic material to the north and northwest of the industrial area.  Excavation moved to these areas during the 1987 season.  A total of 66 5’x5’ units were stripped and troweled.

The western portion of the site lies on the first alluvial ridge from the river. The subsoil is a heavy red clay, changing to sand at a depth of approximately four feet from the surface. It was on this ridge that Feature 12 was located.  Feature 12 was the most substantial subterranean feature uncovered at 44PG92. Markell and her crew uncovered a ~15’ x 25’ foot deposit of dark sediment that was roughly rectangular in shape.  There were no postholes detected in the units immediately surrounding the feature, as might be expected for a post-in-ground structure with a cellar.  However, the entire area near the feature was not stripped so it is possible postholes existed that were not uncovered by excavations. Alternatively, the overlying structure could have had a ground-laid sill.

Markell and her team quartered the large feature and excavated each quarter separately (NW, NE, SW, and SE) following the natural stratigraphy. Layers were assigned quadrant and level numbers (e.g. Layer 1 in the northwest quadrat is NW/1); in some cases, these level numbers correspond from one quadrant to another, and in other cases they do not align. Markell’s excavation and analysis identified a relatively shallow cut (fewer than four feet from subsoil) and fill that was composed of nine different stratigraphic layers, including a packed clay floor surface that had been applied in several layers.  Excavations also revealed the cellar (~11’ x 21’) was surrounded by a builder’s trench (Feature 12A).

1988 and 1989 Excavation Seasons

The final field seasons at 44PG92 focused on finishing excavations of previously identified features.  While much of the effort was devoted to excavating Feature 12, Features 14 and 15 also proved to be substantial and received attention (identified as Feature Group 02 – Possible Structure 01, see Feature page).  These features and a corresponding pattern of postholes were interpreted as the remains of a small, 10’ x 14’ structure built on the sandy subsoil of the eastern portion of the site. The posts show numerous repair attempts, as well as attempts to stabilize the posts by adding clay to the base of the hole. The notable quantity of pipes and ceramic sherds from the plowzone surrounding the features suggested a domestic component.

Features 12 and 12A continued to provide evidence that the property’s owners invested time and money into constructing a cellar that was functional as a substantial storage space. Markell recovered portions of wood embedded in the feature’s walls and suggested the cellar had been lined with wood planking set horizontally. Nails embedded in some of the planks looked to be toed, indicating that they were applied from the interior (as opposed to exterior of the cellar). A line of postholes running from north to south was interpreted as evidence for a standing wooden partition wall. The larger of the two rooms had a set of wooden stairs entering from the south. Analysis of the wood indicated that the partition and planking were cedar, and the stairs were constructed from an unidentified hardwood.  Several deposits with wooden remnants were also identified on areas of the floor. The beams on the eastern side were roughly aligned running NW to SE but the beams on the southwest quadrant were not in situ.

While the efforts to create a functional space were apparent, the question of how the cellar and surrounding structure had been constructed remained. The removal of the clay floor (Level 8) revealed a possible explanation for the lack of framing postholes on the ground surface above the cellar. As a result, two hypotheses about how the house and associated cellar were constructed are offered here. Postmolds were identified around the perimeter of the cellar at the top of layer 4. These molds were visible in the same configurations down to the layer of the clay floor.  Only after the clay flooring was removed did the postholes become apparent. A comparison of the positioning, size, and depth of the postholes with other medieval and post-medieval structures led Markell to surmise that the structure was built using hole set posts that extended from the bottom of the cellar floor up. A second hypothesis is that the posts positioned at the walls supported the cover over the cellar and the framing posts for the structure were located in the units adjacent to the cellar that weren’t excavated due to limited time and resources. Due to the lack of excavation in units adjacent to the cellar we judge based on current evidence whether there could be postholes for the frame of a larger structure that were not recovered as part of the excavation.

Feature 12 (the Cellar) Fill Sequence

The fill sequence of the cellar was complex. Markell divided the nine stratigraphic layers into five major fill episodes based on similarities in sediment color and texture and artifact cross mending. These episodes are (from the top to bottom of the feature) Final fill, Intentional reuse, flood fill, a shoring layer, and the floor/occupation level. The DAACS reevaluation of the cellar stratigraphy largely aligned with Markel’s interpretation. Table 1 summarizes how Markell’s fill sequence maps onto the stratigraphic groups assigned by DAACS staff. Click here to see a schematic that provides a visual and explanation for the feature at each of these stages.

The table below also outlines the levels associated with each aspect of the sequence. The Final Fill episode was composed of the first three layers of the cellar fill (Layers 1, 2, 3a) that consisted of various deposits of greyish sediment mixed with sand, clay, charcoal, and artifacts. Excavation of these layers, which are believed to have been deposited after the cellar was abandoned, revealed an upper occupation surface at the top of Layer 4. The levels associated with Intentional Reuse episode consisted of a tan sand with some clay mottling that Markel interpreted as efforts to establish a dirt floor in the cellar after periods of flooding. Several features had been dug through this dirt floor. Others, including the post molds for the cellar’s original lining and partition, protruded through the top of it. A few post holes on the east wall had been dug into this floor to repair original posts that supported the structure over the cellar and the wooden planks that comprised the original cellar walls. Excavators also noted evidence of wooden planks laid horizontally behind the original structural posts to serve as the cellar’s walls. The builder’s trench was filled after these planks were in place. Original (unrepaired) posts that supported the structure over the cellar and its original cellar walls protruded through Layer 4 around the cellar perimeter. The associated postholes were only revealed at Layer 4. A wood partition that divided the cellar into east and west rooms is visible at this layer as well as the posts that supported it.

Removal of Layer 4 revealed a zone of horizontally laminated sediments (Layer 7). Thin planar laminations of B-horizon and A-horizon sourced sediments pointed to many cycles of flooding. Repeated flooding may have been the impetus for the deposition of Layer 4, to raise the level of the cellar floor. Markell suggested that a catastrophic flood potentially caused the abandonment of the house. There are historical descriptions of a hurricane (known as the “Great Gust”) coming up the James River in 1667 that caused widespread flooding and wind damage. It is possible that the 44PG92 structure was subject to extensive damage from that storm. However, the multiple laminations attest to repeated flooding episodes, not a single catastrophic event.

The laminated sediments cover the original cellar floor, composed of human transported clay (Layer 8). The remains of wooden stairs that originally gave access to the cellar were in the SW quadrant were found to descend to the clay floor. Traces of wooden timbers were found on top of the clay floor and aligned with the orientation of the cellar. They may have been the remains of wooden joists that sat on the clay and supported a later, higher wooden floor to mitigate damage from repeated flooding episodes. Laminated sediments accumulated under it as flooding continued.

Under the flooding deposits was a floor surface. The floor extended to the plank wall on the eastern side of the cellar, but on the other sides, it stopped approximately 6″ away from the walls. In these areas, the floor was replaced by the mounded shoring layer. This layer was a mixture of orange clay and sand, packed into the angle between the floor and the wall to a height of 6″ or 7 “. It appeared to be contemporary with the floor layer, possibly used to prevent leakage along the plank wall.  Finally, as excavators removed the clay floor (Layer 8), they found non-contiguous lenses of plaster on the east side of the wooden partition. The plaster lenses were interpreted as spills from plastering the walls or ceiling of the room over the east half of the cellar. Removal of the clay floor also revealed the original holes that contained the posts that supported the wooden walls of the cellar possibly Those original posts intruded the subsoil surface at the bottom of the cellar hole.

Table 1. Markell and DAACS Sequence for Feature 12.

		Cellar Quadrant and Associated Layers
Markell Fill Sequence Name	DAACS Stratigraphic Group	NE	NW	SE	SW
Final Fill Episode	SG12	1,2,3/3A	1,2,2A,3	1,2,3/3A	1,2,3,3A,3B,4
Intentional Reuse	SG13	4	4,4A,5	4	5,6
Shoring	SG14	5A	4B	5A,7A	7
Flood	SG15	7(6)	7,7A	7	7A,7B
Floor	SG16	8	8	8,8B	8

Feature 12A

The builder’s trench that surrounds the cellar is 2.5 feet wide on three sides of the cellar and narrowed to one foot on the fourth side. Excavation revealed that the trench had been stepped to produce a foot wide shelf at a depth of one foot.

Research and Analysis

Markell’s Dissertation

Ann Markell completed her dissertation in 1990.  Her primary research question focused on determining whether Virginia colonists were using material culture to establish and maintain group boundaries in seventeenth century Virginia, using assemblages and architecture uncovered at PG92 as a case study. Her methods of evaluating this question focused on identifying whether there was material evidence of local metal and ceramic production taking place at PG92 and examining how the architecture of the site’s main structure aligned with efforts by other planters to create more permanent settlements in the region.

Markell argued that the fill of Features 1, 2, and 3, which had brick, clay, iron ore, oyster shell and iron, could have been remnants of ironworking or smelting activities.  She noted the lack of evidence for a blast furnace but suggested that the use of the bloomery method, which could be carried out by one person with small supplies of ore, could have enacted at the site.  David Killick of the Peabody Museum at Harvard examined some of the materials in the fill thought to be slag and samples of iron ore.  Although the tested samples showed no clear indication of smelting, Markell noted that they may still have been tied to some form of industrial activity.  She suggested that the presence of nails and tools in the trashpits, and the recovery of some worked pieces of iron, could be evidence that blacksmithing was also being carried out on the site. She concluded that (1990:58) the “metalworking activity on the site, whether it was confined to smithing, smelting, roasting of the ore, or all three of these, was apparently done on a very small scale and for a short period of time, likely consistent with experimentation”.

Markell also identified that locally manufactured ceramic wares accounted for 35% of the total number of coarse earthenwares in the site assemblage.  She noted that there was no material evidence of ceramic production (wasters or kiln furniture or architecture associated with the construction of a kiln) at the site but that its presence reinforced that the local industry had started to grow by the end of the seventeenth century. She drew similar conclusions from the large assemblage of locally made pipes found at the site.  Finally, her assessment of the structure focused on the function of the trench surrounding the exterior of the cellar.  After considering a few possibilities she concludes that the trench could have been dug as part of an unrealized goal of adding a brick foundation to the structure.  That, coupled with evidence of a brick chimney, led her to suggest the planter was attempting to align with the movement towards increased permanence that was taking place in the region (1990:93).

Markell concluded that the middling planter who owned and lived at PG92 was trying to consolidate and signal his social and economic position in a precarious colonial system by increasing the permanence of his dwelling and experimenting with manufacturing activities.  However, she argued that the material evidence indicated that he had failed in these attempts. Nevertheless, she interpreted the presence of locally produced ceramic vessels and pipes as evidence of engagement with localized manufacturing networks that was meant to signal increased independence of colonists to England and solidarity with other local Virginians.

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 the majority of 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.

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 44PG92, and with the help of interns from the University of Virginia, DAACS staff rehoused, identified, analyzed, and cataloged 39,276 artifacts. They also analyzed and digitized the 2854 field records associated with 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 44PG92 maps. DAACS analysts responsible for identifying, photographing, cataloging and analysis of the artifacts from 44PG92 included Lily Carhart, Sarah Platt, Iris Puryear, Cate Garcia, Allison Mueller 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, Elizabeth Bollwerk and Fraser Neiman developed a chronology for 44PG92, the detailed results of which can be found on the site’s Chronology page.  The analyses suggest two distinct phases of occupation.  Phase 1, with a Binford Mean Pipe Stem date of 1637 includes assemblages from the Builder’s Trench (Feature 12A) and F12 SGs 14, 15, and 16, which are believed to relate to the construction and earliest use of the cellar.  The rest of the assemblages were grouped together in Phase 2, with a Binford Mean Pipe Stem date of 1650.