|Location:||Westmoreland County, Virginia|
|Occupation Dates:||18th, 19th, and 20th centuries|
|Excavator(s):||Arthur A. Shurcliff (1930); Morley J. Williams (1934); Fraser D. Neiman and Virginia Research Center for Archaeology (1976); Douglas Sanford and University of Mary Washington field school (1993-1999); John Milner Associates (1998), Data Investigations, LLC (2015-2016))|
|Dates excavated:||1930, 1934; 1976; 1993 - 1999; 1998; 2020. DAACS only includes data from 2015-2016 DATA Investigations field seasons.|
The East Garden is part of Stratford Hall Plantation, the historic estate of the Lee family located along the Potomac River in Westmoreland County, Virginia. The Lees occupied the estate from the late 1730s until it was sold in 1822. After passing through several hands, Stratford Hall Plantation was bought by the Robert E. Lee Memorial Foundation in 1929. When the Foundation incorporated in Virginia in the 1970s, the name was changed to the Robert E. Lee Memorial Association.
The East Garden is an area measuring approximately 360-x-190 feet located immediately to the east of, and adjacent to, the Stratford Hall mansion. The exact historical uses of the East Garden area during the Lee period and throughout the 19th century are largely undocumented in the written record. In a 1790 letter, Thomas Lee Shippen, a grandson of Stratford Hall’s builder, wrote of the “gardens, vineyards, orangeries and lawns which surround the house.” Excavations in the 1930s and 2013 confirm the presence of 18th-century planting beds and garden features. Restorations of the East Garden in the 1930s, and again in 2018, are well documented (Beaman 2002; Pogue 2013; Rieley 2020)
The East Garden assemblages in DAACS were generated by archaeological testing conducted by DATA Investigations LLC in 2015 and 2016, as part of Stratford Hall Plantation’s broader goal to better understand the complex landscape chronology of the East Garden prior to garden redesign in 2018. Although other archaeological research has been conducted in the East Garden (Shurcliff 1929, Williams 1932, Neiman 1976, Pogue 2013; details on these excavations below), only assemblages excavated by DATA Investigations are currently available through DAACS.
Thomas Lee purchased the site that is now Stratford Hall in 1717. Construction of the mansion began in 1737 or 1738. The 1801 Mutual Assurance Policy and 1805 Insurance Plat provide an overview of the substantial structures associated with the Stratford Hall Plantation, but do not offer much in the way of detailed information about buildings or activities in the East Garden. To date, no detailed landscape plan or description for the East Garden dating from the 18th or 19th centuries have been found, although the recent discovery of an eighteenth-century “Mystery Plan” among the Thomas Jefferson papers donated by the Coolidge family to the Massachusetts Historical Society, was used as a partial guide for the 2018 garden restoration (Rieley 2020).
As noted above, 18th- and 19th-century documentation on the design and use of the East Garden has not been discovered. Thomas Lee Shippen’s 1790 letter indicates that the areas around the mansions were surrounded by “gardens, vineyards, orangeries and lawns”. Four 18th-century brick structures remain adjacent to the East Garden: the Main House to the west, the Gardeners to the Northwest, and the Kitchen and Smokehouse to the southwest. Restorations of the East Garden in the 1930s, and again in 2018, are well documented (Beaman 2002; Pogue 2013; Rieley 2020). Details of twentieth century excavations are below.
Excavation History, Procedure, and Methods
1930s: Arthur Shurcliff and Morley Williams
In the late 1920s, The Garden Club of Virginia in collaboration with Stratford Hall, began “restoration” of the East Garden. In 1929 Arthur A. Shurcliff, landscape architect and amateur archaeologist, conducted archaeological excavation to aid in the development of a landscape plan for the garden. His team excavated extensive narrow rectangular trenches throughout the East Garden.
Three years later, in June and July 1932, Morley Williams, also a landscape architect, his field supervisor Charles Coatsworth Pinkney, and local African American excavators, placed additional trenches in the East Garden (Beaman 2002; Morley 1934). Williams identified two terrace slopes and evidence for two side paths, but no central garden path. He also uncovered five substantial features in the upper terrace, which were either not excavated or fully recorded as details about what was found inside of the features are missing.
The five linear features included bricks without mortar, which he interpreted as part of the garden drainage system, and a rectangular feature that he identified as an asparagus bed. Although their existence was not taken into account in Williams’ completed garden design in October 1932, Dennis Pogue believes that regardless of their function, they were likely related to the 18th-century garden (Pogue 2013: 2-4). Although the artifacts and contexts from the 1930s East Garden excavations are not available through DAACS, the excavation trenches have been georectified and placed on the DAACS ArcGIS map for Stratford Hall, which can be downloaded from the Maps and Images section of this site.
1976: Fraser Neiman and Virginia Research Center for Archaeology
In the Spring of 1976, the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology (VRCA) was contracted to conduct a survey of the entire Stratford Plantation to create a catalog of archaeological resources at Stratford Hall. Survey fieldwork was carried out in three phases. Phase I consisted of surface inspection of plowed fields at 15-to-20 foot intervals. Areas under vegetation, pasture, and woodland were subsurface tested with shovel test pits (STPs) roughly placed on 20-foot centers (Neiman 1979:36).
Phase II of the survey was designed to provide a more refined idea of the size, complexity, and date of the site tested in Phase I. An attempt was made to leave sealed archaeological contexts as intact as possible. Since the research project was to be focused on the colonial period, the seventeenth and eighteen century sites were prioritized (Neiman 1979:2). The context information from the Phase I and Phase II excavations have not been entered into DAACS.
Phase III focused on the area in the immediate vicinity of the mansion. Neiman and his team systematically tested areas around the Main House, including the West Yard, north of the West Yard, the area east of the kitchen courtyard, and north of the East Garden in an area known as the “Old Orchard”. However, not all areas around the mansion were tested, including the East Garden proper, the north and south mansion lawns and the area south of the stables (Neiman 1979:38). Neiman made the decision to not test the East Garden for two reasons. First, the East Garden had undergone extensive and archaeologically damaging grading in the 1930s. Second, Neiman and his team wished to focus on areas with the most human activity, i.e. service areas and other occupation zones. As the East Garden has primarily been used a garden space, not as work yards or service areas, Neiman focused his attentions in other areas around the mansion. Field records and artifact data from Neiman’s work in the West Yard are in DAACS.
1987-2012: Douglas Sanford and University of Mary Washington
Between 1987 and 2012, Douglas Sanford and students from the University of Mary Washington excavated five units in the upper terrace of the East Garden. These units were located near the mansion and helped identify cultural features and stratigraphy. Assemblages from UMW excavations in the East Garden are not included in DAACS.
1998: John Milner Associates
Archaeological investigations at Stratford Hall Plantation were conducted by John Milner Associates, Inc., in 1998 to identify and assess archaeological resources that might be affected by the installation of perimeter drains around the Great House and adjacent outhouses (Balicki and Seifert 1999). The investigations were part of a larger conservation program developed to stabilize the Plantation’s buildings. Thirty-one locations were tested along the perimeters of the seven buildings forming the core of the plantation: the Great House, the Northwest Outbuilding, Northeast Outbuilding, Southwest Outbuilding, Southeast Outbuilding (Kitchen), Smokehouse, and Stable.
Assemblages from the Milner excavations associated with the East Garden, the Southeast Outbuilding (Kitchen), Smokehouse, and Stable, are not included in DAACS as this was not within the scope of the project.
2013: Dennis Pogue
In 2013, Stratford Hall contracted with Dennis Pogue to answer two research questions critical to their garden restoration plans: had Williams stripped the entire upper terrace of the East Garden and did any 18th-century planting features remain under the overburden? Pogue and his team excavated 22 units in the upper terrace and 6 shovel test pits in the lower terrace. In the upper terrace they discovered a number of fill layers overlying subsoil, with artifacts recovered spanning from the 18th to the 20th centuries. This confirmed that the area had been stripped in 1932, presumably with soils subsequently brought in to raise the grade to conform with the 1930’s restoration plan (Pogue 2013).
Pogue and his team also uncovered portions of five likely 18th-century planting features that match precisely in location and in shape with those depicted on William’s 1932 excavation plan. Limited testing of three of the features revealed that they are flat-bottomed and vertical-sided trenches, two of which were lined with a substantial stratum of brick rubble. Pogue compared the characteristics of these features with the findings from other excavated 18th-century gardens, which led him to conclude that the Stratford Hall features were the remnants of garden beds (Pogue 2013). Pogue’s site report can be downloaded from the Maps and Images section of this website.
2015-2016: DATA Investigations, LLC.
DATA Investigations, LLC., led by Thane Harpole and David Brown, conducted archaeological testing in the East Garden and West Yard in 2015 and 2016. The field records and artifact assemblage data from the DATA Investigations’ excavations comprise the archaeological data currently in DAACS. DATA Investigations’ 2015 site report can be downloaded from the Maps and Images section of this website.
The primary goal of DATA Investigations work in the East Garden was to find evidence of historic pathways and other landscape features. DATA Investigations excavated six 5 x 5 foot units and two 5 x 2.5 units in the upper terrace of the East Garden. Excavators worked in natural stratigraphic layers. The majority of the sediment was dry screened through 1/4 mesh, although a few topsoil contexts were not screened (DI249A, DI250A, and DI273A). These contexts have artifact IDs with an “NOS” suffix (e.g. 1054-DI273A-NOS). Over 47,000 artifacts were recovered from these eight units.
Excavations within the uppermost terrace of the East Garden included Test Units (TUs) 200 to 204 and 225 to 227. The test units generally included three layers and extended an average depth of 1.1 feet. The uppermost layer included a mix of artifacts from the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. The lowermost layer typically represented a transition to subsoil, had very few artifacts, and was relatively thin (about 0.2 to 0.3 feet thick). The middle layers included a layer of highly concentrated pea gravel (T.U.s 200-203, and 225-227) or artifacts dating predominantly to the late 18th/early-to-mid-19th centuries.
DATA Investigations uncovered recent postholes (Feature 1, T.U. 200), recent utilities (PVC water line, T.U. 203), and trench excavations from the 1930s (T.U.s 200 & 227). Importantly they identified a dense layer of pea gravel in both the central units (T.U. 200, 202, 226, 227) and in the northern units (T.U. 201, 203, 225) that may represent pathways from the late 18th/early 19th century, as well as a circular brick and sandstone deposit that may have served as a pad for a garden planter or statuary (T.U. 226). The gravel deposits were noted in the 1930s as a “gravel layer” in the central portion, and “gravel on brick” in the northern portion, which clearly shows that they predate the earliest archaeology.
Based on the current archaeology, as well as probing across the upper terrace of the East Garden, there may have been three wide gravel paths evenly spaced across the terrace, with one about 20-feet wide traversing the middle, an approximately 20-foot wide deposit adjacent to the northern building, and a roughly 16-foot wide gravel area extending away from the kitchen at the southern end. The dates of these deposits are not clear, although 19th-century artifacts, particularly fragments of a large stoneware pitcher likely made by Peter Herrmann of Baltimore between c. 1855 and 1900 (Kille 2005; Herrmann 2016), were found directly on top of the layer.
The brick and stone pad also appears to have been placed at the edge of this gravel deposit, suggesting that the pad and gravel are contemporary. No additional matching pads have been located but this conclusion is only based on limited probing of the area. The pathways, if they were indeed 20-feet wide, do not appear to have been edged with brick or other material. There is an abrupt edge to the gravel, and this same gravel is not present in other excavated areas of the upper terrace.
Lastly, artifact concentrations increased significantly in the northernmost units (T.U.s 201, 203 and 225), perhaps suggesting a higher degree of archaeological integrity and the possibility of intact cultural features in the northern part of the site.
2018-2020: DAACS Analysis
The Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery was hired by Stratford Hall to identify, analyze, and catalog all of the artifacts from DATA Investigations’ excavations in the West Yard and East Garden, and to make the data freely accessible via the internet. Senior Archaeological Analyst Katelyn Coughlan and Archaeological Analysts Sarah Corkett and Sarah Platt conducted the artifact analysis under the supervision of Senior Archaeological Analysts Leslie Cooper and Project Manager for DAACS, Elizabeth Bollwerk. They also analyzed the paper field records and created the detailed Harris Matrix. Bollwerk produced the CA Chronology and Cooper produced the extensive digitized maps by piecing together site maps from multiple projects and the site’s Harris Matrix. The site was launched on the DAACS website in December 2021. Detailed artifact and context data can be found in the Query the Database section of this website.
A note on data in DAACS:
In the DAACS database, the East Garden is designated as Project “1054”. Artifact ID numbers for artifacts associated with the site therefore begin with the 1054 prefix. Excavated contexts followed natural stratigraphy. Most contexts were screened through ¼ inch mesh. A few topsoil contexts were not screened (DI249A, DI250A, and DI273A). These contexts have artifact IDs with an “NOS” prefix (e.g. 1054-DI273A-NOS).
Architectural artifacts were discarded in the field (brick, larger chunks of mortar, charcoal, coal, and oyster shell). DAACS staff developed protocols for these artifacts and entered counts and weights for each context based on documentation from artifact tags and field/lab records.
Numerous fragments of conglomerate were found throughout the East Garden. This “ferricrete” or ferruginous sandstone most often consists of iron and quartz. These naturally-occurring stones (also known as bog iron) are likely from localized outcroppings of ferricrete on the Stratford plantation and elsewhere on the Northern Neck of Virginia. This conglomerate was used in the historic period for foundations, walls, chimneys, and headstone markers. Cultural uses can be established using the size of the fragment and the context of the assemblage.
Because all of the ferricrete/bog iron recovered from Stratford was pebble or cobble-sized, did not show signs of wear, reuse, or other modification, and none of the contexts it was found in indicated it was used culturally, it was not entered into the database. Finally, faunal material recovered from the East Garden was entered according to the “non-specialist” protocols (see the DAACS Faunal Manual for more information).
Summary of Research and Analysis
Several excellent articles discuss the history of landscape and archaeological research in the East Garden and West Yards. Top among them are Douglas Sanford’s 1999 article on landscape change at Stratford Hall and Thomas Beaman’s 2002 article on landscape restoration at Stratford Hall. Dennis Pogue’s Report on Archaeological Excavations in the East Garden, Stratford Hall Plantation (2013) provides an solid review as well.
This archaeological research summary focuses on the materials recovered by DATA Investigations between 2015 and 2016, as these are the only East Garden assemblages currently in DAACS. Pogue’s and DATA Investigations’ site reports can be read and downloaded in the Maps and Images section.
The majority of the 47,586 artifacts recovered by DATA Investigations in the East Garden were architectural in nature. Brick and brick/daub fragments comprised 77.2%, (n=36,780) of the East Yard Assemblage. Oyster shell, used in gardens path, was the second most abundant artifact type at 10% of the assemblages (n=4705). Mortar (n=2654), Nails (n=681) and window glass (n=566) were the third, fourth, and fifth most numerous artifact types recovered during the 2015-2016 excavations.
Sanford’s, Pogue’s and DATA Investigations’ research campaigns in the upper terrace of the East Garden suggests that portions retain significant integrity, with the potential for containing important landscape features from the Lee period. DATA Investigations’ excavations revealed several cultural layers, include a dense layer of pea gravel in multiple locations, while Pogue’s work uncovered original 18th-century garden features. Future excavations should take into consideration the need to increase the number of contiguous units or the size of an open area excavation so that these substantial landscape features can be properly documented and understood.
DAACS staff produce a seriation-based intra-site chronology for each site included in the Archive, using common analytical methods designed to increase comparability among phases at different sites. Details of this process, and an in-depth description of the results, can be found on the East Garden’s Chronology Page.
DAACS’s chronology using ceramics recovered from DATA Investigations excavations identified three temporal phases at the East Garden. The MCDs for the three phases are given in the table below. MCDs and BLUE MCDs, which give less influence to ceramic types with long manufacturing spans for each phase, indicate that East Garden was a locus of activity throughout the first half of the nineteenth century.
Mean Ceramic Dates and TPQs
Jillian Galle¹, Elizabeth Bollwerk¹, Thane H. Harpole², and David A. Brown²
¹DAACS and ²DATA Investigations, LLC
Things you need to know about Stratford Hall’s East Garden before you use the data:
- In the DAACS database, East Garden is designated as Project “1054”. Artifact ID numbers for artifacts associated with the site therefore begin with the 1054 prefix.
- Excavated contexts followed natural stratigraphy. Most contexts were screened through ¼ inch mesh. A few topsoil contexts were not screened (DI249A, DI250A, and DI273A). These contexts have artifact IDs with an “NOS” suffix (e.g. 1054-DI273A-NOS)
- The archaeological data associated with the East Garden site on daacs.org is from excavations conducted by DATA Investigations in 2015 and 2016.
Notes on the Recording of Specific Artifact Types:
- Faunal material was entered according to the “non-specialist” protocols (see Faunal manual for more information).
- Architectural artifacts were discarded in the field (brick, larger chunks of mortar, charcoal, coal, and oyster shell). DAACS staff developed protocols for these artifacts and entered counts and weights for each context based on documentation from artifact tags and field/lab records.
- Numerous fragments of conglomerate were found throughout the East Garden. This “ferricrete” or ferruginous sandstone most often consists of iron and quartz. These naturally-occurring stones (also known as bog iron) are likely from localized outcroppings of ferricrete on the Stratford plantation and elsewhere on the Northern Neck of Virginia. This conglomerate was used in the historic period for foundations, walls, chimneys, and headstone markers. Cultural uses can be established using the size of the fragment and the context of the assemblage. Because all of the ferricrete/bog iron recovered from Stratford was pebble or cobble-sized, did not show signs of wear, reuse, or other modification, and none of the contexts it was found in indicated it was used culturally, it was not entered into the database.
Things you should know about the Site Map
- Excavators did not assign feature numbers in the field. Some features were assigned context numbers and others weren’t. Feature numbers were assigned by DAACS staff during context entry.
- The DAACS site map for the East Garden is based on shapefiles provided by DATA Investigations.
- 0,0 (origin) for the East Garden is located at the northwest corner of the main house.
- Map measurements are in feet and tenths of feet.
- The maps are not projected into a real world coordinate system. The coordinates provided correspond to locations on the local grid for the site.
In order to create a uniform feature number system across all years and excavators at East Garden, DAACS staff assigned feature numbers using an F-prefix that precedes the number (e.g. F01 is Feature 1).
Feature groups are sets of features whose spatial arrangements indicate they were part of a single structure (e.g. structural postholes, subfloor pits, and hearth) or landscape element (e.g. postholes that comprise a fenceline). Feature Groups assigned by DAACS have a FG-prefix, which precedes the number (i.e. FG01 equals Feature Group 1). No Feature Groups were assigned for East Garden either by excavators or DAACS staff.
DAACS staff performs a standard set of analyses to produce a seriation-based intra-site chronology for each site included in the Archive. We aspire to use the same analytical methods for each site, specifically correspondence analysis and ware-type manufacturing dates, to develop and assign ceramic assemblages from excavated contexts to site-specific occupation phases (see Neiman, Galle, and Wheeler 2003 for technical details). We provide mean ceramic dates (MCD and BLUE MCD) and terminus post quems (TPQ, TPQp90, TPQp95) for each intra-site phase. The phases are recorded in the DAACS Phase field of the database. Archive users may also use the Mean Ceramic Date queries provided on the Query the Database section of this website to calculate MCDs for individual contexts or features.
The use of common analytical methods is designed to increase comparability among phases at different sites. The methods, any changes we made to those methods that are specific to the site, and the phase assignments our methods produce are summarized below. DAACS encourages users of Archive data to help explore improvements to our methods.
For some sites, the original excavators developed intra-site chronologies and, where these exist, they are described on the Background page for the site. In the case of Stratford Hall’s East Garden, the principal investigators did not develop a chronology for the site. The DAACS chronology presented here is the only current chronology for the site.
DAACS Seriation Method
As with other sites in the Archive, the seriation chronology for East Garden was derived from ceramic assemblages aggregated at the level of stratigraphic groups, features, and individual contexts not assigned to stratigraphic groups or features.
To reduce the noise introduced by sampling error, only ceramic assemblages with more than five sherds were included. We excluded assemblages from unit clean-up and surface collections. The seriation chronology presented here is the result of a correspondence analysis (CA) of ware-type frequencies from contexts that meet these requirements (Figures 1 and 2).
The CA results produced a strong correlation between Dimension 1 scores and MCDs (Figure 4), suggesting that Dimension 1 represents time from right (early) to left (late). However, as explained in more detail below, a comparison of the occupational phases with the Harris Matrix challenged this interpretation and indicated other factors were influencing the assemblage arrangement. DI246F was not removed from the analysis, despite the fact that it was clear outlier, because it did not disrupt or skew the patterning shown in the BlueMCD/Dim1 plot (Figures 4 and 5). Based on the dips in ceramic counts observed in a histogram of Dimension 1 scores (Figure 3), where the vertical axis measures ceramic assemblage size, two occupational phases were clearly visible (Figure 3). One stratigraphic group, SG02 was assigned to phase three because of the distance between it and the cluster of other contexts associated with Phase 2 on the BlueMCD/Dim 1 plot (Figures 4 and 5).
DAACS Phases are groups of assemblages that have similar correspondence-analysis scores, similar MCDs, or both, and are therefore inferred to be broadly contemporary. Phases have a P-prefix that precedes the phase number (e.g. P01 equals Phase 1). Based on the correspondence analysis DAACS divided the East Garden occupation into three phases (Figures 4 and 5). Mean ceramic dates for the site-specific phases are given in the table below.
The MCDs for the three phases are given in the table below. MCDs and BLUE MCDs, which give less influence to ceramic types with long manufacturing spans for each phase, indicate that East Garden was occupied throughout the first half of the nineteenth century. The table also provides three terminus post quem (TPQ) estimates. The first TPQ estimate is the usual one – the maximum beginning manufacturing date among all the ware-types in the assemblage.
Two other TPQ measures included in the table below are less sensitive to excavation errors and taphonomic processes that might introduce a small amount of anomalously late material into an assemblage. They are TPQp90 and TPQp95. The TPQp95 of 1820 for P01, 1840 for P02, and 1830 for P03, provides a robust estimate of the site’s TPQ based on the 95th percentile of the beginning manufacturing dates for all the artifacts comprising it. The TPQp90 of 1820 for P01, 1840 for P02, and 1830 for P03 provides a more robust estimate of the site’s TPQ based on the 90th percentile of the beginning manufacturing dates for all the artifacts comprising it.
Mean Ceramic Dates and TPQs
It’s important to note a few things about this chronology. The first is that a comparison between the Harris Matrix and the chronology plots shows that the arrangement of stratigraphic groups in the BlueMCD/Dim 1 plot (Figures 4 and 5) does not follow time. For example, SG01, which was identified as topsoil, was assigned to P01, while SG02 (a 1930s brick path), which is a deposit underneath SG01, was assigned to a later phase (P03). We believe this is because SG02 is a discrete path that was uncovered in a handful of quads. This is different from more traditional lithostratigraphic groups (like topsoil, plowzone, or Buried A Horizon) that extend across much of a site. Additionally, like West Yard, East Garden’s natural stratigraphy has also been disrupted by restoration and renovation work.
About the Code
Incorporating data from the DAACS database, we perform the correspondence analysis using the R programming language (R Core Team 2014). The CA code was written by Fraser D. Neiman. The following packages generate the data tables, CA, and plots within this code: RPostgreSQL (Conway et al 2013), plyr (Wickham 2011), tidyr (Wickham 2014), reshape2 (Wickham 2007), seriation (Hahsler et al. 2014), plotrix (Lemon 2015), ca (Nenadic and Greenacre 2007), ggrepel (Slowikowski 2019), and ggplot2 (Wickham 2009).
All of the R code used in this analysis was written within the domain of the R Core Team at the R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2014). The correspondence analysis for East Garden was conducted by Elizabeth Bollwerk.
The Harris Matrix summarizes stratigraphic relationships among excavated contexts and groups of contexts that DAACS staff has identified as part of the same stratigraphic group. Stratigraphic groups and contexts are represented as boxes. Lines that connect these boxes represent temporal relationships implied by the site’s stratification, as recorded by the site’s excavators (Harris 1979).
Stratigraphic groups, which represent multiple contexts, are identified on the diagram by their numeric designations (e.g. SG01) and the original excavator’s descriptions of them are presented in the key (e.g. “Buried A horizon”). Contexts that could not be assigned to stratigraphic groups are identified by their individual context numbers (e.g. DI204C). Contexts that are associated with features are outlined with red boxes on the diagram, labeled with their respective feature numbers.
Boxes with color fill represent contexts and stratigraphic groups with ceramic assemblages large enough to be included in the DAACS seriation of the site (see Chronology). Their seriation-based phase assignments are denoted by different colors to facilitate evaluation of the agreement between the stratigraphic and seriation chronologies. Grey boxes represent contexts that were not included in the seriation because of small ceramic samples.
See the East Garden Chronology page for Stratigraphic and Phase information.
This Harris Matrix is based on data on stratigraphic relationships recorded among contexts in the DAACS database. It was drawn with the ArchEd application. See http://www.ads.tuwien.ac.at/arched/index.html.
For a printable version, download the Harris Matrix [424 KB PDF].
Harpole and Brown, DATA Investigations 2015 Site Report: Management Summary of Archaeological Testing in the East and West Gardens, Stratford Hall (44WM0309), Virginia.
Pogue 2013 Site Report: Archaeological Investigations in the East Garden, Stratford Hall Plantation, Westmoreland County, Virginia.
PDF of East Garden site plan with features labeled, compiled by DAACS using maps provided by Data Investigations, Inc. and John Milner Associates
PDF of East Garden site plan with excavated units labeled, compiled by DAACS using maps provided by Data Investigations, Inc. and John Milner Associates
PDF of East Garden site plan with excavated units and features labeled, compiled by DAACS using maps provided by Data Investigations, Inc. and John Milner Associates
East Garden site map, delivered as ArcGIS Pro project file. Note that these maps are not projected into a real world coordinate system, but rather the local grid for the site.
East Garden site map, delivered as shp files. Note that these maps are not projected into a real world coordinate system, but rather the local grid for the site.
Beaman, Thomas E., Jr.
2002 The Archaeology of Morley Jeffers Williams and the Restoration of Historic Landscapes at Stratford Hall, Mount Vernon, and Tryon Palace The North Carolina Historical Review, Vol. 79, No. 3 (JULY 2002), pp. 347-372. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23522548. Accessed April 21, 2021.
Kille, John E
2005 Distinguishing Marks and Flowering Designs: Baltimore’s Utilitarian Stoneware Industry, Distinguishing Marks and Flowering Designs: Baltimore’s Utilitarian Stoneware Industry In Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Chipstone Foundation. Available online at http://www.chipstone.org/article.php/200/Ceramics-in-America-2005/Distinguishing-Marks-and-Flowering-Designs:-Baltimore’s-Utilitarian-Stoneware-Industry
Pogue, Dennis J.
2013 Archaeological Excavations in the East Garden, Stratford Hall Plantation, Westmoreland County, Virginia Report on File with Stratford Hall.
2020 Stratford Hall: An Early Garden Restoration Revisited Published in Magnolia, Publication of the Southern Garden History Society. Summer 2020. https://southerngardenhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/Magnolia-NL-Summer-20-FINAL.pdf
2016 A History and Collection of Peter Herrmann Stoneware, A History and Collection of Peter Herrmann Stoneware Website found at http://www.herrmannstoneware.com.