|Monticello, Charlottesville, VA, United States
|William Boyer; Susan Kern; Fraser Neiman.
|1981, 1995, and 1996.
Elizabeth Hemings was the head of a prominent family of enslaved house servants and artisans at the Monticello home farm. The Elizabeth Hemings Site (44AB438) represents Elizabeth Hemings’s final residence, where she spent the last decade of her life from about 1795 until her death in 1807. William Boyer of James Madison University initiated archaeological work at the site with a survey in 1981 to locate the structure identified as Elizabeth Hemings’s residence on a Jefferson-period plat. Two archaeological fields school groups, one directed by Susan Kern in 1995 and the other by Fraser Neiman in 1996, returned to the area to conduct systematic testing of the domestic site and to explore other landscape features in the vicinity of the architectural remains.
The Elizabeth Hemings site is located on the southern slopes of Monticello Mountain about 350-feet south of Mulberry Row and 30-feet south of the Third Roundabout, one of the roads created by Jefferson to circle the mountain at a constant elevation. Two springs feed the area closest to the site. The South Spring to the east and Bailey’s Spring to the west both are within walking distance. The domestic structure, likely built in 1795 at about the same time as the Third Roundabout, was primarily of log construction (Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler 2000:8). The architectural remains consist of scattered brick and stone from a chimney and hearth and a single postmold and posthole, perhaps representing the location of a chimney prop. A cobble concentration, located some 65-feet southeast of the site and likely contemporary with it, also marks the landscape.
Elizabeth Hemings, known as Betty to the Jefferson family, was 38 years old and had ten children when she arrived at Monticello. For fifty-one years, from their arrival in 1775 until Jefferson’s death in 1826, Elizabeth Hemings’s children and her children’s children filled the roles of artisans and household servants in the Jefferson family. Their proximity to the Jefferson household likely afforded them goods and privileges not shared by other enslaved families. Jefferson provided house servants, many of whom were Hemingses, with Irish linen, flannel, and knitted wool or cotton stockings, attire noticeably different from the average field workers’s coarse linens and baggy stockings (Betts 1987:41; Stanton 2000:106). Some male members of the Hemings family, such as Robert, James, and Martin, were allowed to hire themselves out during Jefferson’s absences from Monticello and to keep the wages earned during these ventures (Stanton 2000:104). Indeed, the only slaves Jefferson manumitted were members of the Hemings family, another historical fact that betrays their favored status (Stanton 1996:22, 21). Recent multi-disciplinary research confirms the long-held, but often controversial, notion that all of Sally Hemings’s children were fathered by Thomas Jefferson (Foster et al. 1998; Gordon-Reed 1997; Neiman 2000; Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler 2000:2).
Documentary sources indicate that Elizabeth Hemings was a less active member of the work force by 1790 (Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler 2000:7). Elizabeth Hemings would have been about sixty years old when she moved into the small log house just south of the
Third Roundabout sometime after 1795, a full twenty years after her arrival to Monticello. Here, she likely would have continued to raise poultry and grow vegetables as well as care for young children (Betts and Bear 1986:231). As in life, Betty likely was surrounded by her family in death. Elizabeth Hemings died in 1807 at the age of seventy-two (Betts 1987:60).
At least one reference to Elizabeth Hemings and her family appears on plans for a series of houses along Mulberry Row made by Jefferson in the mid-1770s (Jefferson: N38). “B. Hem’s” also appears on a plat of Tufton, an adjoining quarter farm, and, on the corresponding survey note dated November 10, 1794, Jefferson wrote “Betty H’s house +1” (Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler 2000:8). The reason for Elizabeth Hemings’s move from Monticello, and likely Mulberry Row, to Tufton remains unclear, though it is clear from records that she was back at Monticello home farm by 1795 (Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler 2000:8). The Elizabeth Hemings Site appears on two Jefferson plats. The label “B. Hem” appears on a plat dated 1808-1809 and drawn by Jefferson only a few years after Elizabeth Hemings’s death (Jefferson: N215). Another plat, also drawn by Jefferson, identifies a structure in the same location as “Quarter” (Jefferson: N225). A date of 1809 also is attributed to the latter, though one wonders about the difference in identification if both were completed in the same year, two years after Hemings’s death.
Excavation history, procedure and methods
The following discussion summarizes Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler (2000), which is available for download at http://www.monticello.org/sites/default/files/inline-pdfs/hemings.pdf.
William Boyer, Professor of Anthropology at James Madison University, first identified Elizabeth Hemings’s house site through limited archaeological testing (ER430) during a 1981 Monticello-based summer field school (Boyer 1981). The 1808-1809 Jefferson plat guided this initial survey and allowed Boyer to pinpoint the likely location of the Hemings house, but the short field investigation and few recovered artifacts preclude further discussion of the survey here. Over a decade passed before archaeologists revisited the area to look for substantive confirmation of the structure’s location.
Susan Kern brought an archaeological field school back to the general area of Boyer’s initial survey in 1995. Her goals were to 1) confirm the location the house identified on N215 as B. Hem.; 2) define site boundaries; and 3) locate and verify the location of the Third Roundabout. In all, Kern excavated 60 quadrats of varying sizes, mostly 2-by-2 feet, during the 1995 field season. Quadrats were excavated stratigraphically, and contexts were screened through quarter-inch mesh. The 1995 season also revealed a large sandstone and greenstone concentration, identified by DAACS staff as Feature 4, that measures 12-by-23 feet and is located about 65-feet southeast of the Hemings’s site proper. Three 10-by-10 foot test units exposed the bulk of the concentration with four additional test units excavated to reveal its limits (Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler 2000:11–12). One possible posthole/mold (Feature 5) and two postholes (Features 6 and 7) were excavated within the cobble concentration. The linearity of one edge of the concentration and a corresponding row of three postholes are indicative of a fence line, perhaps one marking the boundary of a field.
A second Monticello/University of Virginia Summer Field School, directed this time by Fraser Neiman, returned to the site in 1996 to conduct additional testing in the area of high artifact concentration around the house, to further investigate the cobble concentration, and to expand the coverage of test units in all directions. The quadrat sizes were standardized to 2.5-by-2.5 feet, and excavations were performed in arbitrary .25-foot increments within strata and quadrats to maximize vertical control (Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler 2000:11–12). Contexts were screened through quarter-inch mesh. Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler (2000) also carried out an extensive sampling regime for chemical soil analysis and phytolith analysis, and both provided promising and interpretable results.
Summary of research
Kern demonstrated that the archaeological site first identified by Boyer in 1981 is a domestic site that dates between 1770 and 1820. Her work also documented site stratigraphy (Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler 2000:11). She recovered a small assemblage of approximately 500 artifacts and determined that the area of artifact concentration measures about 100-by-300 feet.
Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler:
The hearth area, which previously had been identified on the ground surface as a concentrated area of brick and stone, was exposed during the 1996 field season. Much of the hearth debris, identified by DAACS staff as Feature 2, was left in situ and, therefore, does not have excavated contexts associated with it. Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler (2000:13, 14) determined that the hearth had been completely obliterated by a tulip poplar, which had grown up through the hearth’s center, though the minimal amount of masonry remains led them to conclude that the hearth and firebox were made of stone and brick whereas the chimney likely was constructed of wood and mud.
One posthole/mold, Feature 1, located about 10-feet south of the hearth area was interpreted as the location of a chimney prop, or a wooden pole that provides support for the stack and has the advantage of quick removal in the event of a chimney fire (Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler 2000:15). Based on the spatial relationship of the hearth and chimney prop, Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler (2000:15) proposed that Elizabeth Hemings’s house faced the Third Roundabout. Other clues to architecture were the lack of “evidence of a wooden floor….” and recovered window glass. Excavations did not reveal any subfloor pits, though contemporary Mulberry Row structures, such as Buildings s and t, were found to have such pits, leading Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler (2000:17) to infer “that Hemings [likely] had greater control over who had access to the interior of her house than did the residents” of other contemporary quarters. Feature 3 is a possible posthole/mold located just a few feet west of the hearth area. If this feature is a posthole/mold, however, its relationship to the structure remains unclear.
Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler (2000:18-22) generated a digital elevation model (DEM) using 1-foot interval interpolated elevations based on a 20-foot interval total station survey, hoping to pinpoint the Third Roundabout. A percent slope map, made from the DEM, showed clearly an area of more modest slope running east-west, which, based on the spatial relationship to Hemings’s house, supports its interpretation as the Third Roundabout (Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler 2000:19). Further testing, with a 12.5-foot trench, across the linear patch identified on the slope map revealed a layer of compact clay between the B horizon and topsoil which had a level surface and a denser matrix of greenstone and sandstone, both indicative of a level and maintained roadbed.
An examination of artifact density distributions across the site indicated that many of the artifacts were deposited behind Hemings’s house but with a notable difference in the distribution of creamware compared to pearlware and porcelain (Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler 2000:33). The area of greatest creamware density was some 40 feet to the southwest of the hearth debris. Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler (2000:37) suggest that this contrasting depositional pattern results from the fact that creamware vessels at the site are mostly curved, hollow forms, meaning that discard within the core area of outdoor activity, i.e., the yard adjacent to the house, would create a potential hazard. Ceramic analysis revealed twenty-nine vessels that together gave a mean ceramic date (MCD)of 1790.3, which is slightly earlier than the DAACS-generated MCD of 1797 (Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler 2000:46).
Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler (2000:47-52) explored the extent to which Monticello residents participated in the 18th-century consumer revolution by comparing discard rates of teaware and plates from the Elizabeth Hemings Site with other Monticello sites, such as the Dry Well, the Mulberry Row quarters, and the Stewart-Watkins Site, occupied by a free blacksmith and his family. They used two abundance indices, one for teaware and one for plates, to measure change through time in the discard rates of refined plates and tea forms. They concluded that Elizabeth Hemings likely participated in the trend toward greater conspicuous consumption seen at Monticello and elsewhere: the “levels of resource access and/or the advertising payoff increased at Monticello over time and…the Hemings assemblage falls at the [later] end of the continuum” (Neiman, McFaden, and Wheeler 2000:49).
DAACS staff cataloged artifacts and digitized field records from the Elizabeth Hemings Site excavations during the summer of 2005. Only stones from the hearth area and cobble concentration were included in the original digital site map. For DAACS, an attempt was made to include all stones drawn on quadrat plans regardless of whether or not they were collected in the field and regardless of the quadrat’s proximity to the hearth area or cobble concentration. The goal was to demonstrate stone ubiquity or dearth rather than to assume either is the case, particularly for quadrats further removed from the areas of primary interest. It was clear from the context records, however, that differential mapping of stones by quadrat and field season occurred. In other words, the absence of stones on the digital site map is not evidence for absence of stones in the quadrats.
Thomas Jefferson Foundation
Things you need to know about the Elizabeth Hemings Site before you use the data:
- Quarter-inch screens were used for artifact recovery.
- Measurements are in feet and tenths of feet.
- Unit sizes vary between excavators. Kern primarily excavated 2-by-2 foot quadrats but occasionally used the following sizes: 4-by-4, 2-by-4, and 4-by-10 foot. Neiman excavated 2.5-by-2.5 foot quadrats.
- Artifacts from the single test unit excavated during the 1981 Boyer survey are not cataloged in DAACS.
- Artifacts collected from the surface without reference to the site grid are not cataloged in DAACS.
- Note about the Site Maps: Only stones from the hearth area and cobble concentration were included in the original digital site map. For DAACS, an attempt was made to include all stones drawn on quadrat plans regardless of whether or not they were collected in the field and regardless of the quadrat’s proximity to the hearth area or cobble concentration. The goal was to demonstrate stone ubiquity or dearth rather than to assume either is the case, particularly for quadrats further removed from the areas of primary interest. It was clear from the context records, however, that differential mapping of stones by quadrat and field season occurred. In other words, the absence of stones on the digital site map is not evidence for absence of stones in the quadrats.
The original excavators of the Elizabeth Hemings site did not assign numbers to individual features. DAACS staff assigned feature numbers using the original excavation records. Feature Numbers assigned by DAACS have a F-prefix, which precedes the number (i.e. F01 equals Feature 1).
Excavated contexts that belong to the same depositional basin (e.g. a posthole and postmold or the layers in a single pit) have been assigned a single feature number. In addition, single contexts have been given feature numbers when the original field records indicate that the excavators recognized a context’s spatial distinctiveness from surrounding contexts.
It should be noted that F01 (Posthole), excavated during 1995, is shown as a distinct posthole and postmold on site maps and in context records but was excavated as one context (1865E). In addition, F02 (Hearth Area) and F04 (Cobble Scatter) do not have excavated contexts associated with them.
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).
|1898B, 1898F, 1898G
DAACS Seriation Method
DAACS staff aim to produce a seriation-based chronology for each slave-quarter site using the same methods (see Neiman, Galle, and Wheeler 2003 for technical details). Only assemblages with more than five ceramic sherds are included in these ceramic-based seriations. Since none of the features at the Elizabeth Hemings Site contained more than 5 ceramic sherds, DAACS was unable to produce a seriation-based chronology for the site. However, the site-wide Mean Ceramic Date points to the occupation’s temporal placement at the end of the eighteenth century. The TPQ of 1830 represents a single Bennington/Rockingham sherd from context 1928A1. The TPQp90 of 1775 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.
The Elizabeth Hemings Site Mean Ceramic Date
Elizabeth Hemings Site Harris Matrix
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, while lines connecting them 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. SG10) followed by the original excavator’s descriptions of them (e.g. “occupation zone”). Contexts that could not be assigned to stratigraphic groups are identified by their individual context numbers (e.g. 622A).
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 Elizabeth Hemings Site Chronology 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 [171.18 KB PDF].
PDF of composite excavator’s plan, compiled by Monticello staff from original field drawings, with excavation units and features labeled.
PDF of composite excavator’s plan, compiled by Monticello staff from original field drawings, with only features labeled.
PDF of composite excavator's plan, compiled by Monticello staff from original field drawings, with only excavation units labeled.
CAD site plan in .dgn format.
Betts, Edwin Morris
1987  Thomas Jefferson University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Betts, Edwin Morris, and James A. Bear , Jr.
1986  The Family Letters of Thomas Jefferson. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Boyer, William P., Jr.
1981 Archaeological Survey at Monticello and Tufton: A Report on the 1981 Season. Manuscript on file at the Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Foster, E. A., C. Tyler Smith , T. Zerjal , R. Meremet , P. de Kniff , and M. A. Jobling
1998 Jefferson Fathered Slave’s Last Child. Nature:196.
1997 Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Harris, Edward C.
1979 Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. Academic Press, London, England.
1770 Monticello: stone house (slave quarters). N38; K16. Thomas Jefferson Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, MA. http://www.thomasjeffersonpapers.org/
1808b Monticello: 3rd roundabout (plat). N215; K168d. Thomas Jefferson Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, MA. http://www.thomasjeffersonpapers.org
1809b Monticello: mountaintop (plat). N225; K169. Thomas Jefferson Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, MA. http://www.thomasjeffersonpapers.org
Neiman, Fraser D.
2000 Coincidence or Causal Connection? The Relationship between Thomas Jefferson’s Visits to Monticello and Sally Hemings’s Conceptions. William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series LVII(1):198-210.
Neiman, Fraser D., Leslie McFaden , and Derek Wheeler
2000 Archaeological Investigation of the Elizabeth Hemings Site (44AB438). Monticello Department of Archaeology Technical Report Series Number 2, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Neiman, Fraser D.
2008 The lost world of Monticello: an evolutionary perspective. Journal of Anthropological Research 64(2):161-193.
Neiman, Fraser D., Jillian E. Galle , and Derek Wheeler
2003 Chronological Inference and DAACS. Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Providence, Rhode Island. On file at the Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Stanton, Lucia C.
1996 Slavery at Monticello. Monticello Monograph Series. Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Stanton, Lucia C.
2000 Free Some Day: The African-American Families of Monticello. Monticello Monograph Series. Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.