|Location:||Utopia, James City County, VA, United States|
|Occupation Dates:||Second and third quarter 18th-century. Phasing and mean ceramic dates can be found on the Chronology page.|
|Excavator(s):||Dr. Garrett Fesler.|
The Utopia Quarter site (44JC32) was inhabited by several generations of enslaved Africans and their descendants between the 1670s and 1770s at roughly 20- to 30-year intervals. Each of the four periods of occupation at Utopia can be considered a discrete site, and in fact, each new group of occupants situated themselves in a slightly different location so that there was little or no overlap of the archaeological contexts. Occupation at Utopia III took place between ca. 1730 and 1750, primarily when James Bray’s II son, Thomas Bray II, and then his grandson, James Bray III, owned the Littletown/Utopia plantation. Sometime in the 1730s, the Brays had two new quarters built several hundred feet north of the Period 2 compound which evidently had been abandoned or dismantled not long after James Bray II died in 1725 (Fesler 2004a).
The James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc. (JRIA) excavated most of Utopia III in the spring and summer of 1995, and completed excavations on it in 1996. The site is located within the residential and recreational community of Kingsmill on the James, outside the town of Williamsburg, Virginia. The property is owned by Anheuser Busch, Inc.,which funded the excavation of Utopia III as part of its mandate to preserve and study the historical resources on its property. Utopia is situated on prime riverfront real estate that Busch made plans in 1995 to develop into house lots, thus providing the impetus to conduct an archaeological salvage excavation prior to development.
In his will, James Bray II temporarily left the Littletown/Utopia plantation and the slaves living there to his daughter, Elizabeth Allen, until his grandson, James Bray III, reached adulthood in 1736 and could claim ownership of the property. Elizabeth Allen sold her rights to the property in 1728 to her brother, Thomas Bray II, for £500 (Stephenson 1963:19; Winfree 1971:382). Thomas Bray II operated Littletown/Utopia for eight years until 1736 when its rightful heir, James Bray III, turned 21 years of age. The younger Bray died eight years later in 1744. As a result of settling his estate, his wife Frances Thacker Bray received 29 slaves and the Utopia acreage of the Littletown/Utopia plantation as her dower share (Burwell v. Johnson 1758).
There is little documentation about the operation of Littletown/Utopia during Bray II’s tenure as owner. In 1732, the General Assembly granted his petition to “dock” or suspend the entail on many of the properties he inherited from his father, including Littletown/Utopia (Winfree 1971:381-384). Bray proceeded to liquidate some of his smaller tracts of land to buy more slaves, and by 1738, he had purchased at least 44 slaves and presumably integrated them into his existing slave population, some of which ended up at Utopia (Fesler 2004a).
More is known about James Bray III and the fact that he struggled financially throughout his short career as a planter and was in debt at the end of his life (McClure 1977; Burwell v. Johnson 1758). For eight years, he kept a ledger that documented his financial travails at the Utopia Quarter (Burwell Papers; McClure 1977; Walsh et al. 1997). While tobacco was the principal commodity produced at Littletown/Utopia, a significant amount of slave labor was devoted to a diverse array of crops and small industries. During the eight years he operated Littletown/Utopia, Bray III sold corn, wheat, fodder, oats, peas, onions, various species of livestock, butchered meat from his herds, wool, butter, tallow, animal hair, cider, brandy, lime, bricks, and firewood (McClure 1977:67-73, 77-94; Walsh et al. 1997:136). He also operated a mill on his property and rented out some of his vacant landholdings to tenants (McClure 1977:52-53, 87-89). He employed overseers to manage his operations and the available evidence indicates that John Green managed Utopia from 1740 until Bray’s death in 1744 (McClure 1977:42-43). During those five years, Green received shares of tobacco, corn, pork, and even a small amount of butter, which suggests that these were commodities specifically produced by the slaves working at Utopia (McClure 1977:42-43).
Although the exact number is not known, James Bray III may have owned as many as 80 to 90 slaves at the end of his life, distributed between Littletown/Utopia and other properties in the region (McClure 1977:50-51; Kelso 1984b:38-39; Walsh et al. 1997:14). His wife received 29 slaves and the Utopia property as her dower share of the estate in 1745. One can infer from the 1745 list that most of the slaves Frances Thacker Bray inherited were living and working at Utopia.
Table 1: Enslaved Persons Received by Frances Bray in 1745
|Women||Men||Older Girls||Older Boys||Young Girls||Young Boys||Total|
|Moll*||Daniel*||Milla||Joe Boy||Patience||Little Sam³|
|6 (8ª)||10||2||3||3||3||27 (29ª)|
*Corresponds with a name listed at Littletown/Utopia in 1725 under James Bray II’s ownership.
a. These two female slaves were chosen by Frances Bray to resolve a separate matter and not part of the original 27.
1. A slave named Sarah (along with one named Jeremiah) reputedly was Frances Bray’s personal maidservant (Burwell v. Johnson 1758).
2. Jupiter is listed as “Doll’s son.” There is no Doll among the 27, although a woman named Doll was present at Littletown/Utopia in 1725. It is also possible that the scribe intended to write “Moll’s son” and made an error. Jupiter may be the son of the Jupiter listed for James II in 1725.
3. An adult male Sam is listed for James II in 1725, probably the father of Little Sam here.
The names of three men and four women are found on both James Bray’s II 1725 inventory and Frances Bray’s dower list in 1745. On both lists, adults appear to be ranked roughly by value, with the prime fieldhands at the head of the lis, and less productive older adults or adolescents at the end. Martin and Daniel appear as children in 1725 and are listed as prime adults in 1745. Nanny may have been a late adolescent in 1725 and is the prime adult woman in 1745. Caesar also may have been a young adult in 1725 and was in his prime by 1745, as may have been the case for Juno. The reverse was probably true for Moll; a prime adult in 1725, by 1745 she may have been one of the older females in the group of 29. The Lucy listed as a child in 1725 may have been listed as an adult in 1745 as Deaf Lucy.
Some of the 29 slaves in Frances Bray’s dowry may have been African-born. Among the adults, classical or place names like Cesar, Juno, and York suggest that these names were imposed on new Negroes, and Ebo almost certainly was a reference to her place of origin. The presence of Mulatta Pat, possibly the child of a European or Anglo-American father and an African or creole mother, suggets that at least one mixed race individual was living at Utopia.
According to his ledger, James Bray III hired out his slaves periodically for periods of time ranging from a day or two to a year. For example, in 1741, he hired out Jupiter for a year and in 1743 he hired out Simon for six months (McClure 1977:49). According to later accounts, an unknown number of James III’s slaves “were Tradesmen and House Servants, no Ways concerned in the Crop” and at least one of his slaves was a cooper whom he hired out locally for short periods of time (Burwell v. Johnson 1758; McClure 1977:95).
Excavation history, procedure, and methods
A small amount of testing took place at Utopia III in 1972-73 when William Kelso first began intensive study of the Kingsmill property. At that time, one test unit (KM167) was excavated into a subfloor pit that yielded a variety of domestic artifacts including an English half-penny dated 1721. Kelso considered the findings to be evidence of a probable quartering site dating to the first half of the eighteenth century that he tentatively labeled as Jacko’s Quarter (Kelso 1984b:108). Because the location was not threatened by development, Kelso did not pursue any further excavation of the area. When JRIA archaeologists returned to the site in 1995, they verified that the site was indeed a slave quarter, and in fact the subfloor pit that Kelso tested (KM167) turned out to be subfloor pit 43 (DAACS Feature F043) inside one of two dwellings at Period 3 Utopia.
As a means of sampling the topsoil and plowzone at Utopia III, archaeologists excavated more than 700 shovel test holes at 10 ft. intervals throughout the site area. The backfill from each shovel test was sifted through ¼” hardware cloth and all artifacts as well as a soil chemistry sample were collected. Furthermore, 63 test units were excavated at the site and blocks of units were used to uncover both dwellings in their entirety as well as sizeable portions of two major trash pits. Once the shovel testing and test units were completed, an excavator mechanically removed the remaining topsoil and plowzone from the site. Archaeologists used flat shovels and trowels to scrape down the site and expose and define the features. A plan map of the site then was generated a scale of ¼”=1 ft. and each feature received a context number. Trowels were used to excavate the features and all soil was sifted through ¼” hardware cloth. All features were bisected at least once and a profile and plan was drawn at a 1”=1 ft. scale. Some of the more complex subfloor pits were bisected several times. One-hundred percent of the soil from all subfloor pits was saved and processed through a soil flotation system. All postmold fill was saved and floted, whereas five liters of each posthole was floted. All other features were sampled and floted as well. Heavy and light fraction generated by the flotation machine were sorted by hand with the aid of a magnifying glass and incorporated into the artifact collection from the site.
Utopia III consisted of 36 features or macro-features (sets of related features). The macro-features included two post-in-ground dwellings and a small post-in-ground outbuilding, a post-and-rail fence, and a paling ditch enclosure connected to Structure 40. Regarding individual features, archaeologists excavated 21 subfloor pits, three in Structure 40, and 18 in Structure 50 and two enormous trash pit complexes adjacent to both of the housing units. Although all of the Period 3 features were excavated in their entirety or sampled, the subfloor pits and trash pits produced most of the 21,500 artifacts.
Table 2: Period 3 Utopia Features
|Type of Feature||N||JRIA Field Numbers||Description|
|Structures||3||FE40, FE50, FE107||Two housing units and one small outbuilding|
|Hall Subfloor pits||15||FE41, FE42, FE43, FE45, FE48, FE51, FE52, FE53, FE54, FE55, FE56, FE57, FE58C/E, FE58B, FE58D||Subfloor pits in the hall in Structures 40 and 50|
|Parlor Subfloor pits||6||FE39A, FE39B, FE44, FE46, FE47, FE49||Subfloor pits located in the parlors of Structure 50|
|Trash Pits||4||FE61 (and FE97), FE62, FE119, FE127||Trash pits associated with Structures 40 and 50|
|Fence Enclosure||1||FE126||Paling ditch enclosure connected to Structure 40|
|Fence||1||FE105||Post-and-rail fence near Str. 50|
|Pit Features||6||FE64, FE113, FE122, FE123, FE130, FE136||Various miscellaneous pit features|
Like Utopia I and Utopia II, the carpenters used post-in-ground architecture to build all three Utopia III structures (Carson et al. 1981). Structures 40 and 50 were used as housing units and Structure 107 was a small 10 ft. by 10 ft. outbuilding probably for agricultural storage. Structure 40 was 12 ft. by 16 ft. in size and contained three centrally located subfloor pits that had been partially disturbed in recent years, causing them to have a non-linear appearance on the surface. A paling ditch enclosure formed a private yard behind Structure 40 and a large trash pit complex (DAACS Features F062, F119, and F127) was located immediately outside the enclosure, filled with trash and debris from the housing unit.
Structure 50 was built in stages. The original core of the structure was identical in size to Structure 40, 12 ft. by 16 ft. At a later date, two 6 ft. by 16 ft. sheds were added to each side of the main core to form a structure 16 ft. by 24 ft. in size. Eighteen subfloor pits were arrayed throughout the interior of Structure 50, many cutting through one another, evidence of repeated episodes of filling and re-digging. A very large trash pit was located within a few paces of Structure 50, used exclusively by the residents living in the building.
Summary of research and analysis
A number of archaeologists have analyzed all or portions of the Utopia Quarter site since the early 1970s. Garrett Fesler has produced the majority of research on all occupations at the Utopia Quarter site including several technical reports, publications, and a dissertation (Fesler 1997, 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2004a, 2004b). Other archaeologists who have worked with the Utopia data include William Kelso, Patricia Samford, and Donna and Clifford Boyd.
In addition to technical publications, Fesler has written a dissertation that examined the composition and growth of households at the Utopia Quarter, and compared these findings with the wider Chesapeake region. The three types of archaeological data used to test and explore household and family formation processes at the site include artifact assemblages, subfloor pit morphology, and architecture and use of space. (Fesler 2004a). Preliminary findings suggest that house size at Utopia grew smaller over time. Fesler inferred that as the 18th century progressed, the site’s enslaved residents lived in housing units that could better accommodate smaller family groups. The gradual reduction in the number of subfloor pits within the dwellings at the three Utopia sites also suggests a changing group dynamic as family members began to share storage spaces. Fesler argued that consumption patterns at Utopia, as measured by the number of artifacts generated by each living unit, also indicated the steady growth of family groups. Overall, Fesler illustrated with multiple lines of evidence the likely evolution of what he considers the “slave family” (2004a).
In a separate article, Fesler analyzed gender relations at Utopia II (2004b), hypothesizing that three possible living arrangements—single-sex barracks, a village compound, or family households—may have been implemented at Utopia II. Fesler used architectural, spatial, and artifactual data to conclude that Utopia II most closely resembled an indigenous West or Central African compound, possibly with living arrangements segregated by gender (2004b). Fesler has also written several technical reports that detail the excavation of Utopia (2000a, 2000b) and a study of the spatial organization of the site by examining artifact distribution and soil chemistry patterns (Fesler 2001).
William Kelso led the first excavations at Utopia in the 1970s and described his findings in a technical report (1976). Kelso’s research was eventually published in his book, Kingsmill Plantations 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia (1984b).
Patricia Samford has used data from the subfloor pits at the site during the course of writing a dissertation (2000) and for an article (1999). Samford argued that some of the subfloor pits at Utopia may have been used as religious shrines, as well as for the more pedestrian use as storage for food and personal belongings.
Donna Boyd and Clifford Boyd:
Donna and Clifford Boyd conducted the osteological analysis of the skeletal remains from twenty-five human burials at Utopia (1996). Despite poor preservation in the thirteen burials containing skeletal remains, the Boyds were able to determine that the general health of the burial population, based on the dentition patterns of the adults, was relatively poor.
James River Institute for Archaeology (JRIA)
Things you need to know about Utopia III before you use the data:
- 700 shovel test pits and 63 test units were used to sample topsoil and plowzone contexts prior to the mechanical removal of the remaining topsoil and plowzone.
- One-hundred percent of the soil from all subfloor pits was saved and processed through a soil flotation system.
- Measurements are in feet and tenths of feet.
DAACS staff has 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). In the case of Utopia III, many of the DAACS-assigned feature numbers are the same context numbers assigned by the original excavators.
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.
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).
|F039A||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||039A|
|F039B||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||039B|
|F044||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||044C, 044A, 044B|
|F045||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||045C, 045E, 045A, 045B, 045D|
|F046||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||046A|
|F047||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||047A|
|F048A/E||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||048, 048A, 048B, 048C, 048D, 048E, 048F, 048SLUMP, 048AB|
|F048G||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||048G|
|F049||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||049A|
|F051||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||051A, 051B, 051C, 051D, 051X|
|F052||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||052A, 052B|
|F053||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||053B, 053X, 053, 053A|
|F055||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||055D, 055C, 055A, 055B|
|F056||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||056A|
|F057||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||057, 057G, 057A, 057B, 057C, 057D, 057E, 057F|
|F058B||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||058B|
|F058C/E||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||058C, 058E|
|F058D||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||058D|
|F041||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||041A, 041B|
|F042||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||042A, 042B, 042C, 042D, 042E, 042F|
|F043||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||043A, 167-1973, 167A-1973, 167C-1973, 167|
|F058A||Basin formed by post-depositional settling||058, 058A|
|F060||Trench, fence||060A, 060B|
|F061||Pit, trash||061-6A, 061-6B, 061-6C, 061-6D, 061-6E, 061-6F, 061-7A, 061-7B, 061-7C, 061-7D, 061-7E, 061-2/7B, 061-2/7C, 061, 061-1/8B, 061-1, 061-1/8A, 061-1/8C, 061-1/8D, 061-1/8E, 061-1/8F, 061-1A, 061-1B, 061-8A, 061-8B, 061-1C, 097, 061-8C, 061-1D, 061-1E, 061-8D, 061-8E, 061-1F, 061-2C, 061-1G, 061-8F, 061-4/5A, 061-4/5B, 061-4A, 061-2A, 061-2B, 061-3A, 061-3B, 061-3C, 061-3D, 061-3A/B, 061-3E, 061-3F, 061-3G, 061-3H, 061-5B, 061-4/5C, 061-2/7A, 061-2/7D, 061-4B, 061-4C, 061-5A, 061-5C, 061-5D, 061-5E, 061-5F|
|F062||Pit, trash||062-5D, 062-1A, 062-1B, 062-1C, 062-1D, 062-1E, 062-1F, 062-1G, 062-3A, 062-3B, 062-3C, 062-3D, 062-3H, 062-2A, 062-2B, 062-2C, 062-2D, 062-2E, 062-4A, 062-4B, 062-4C, 062-4D, 062-2, 062-4/5D, 062-4B/C, 062-1/3AB, 062-3/4C, 062-3/4B, 062-1/2E, 062-2/4C, 062-2/4B, 062-2/4A, 062-4/5C, 062-3B/C, 062-1/2BC, 062-1/2A, 062-1/2C, 062-1/3C, 062-1/3BC, 062-1, 062-3/4A, 062, 062-1/2B, 062-1/2D, 062-2/5C, 062-3/4AB, 062D|
|F103||Pit, unidentified||103A, 103B|
|F119||Pit, trash||119A, 119B, 119C, 119E, 119D|
|F126||Trench, fence||126-5, 126-6, 126-7, 126-8, 126-1, 126-2, 126-3, 126-4, 126|
|F127||Pit, trash||127A, 127B, 127C, 127D, 127E, 127F|
DAACS Seriation Method
This page summarizes a frequency-seriation based chronology for the Utopia III site that was developed by DAACS (see Neiman, Galle, and Wheeler 2003 for technical details). At Utopia III, DAACS seriated ceramic assemblages with more than five sherds, from excavated features. This made it possible to assign larger samples of artifacts to phases than if the analysis had been conducted at the level of stratigraphic groups and individual contexts, where sample sizes are much smaller.
The seriation chronology is derived from a correspondence analysis of MCD-type frequencies in the features that met the sample size criterion. Seriated assemblages were assigned to phases. Phases are groups of assemblages that have similar correspondence-analysis scores and are therefore inferred to be broadly contemporary. Phases assigned by DAACS have a P-prefix that precedes the phase number (e.g. P01 equals Phase 1).
The stratigraphic relationships among stratigraphic groups, unassigned contexts, and features are summarized in the Harris Matrix for the site. Phase assignments from the seriation are shown on the Harris Matrix in color, facilitating comparison of the seriation chronology and the stratigraphic chronology of the site.
Utopia III Site Phases
Correspondence analysis (CA) of MCD-type frequencies in the seventeen assemblages that met the sample size criterion yielded a complex result. The CA axis-1 scores divided the assemblages into two groups. The first was comprised of the assemblages from three subfloor pits under Structure 50 (F51, F53, F55). The second was comprised of the remaining assemblages. The unique position of the three assemblages along Axis 1 was due entirely to high frequencies of two types, Faience and especially Colono, in the Structure-50 pits. Axis-1 scores were not correlated with MCDs. However, axis-2 scores were. Hence synchronic variation in Colono and Faience frequencies was greater that chronological variation in the other MCD-type frequencies. Removing Colono and Faience from a second CA resulted in a new set of axis-1 scores that were almost perfectly correlated with the original axis-2 scores and were also significantly correlated with MCDs.
The results of this analysis need to be considered in light of the spatial structure of the site. Utopia III includes two structures that are on different orientations and are about 90 feet apart. The assemblages from features associated with the two structures are thus derived from two residential groups or households. The CA of MCD-type frequencies indicates that three assemblages from Structure 50 are very different from all the assemblages associated with Structure 40 and all the other assemblages associated with Structure 50. However, once Colono and Faience are removed from the analysis, this distinctiveness disappears. These patterns demand further exploration.
Based on CA, DAACS divided the occupation of Utopia III into two temporal phases. Each phase was further divided into a subphase, based on whether the assemblage in question came from features associated with Structure 50 (1a, 2a) or Structure 40 (1b, 2b).
Both phases have a TPQ of 1750, based on sherds of Derbyshire. As was the case for Utopia II, mean ceramic dates were computed on the assumption that all American Stoneware at Utopia III was actually made by William Rogers of Yorktown, whose pottery operated from 1720 to 1750. The resulting MCDs place the phases in 1770’s and early 80’s, which seems anomalously late. Binford pipestem dates for assemblages with more than twenty measurable stems, range from 1755 to 1768.
A Seriation Chronology for the Utopia III Site
The following table presents a seriation chronology for the Utopia III Site. We use the indefinite article to signify that it is not the only chronology possible, nor even the best one possible.
Utopia III 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 Utopia III 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 [128.04 KB PDF].
Composite excavator’s plan, compiled by DAACS from original field drawings.
Composite excavator’s plan, compiled by DAACS from original field drawings, showing cut-away drawings of intrusive features.
Composite excavator’s plan, compiled by DAACS from original field drawings, showing all three Utopia phases with their relative locations to one another.
CAD site plan in .dgn format.
CAD site plan in .dxf format.
CAD site plan of all three Utopia phases in .dgn format.
Boyd, C. Clifford, Jr., and Donna C. Boyd
1996 An Osteological Analysis of 18th Century Human Skeletal Remains from Utopia I (44JC32), Kingsmill on the James, James City County, Virginia. Manuscript on file, James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.
Bray, James , II
1725 James Bray (II) Will and Inventory. Manuscript on file, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Rockefeller Library, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Burwell, Lewis , IV
1782-1783 Personal Property Tax Lists, 1782-1805. M2031 microfilm, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Rockefeller Library, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Carson, Cary , William M. Kelso , Dell Upton , Gary Wheeler Stone , and Norman F. Barka
1981 Impermanent Architecture in the Southern American Colonies. In Winterthur Portfolio 16:135-196.
2000a Back to Utopia: An Interim Report on Renewed Archaeological Excavations at the Utopia Quarter, Field Seasons 1993-1996. Period 1 Occupation, ca. 1675-1700. Volume I. James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.
2000b Back to Utopia: An Interim Report on Renewed Archaeological Excavations at the Utopia Quarter, Field Seasons 1993-1996. Period 2 Occupation, ca. 1700-1730. Volume II. James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.
2001 Back to Utopia: An Interim Report on Renewed Archaeological Excavations at the Utopia Quarter, Field Seasons 1993-1996. Results of Shovel Testing. Volume V. James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.
2004a From Houses to Homes: An Archaeological Case Study of Household Formation at the Utopia Slave Quarter, ca. 1675 to 1775. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
2004b Living Arrangements among Enslaved Women and Men at an Early Eighteenth-Century Virginia Quartering Site., Engendering African American Archaeology: A Southern Perspective In Engendering African American Archaeology: A Southern Perspective, edited by Jillian E. Galle and Amy L. Young. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
1997 Phase I Archaeological Survey of 270 Acres at the Former Camp Wallace Army Training Base at Kingsmill on the James, James City County, Virginia. Report submitted to Busch Properties, Inc. James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.
Goodwin, Mary R. M.
1958 Kingsmill Plantation, James City County. Ms., Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Kelso, William M.
1973 An Interim Report on Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1972 Season. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.
Kelso, William M.
1974 An Interim Report on the Excavation at Kingsmill Plantation: The 1973 Season. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.
Kelso, William M.
1976 Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1974 Season. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.
Kelso, William M.
1977 An Interim Report on Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1975 Season. Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.
Kelso, William M.
1984b Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida.
Kelso, William M.
1995 Archaeology of Chesapeake Common Folks: Artifacts of Definition and Change Among the Rich and Poor at Kingsmill and Monticello, 1650-1810., Common People and Their Material World: Free Men and Women in the Chesapeake, 1700-1830 In Common People and Their Material World: Free Men and Women in the Chesapeake, 1700-1830, edited by David Harvey and Gregory Brown, pp. 75-93. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Research Publications. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.
McClure, James P.
1977 Littletown Plantation, 1700-1745. Master's thesis, Department of History, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Miller, Henry M.
1978 Pettus and Utopia: A Comparison of the Faunal Remains from Two Late Seventeenth Century Virginia Households. Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers, 1978, Volume 13, edited by Stanley South, pp. 158-179.
Outlaw, Alain C., Beverly A. Bogley , and Merry A. Outlaw
1977 Rich Man, Poor Man: Status Definition in Two Seventeenth-Century Ceramic Assemblages from Kingsmill. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Ottawa, Canada.
Pettus, Thomas , II
1691 Inventory of Estate. Henrico County Court Records, Vol. 1 (1650-1717), pp. 73-74.
1999 Strong is the Bond of Kinship: West African Ancestor Shrines and Subfloor Pits on African-American Quarters., Historical Archaeology, Identity Formation, and the Interpretation of Ethnicity In Historical Archaeology, Identity Formation, and the Interpretation of Ethnicity, edited by Maria Franklin and Garrett Fesler, pp. 71-92. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Research Publications. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.
2000 Power Runs in Many Channels: Subfloor Pits and West African-Based Spiritual Traditions in Colonial Virginia. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Stephenson, Mary A.
1963 A Record of the Bray Family, 1658-ca.1800. Ms., Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Rockefeller Library, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Walsh, Lorena S.
1997 From Calibar to Carter’s Grove: The History of a Virginia Slave Community. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Walsh, Lorena S., Gregory Brown , Jennifer Jones , Ann Smart Martin , and Joanne Bowen
1997 Provisioning Early American Towns. The Chesapeake: A Multidisciplinary Case Study, Final Performance Report. National Endowment for the Humanities Grant RO-22643-93. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
1976 Kingsmill Plantation: A Cultural Analysis. Master's thesis, School of Architecture, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Winfree, Waverly K.
1971 The Laws of Virginia; being a Supplement to Hening’s the Statutes at Large, 1700-1750. Virginia State Library, Richmond, Virginia.
1736-1746 James Bray Ledger. In Burwell Account Book No. 1, folios 100-123. Microfilm —1558 (formerly —96-1). Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Rockefeller Library, Williamsburg, Virginia.
1759 Petition of Lewis Burwell. Public Records Office, Privy Council, PRO/PC 2/106, Survey Report 6108, p. 487. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Rockefeller Library, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Burwell v. Johnson.
1758 Lewis and Frances Burwell vs. Philip and Elizabeth Johnson. British Museum Additional Manuscripts 36, 218, pp. 138-143. Microfilm 284. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Rockefeller Library, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Privy Council Registers.
1738-1778 Public Records Office, Privy Council Registers, PRO/PC 2/109, Survey Report 6111, pp. 130-135. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Rockefeller Library, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography.
1938 Deed Releasing Littletown/Utopia to James Bray, XLVI(1):52-55.