|Location:||Utopia, James City County, VA, United States|
|Occupation Dates:||Third and fourth quarter 18th-century. Phasing and mean ceramic dates can be found on the Chronology page.|
|Excavator(s):||Dr. Garrett Fesler.|
Four different groups of African and African-American slaves occupied the Utopia Quarter (44JC787) for almost exactly a century, between the 1670s and 1770s at roughly 20- to 30-year intervals. The four groups created four discrete sites situated in close proximity to one another on the same landform, but located far enough apart so that there is only a slight overlap between the first two occupation periods. In fact, several hundred feet separate Utopia IV from the other three occupation areas, enough distance to merit assigning a different site number—44JC787—to this portion of the site. Utopia IV occurred during the third quarter of the 18th century when Lewis Burwell IV owned the Utopia property. Prior to Burwell, Utopia had belonged to Thomas Pettus, Jr. from ca. 1675 to 1700, then James Bray II from 1700 to 1725, then Thomas Bray II from 1728 to 1736, then James Bray III from 1736 to 1744. Burwell acquired control of Utopia by marrying James Bray’s III widow Frances Thacker Bray in 1745 (Fesler 2004a).
The James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc. (JRIA) excavated Utopia IV in the spring and summer of 1994. The site is located within the residential and recreational community of Kingsmill on the James, outside the town of Williamsburg, Virginia. Kingsmill is owned by Anheuser Busch, Inc., which funded the excavation of Utopia IV as part of its mandate to preserve and study the historical resources on its property. The site is situated on valuable real estate that Busch planned to develop into house lots. Prior to breaking ground on the new neighborhood, JRIA fully excavated Utopia IV.
With the sudden death of James Bray III in 1744, Utopia and the slaves living there reverted to his father Thomas Bray II. Frances Thacker Bray remarried the owner of the neighboring Kingsmill plantation, Lewis Burwell IV, in January 1745 (Stephenson 1963:19). Immediately prior to the marriage, Thomas Bray II agreed to deed the Utopia property and 29 slaves to Frances in exchange for relinquishing her dower rights (Burwell v. Johnson 1758).
Lewis Burwell IV owned and operated Utopia for 30 years, from 1745 to 1775, occupying the nearby 1,500-acre Kingsmill plantation and its impressive mansion house (Kelso 1984b:44-45, 87-96; Walsh 1997:43). Concerned about the conflict brewing with Great Britain, Burwell pulled up stakes at Kingsmill and Utopia in 1775, deeded the plantation to his son, Lewis Burwell V, and moved several hundred miles west to an estate in Mecklenburg County (Goodwin 1958:27-28; Wells 1976:25-26; Brown 1994:57). Evidence suggests that Utopia was abandoned in 1775 or shortly thereafter (Goodwin 1958:81-82, 85-89; Wells 1976:30, 36).
Records indicate that Burwell IV periodically hired doctors to attend to the ailments of his slaves, to extract abscessed teeth, and that he hired midwives to help some of the mothers deliver their babies (Walsh et al. 1997:173-177). He also allowed his slaves to be baptized. Between 1747 and 1768, at least 73 of his slaves were baptized (Walsh et al. 1997:153, 249-251).
Tax lists survive for Burwell’s IV James City County slave population for the years 1768 and 1769. In 1768, Burwell was taxed in James City County for 65 tithes and the following year for 62 (Goodwin 1958:xxxi). Almost all the tithes were adult slaves, meaning that he owned between 50 and 60 adults and perhaps twice that number if children are included. Thus, by the late 1760s, it would appear that Burwell owned roughly 100 slaves in James City County. The number of slaves living at Utopia is unknown.
The historical record is again mute for almost 15 years until two surviving tax lists were made of Lewis Burwell’s IV slaves for the years 1782 and 1783. The lists were transcribed from Burwell’s own hand and divided into a half dozen taxable groups. According to the lists, Burwell employed three overseers in 1782, and two in 1783, one of whom, John Avory, seems to have lived on a separate quarter with a family of slaves.
Table 1: Lewis Burwell IV 1782 Tax List
|Burwell IV 1782 Taxable Property List||Free White Men||Male Slaves||Female Slaves|
|Group 1 (John Avory – overseer)||1||2||3|
|Group 2 (Thomas Allen – overseer)||1|
|Group 3 (Burwell IV)||1||1|
|Group 4 (Thacker’s Estate)*||44||33|
|Group 5 (John Bragg – overseer)|
|Group 6 (Burwell V Slaves)*||1||31||25|
|Total||4||78 (139)||61 (139)|
Table 2: Lewis Burwell IV 1783 Tax List
|Burwell IV 1783 Taxable Property List||Free White Men||Adult (>16) Male Slaves||Adult (>16) Female Slaves||Male Child (<16) Slaves||Female Child (<16) Slaves|
|Group 1 (John Avory – overseer)||1||1||1||1||3|
|Group 2 (Burwell V Slaves)*||1||13||11||23||16|
|Group 3 (Burwell IV)||1||1|
|Group 4 (Thacker’s Estate)*||20||19||21||18|
|Group 5 (John Bailey – overseer)||1|
|Total||4||35 (148)||31 (148)||45 (148)||37 (148)|
* In 1782 and 1783 Burwell paid the taxes on two large groups of slaves that belonged in name only to his deceased son Thacker’s estate and to his son Lewis Burwell V.
The 1782 list does not make a distinction between adults and children, whereas the 1783 list does. A comparison of the two lists indicates that Burwell’s slave population increased from 1782 to 1783, from 139 to 148. Moreover, between 1782 and 1783, Burwell’s workforce remained relatively constant. Twelve names on the 1782 list are missing from the 1783 list, suggesting an annual attrition rate of approximately 10 percent, mostly attributed to the deaths of small children and infants. The 1783 tax list includes 22 additional or different names compared to the 1782 list. Four of the new slaves are listed as adults and 18 as children, suggesting that Burwell’s slaves were bearing children at a rather extraordinary rate with more than half the adult women giving birth that year.
Excavation history, procedure, and methods
Evidence of Utopia IV was first discovered during a Phase I survey of the area in 1993 (Fesler 1997). During the course of the survey period, artifacts turned up in several test holes concentrated on a high terrace above a branch of Warehams Pond, several hundred yards inland from the James River. One of the test holes penetrated into a subfloor pit, and another into what turned out to be a trash pit.
Throughout the site area at Period 4 Utopia, archaeologists excavated 158 shovel test hole units at intervals of 10 ft. The backfill from each shovel test was sifted through ¼” hardware cloth and all artifacts as well as a soil chemistry sample were collected. Once the shovel testing was completed, an excavating machine removed the 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 at a scale of ¼”=1 ft. and each feature received a context number. Trowels were used to excavate the features and all feature 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. Archaeologists collected a 50-liter sample from each context within each subfloor pit at the site. The samples were processed through a soil flotation system. Heavy and light fractions 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 IV consisted of 46 features or macro-features. The macro-features included three structures that left no architectural footprints (except for possibly a line of four shallow postholes possibly associated with the Structure 140). Subfloor pits accounted for 24 of the individual features, 22 in Structure 140, and one in Structures 150 and 160. Three borrow pits were located on site, created by the builders to extract clay during the construction of the structures. Nine trash pits of varying sizes and depths were arrayed throughout the site. Several anomalous features also were encountered and excavated. All 46 features were excavated in their entirety and produced 19,040 artifacts.
Table 3: Period 4 Utopia Features
|Type of Feature||N||JRIA Field Numbers||Description|
|Structures||3||FE140, FE150, FE160||One duplex and two smaller housing units|
|Subfloor pits in Structure 140-1||10||FE9, FE10, FE11D/E, FE11/12, FE12A/W, FED/L-N, FE13, FE29, FE40, FE41A,||Subfloor pits in west duplex of Structure 140|
|Subfloor pits in Structure 140-2||12||FE5, FE6B/G/H, FE6C-F/J/K, FE6L/M/N, FEP/Q, FE6R, FE7, FE8, FE30A-D, FE30E/F, FE31, FE36||Subfloor pits in east duplex of Structure 140|
|Subfloor pit in Structure 150||1||FE4||Probable subfloor pit inside Structure 150|
|Subfloor pit in Structure 160||1||FE19||Probable subfloor pit inside Structure 160|
|Trash Pits||8||FE1, FE2, FE14, FE15, FE18, FE32, FE33, FE35||Trash pits arrayed around the site|
|Borrow Pits||3||FE16, FE20, FE21-28||Three debris-filled pits originally dug to extract clay|
|Set of Postholes||1||FE37, FE38, FE39ab, FE39cd||Possible shallow postholes assoc. with Structure 140|
|Possible Posthole||1||FE42||Possible posthole for Str. 160|
|Possible Pier Supports||2||FE45, FE46||Possible pier support holes for Structure 150|
|Anomalous Features||4||FE34, FE43, FE44, FE47||Two anomalous features inside Str. 160, and two near Str. 140|
The method of construction for the Utopia IV structures differed from the three previous periods. Instead of framing the buildings on posts set into the ground, the carpenters either laid sills on the ground surface (or in shallow trenches) and erected a log building, or built the cabins on shallow pier supports (see Carson et al. 1981). The cabins left no architectural footprint, although a line of shallow postholes along the south wall of Structure 140 may represent the remnants of piers or later repair or shoring up of that wall. Remnants of piers also may be present for Structures 150 and 160. Lacking a footprint, archaeologists estimated the sizes of each of the three structures based on the subfloor pits enclosed by them. Structure 140 contained 22 subfloor pits, was approximately 22 ft. by 32 ft. in size. It functioned as a duplex (essentially two houses standing back-to-back) and was divided into two compartments with independent exterior entrances. The sizes of the other two housing units, Structures 150 and 160, could not be determined from the single subfloor pit located inside each, but based on the possible pier supports, Structure 150 may have been roughly 15 ft. by 17 ft. and Structure 160 was perhaps less than that.
The three borrow pits were located in proximity to each of the housing units, with the largest, Borrow Pit 21-28 (DAACS Feature F21) nearest Structure 140. Trash pits were arrayed throughout the yard area and some of them can be directly related to debris from specific housing units. For example, the contents of Trash Pits 14, 15, and 18 (DAACS Feature F14, F15, and F18) can reasonably be associated with activity in Structure 140.
Other than borrow and trash pits, landscape features were absent at Utopia IV. The lack of post-and-rail fences, for example, may be explained by changing fencing technology. Like post-in-ground structures, by the mid-18th century post-and-rail fences were being replaced by less labor-intensive and functional worm fences made of logs or rails stacked on the ground. Worm fences could be easily dismantled and moved, leaving ephemeral archaeological traces, whereas post-and-rail fences were more permanent. An artifact distribution and soil chemistry study of Utopia IV strongly suggest that a fence was located immediately to the west of Structure 140, forming an enclosed yard or animal pen that abutted up against the main house (Fesler 2001). The remainder of the yard and the space between the three structures stayed unobstructed, similar to the open yard spaces encountered at other occupation areas at Utopia.
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 IV before you use the data:
- Utopia IV consists primarily of features cut into the subsoil.
- 158 shovel test pits were used to sample topsoil and plowzone contexts at Utopia IV prior to the mechanical removal of the remaining topsoil and plowzone.
- A sample of soil was collected and floted from each subfloor pit. Unlike Utopia III, 100 percent of the sediment from subfloor pit was not floted.
- 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 IV, 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).
|F05||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||05A, 05B, 05C, 05D, 05E, 05F, 05G, 05H, 05J, 05K, 05L|
|F06A||Basin formed by post-depositional settling||06A|
|F06B||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||06B, 06B1, 06B2, 06X|
|F06C/K||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||06C, 06D, 06E, 06J, 06F, 06K|
|F06G/H||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||06G1, 06G2, 06H|
|F06L/M/N||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||06N, 06L, 06M|
|F06P/Q||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||06Q, 06P|
|F06R||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||06R|
|F07||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||07F, 07G, 07A, 07B, 07C, 07D, 07E|
|F08||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||08A|
|F09||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||09B, 09A, 09|
|F10||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||10A, 10B, 10|
|F11/12||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||12E, 11F, 11G, 11A, 11B, 11C, 11C1, 11C2, 11H, 12G, 12H, 12C, 12F, 12|
|F11D/E||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||11E, 11D|
|F11J||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||11J|
|F12A/B||Basin formed by post-depositional settling||12A, 12B|
|F12D/L-N||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||12M, 12N, 12D, 12L|
|F12J||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||12J, 12K|
|F12P/W||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||12P, 12R, 12Q, 12S, 12T, 12U, 12V, 12W|
|F13||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||13C, 13D, 13B, 13A, 13|
|F29||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||29B, 29A|
|F30A/D||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||30C, 30D, 30A, 30A1, 30A2, 30B, 30|
|F30E/F||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||30E, 30F, 30G|
|F31A||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||31A|
|F31B||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||31E, 31B, 31C, 31D|
|F36||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||36A, 36B, 36C|
|F37||Posthole||37B, 37A, 37C|
|F40||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||40A, 40B, 40C|
|F41||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||41A|
|F04||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||04B, 04A|
|F19||Pit, subfloor(< 28 sq.ft)||19A, 19B1, 19B2, 19B3, 19B|
|F01||Unidentified||01, 01A, 01B, 01C|
|F02||Pit, unidentified||02C, 02A, 02B, 02D|
|F14||Unidentified||14D, 14, 14B, 14A, 14C|
|F15||Unidentified||15F, 15C, 15D, 15B, 15E, 15A, 15|
|F16||Pit, unidentified||16A, 16B, 16|
|F18||Tree hole||18A, 18B, 18C|
|F20||Pit, unidentified||20C, 20A, 20B, 20D, 20|
|F21||Pit, trash||27/28B, 24E, 22D, 25, 27/28A, 23/24A, 27G, 26A, 26E, 26B, 28F, 21B, 21A, 22A, 22B, 22C, 28G, 27F, 23B, 24A, 24C, 25C, 25D, 28A, 28B, 28C, 28D, 28E, 27/28C, 24B, 24D, 25A, 25B, 23A, 27, 26C, 26D, 27A, 27B, 27D, 27C, 27E, 26|
DAACS Seriation Method
This page summarizes a frequency-seriation based chronology for the Utopia IV site that was developed by DAACS (see Neiman, Galle, and Wheeler 2003 for technical details). At Utopia IV, 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 IV Site Phases
As was the case for Utopia III, correspondence analysis (CA) of MCD-type frequencies in the 27 assemblages that met the sample size criterion yielded a complex result. After removal of one outlier (F12A/B), CA axis 2 scores were significantly correlated with other temporal indicators (MCDs and pipestem bore diameters), but axis-1 scores were not. This suggests there is an unidentified source of variation in MCD-type frequencies at the site that cross cuts time. This deserves further investigation.
Based on the CA axis-2 scores, DAACS divided Utopia IV assemblages into two temporal phases. MCDs place both phases around 1760, while TPQ’s , based on the presence of creamware, point to an occupation in 1760’s and 1770’s. Binford pipestem dates for assemblages with more than twenty measurable stems, range from 1761 to 1781.
A Seriation Chronology for the Utopia IV Site
The following table presents a seriation chronology for the Utopia IV Site. We use the indefinite article to signify that it is not the only chronology possible, nor even the best one possible.
Utopia IV 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 IV 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 [145.97 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.
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.