James Madison’s Montpelier

The South Yard Duplex

This is going to be a rather long post, so make yourself a cup of coffee (or tea!) and make yourself comfortable.  The first section is an introduction, while the second part, accessed by the “Read more” link, goes into greater detail.As you may notice from the title, I’m no longer just referring to the “South Yard” in its entirety.  For month of October the Montpelier Archaeology Department has expanded the excavations to encompass the smoke house (structure 2), as well as to chase out the paling face and the formal fence that defined the end of the Madison formal yard.  We’ll be making a separate post about what these excavations have revealed to use in the new few weeks.For now, this post is primarily designed to round out the Duplex excavations for the 2008 field season and excavation programs by pulling together all the separate threads of evidence.  We do not profess to have a definitive interpretation, and it is only through further excavation that we will be able to prove or disprove our various interpretations. So, in brief, what did we find?  (please click on the photo above for the location of the various features discussed in this post)The DuplexOne of the great successes of the excavations was being able to identify the location of the duplex.  While the chimney base was constructed of a different material – stone rather than brick – the fact that it is symmetrical to the brick chimney base discovered in 1990/91 is highly suggestive that the structures are contemporary.  Furthermore, the discovery of evidence of another structure to the north, possibly our smoke house, would imply that the insurance plate, while incorrect on the matter of scale and measurements, is otherwise fundamentally correct.The Post Fence LineLocated almost immediately to the south of the duplex, and extending east-west from the Madison garden to the front fence line, is the fence that defines the curtilage, or the edge of the formal yard.  The spacing between the posts, and the size of the posts themselves, suggest a post and rail fence.  This fence also appears to have been up for some time, with several posts in the duplex and other areas showing some indication of repair.The Paling FenceThe line of paling fence stake holes was found to continue in a line extending to a point just shy of the currently enclosed duPont formal garden, where it ends on a north-south line that is aligned with the brick pathway (see below). This line of the paling fence is also at right angles to the main axis of the Madison garden (the modern Annie duPont formal garden is a part of the larger Madison garden, suggesting that they are contemporary to each other.Based on the crushed brick rubble we located, for a brief time, both the post fence and the paling fence were standing in the landscape at the same time, which is surprising given how close they are to each other.  It is possible that the paling fence line represents the edge of the curtilage, or edge of the Madison formal yard and was replaced by the post fence.  Its orientation with the garden and other landscape features is suggestive that it is a part of the original early 19th century landscape.At the time of writing we have as of yet to determine whether the paling fence extends to the Boxwood Grotto-the symmetric twin of the Madison Temple, itself a 19th century structure installed with the 1809-1812 alterations to the landscape.The Brick PathAs of yet, little has been determined about the brick path other than it ends on the same approximate line as the paling fence, which suggests that they went up to or ended because of the presence of an undetermined landscape feature.  While we have strong evidence to suggest that this path links up with other 19th century paths identified in the South Yard.  However, discrepancies in the fabric of the path (brick in the southern-most area, stone in the northern-most area) mean that the area underneath the Spanish Fir tree remains a lynchpin in our interpretation of the South Yard.19th century Occupation SurfacesScattered over the entire site is what appears to be primarily a 19th century occupation surface that is formed of several deposits, of which the “crushed brick rubble” and “bat layer” are just two constituents.  The crushed brick rubble layer, while probably being effected by close to 200 bracing Virginian winters, seems to be primarily the product of the occupation of the site—foot traffic served to scatter fragments of brick into the work yard behind the duplex, while the larger brick remains to the south of the post fence line.Sheet MiddenLying directly behind where the southern-most wall of the duplex would have been located, and mostly beyond the formal fence line, lies an rich concentration of artifacts that presumably formed a portion of the duplexes midden, or trash dump.  Outside of the view from the main house, this midden contained artifacts that ranged from ceramics to glass, nails to keys and locks, and even the knife, fork, and mouth harp that we mentioned in our previous post.  It is deposits such as these that will allow us to piece together the type of pots that the Madison domestic slaves were using to cook their food, plates and bowls they served it on, and even the type of music that they might have played.

The following post continues in further detail with the questions and complexities of the duplex excavations.  To continue to read this this post, then please click the “Read More” link.  To read older posts, either scroll down the page or click on the categories in the right hand column.  These links will take you to a page which lists all posts made under that category.  Click the title of the post and you will be taken to a dedicated page.

Continue Reading…

Artifacts from the South Yard

All archaeologists have worked upon sites where it seems that you never find any artifacts, and those where you cannot move your trowel for fear of breaking one of thousands of artifacts.  In the Front Yard it might be a good day to find 12 artifacts, whereas in Dolley’s Midden it would have been a bad day to find anything less than 120 artifacts (or sometimes even 1,200 artifacts!).  The South Yard falls between these two extremes in terms of the number of artifacts recovered, yet has managed to have jaws dropping at the unique finds that have been uncovered. In this post we thought we would share some of these artifacts with our readers, including those that had us excitedly gathered around an excavation unit to discuss the find, and those finds that still elude identification.Given the paucity of evidence from the 1990s excavations, beyond the astounding find of the brick chimney base itself, we were initially concerned as to what evidence might remain in the “Structure 1″ duplex.  In chasing down the location of the duplex, however, were were able to open up a large area of the South Yard, the result of which is to enable us to begin to interpret the day-to-day lives of the domestic slaves that lived and worked in the complex and the mansion.  Although further excavations are needed to fully determine the nature of the deposits, early analysis has allowed us to extrapolate the kind of plates that the domestic slaves might have had on their table, what utensils they may have eaten and cooked with, and even what personal items they had, or the type of music that might have filled the rooms of a duplex after “can’t see” (dusk).

Tablewares

The ceramics that have been recovered from the South Yard allow us to begin to piece together the kind of plates, drinking vessels, and other tablewares that might have been used by the domestic slaves.  These materials would have included hand-me-down materials, perhaps plates chipped in the main house and deemed unsuitable for use, or those that the slaves might have bought for themselves in the market.Pictured above, from left to right, are sherds of chinese export porcelain, tin-glazed earthenware, ironstone made by the Davenport manufactory, and finally a rim sherd of shell-edged pearlware.  The Davenport ceramic is of particular interest since it has been found on almost all of the archaeological excavations that have taken place around the mansion, including the area affectionately referred to as “Dolley’s Midden” (early 19th century trash dump associated with the retirement years of James and Dolley Madison).

Utilitarian Items

While often not as pleasing or exciting to uncover from the site, the utilitarian items – the cooking pots and the utensils – provide just as much information to the daily lives of the domestic slaves as the tablewares.A number of utilitarian items are pictured above including, from right to left, a two-tine fork that likely had a bone handle, an iron table/serving spoon, and the lid of a dutch oven (link to picture from Wikipedia article; after viewing press the “backspace” key on your keyboard).

Clothing

Unfortunately, the majority of clothing does not survive in the Davidson Loam soils upon which Montpelier sits, and it is only buttons, brooches, buckles, pins, and other metal artifacts that we tend to unearth.  Pictured to the right are a number of artifacts that were recovered from what appears to be underneath the duplex slave quarter, as opposed to the artifact-rich trash deposits to the south (rear) of the structure.Pictured above, from left to right, is a clothing button, a bone bobbin used to hold wind thread for sewing, and straight pins that were likewise used by a seamstress. The final button (second row, center) is a Naval 1-piece button dated to 1827-1840.  (We had originally hoped that this was a US Marine Corps button, reaffirming the connection between Madison and the USMC, but, alas, this was not to be the case.)

Music, Culture… and Ritual?

One particularly fascinating find to come from the trash midden to the rear of the structure is a mouth harp, otherwise known as a Jew’s harp amongst many other names (right). To use the mouth harp, the tongue/reed is placed in the mouth of the performed and plucked with the finger to produce a note, with the jaw and mouth acting as a resonator to increase the volume of the note. The note produced is of the same pitch, but by varying the
shape of the mouth, the performer can create melodies.The Jew’s harp has also been associated with “trance-based” rituals, so while at the very least it represents music and culture in the slave duplex, it might also represent a connection to past rituals and ways of life.Pictured above on the far right is the bowl from a ceramic pipe for smoking, a common habit for people in the nineteenth century.

Building Materials

Finally for this post, we come to some of the more common artifacts found in the South Yard 2008 excavations: brick and nails.  As previous posts have described, the duplex had a great deal of brick to the south of its structure, possibly as a means of weathering control to prevent water drainage to the slave quarter and work yard itself.  One brick that was uncovered from behind the duplex, pictured to the right seems to have some form of makers mark, or perhaps a signature, incised on the rear.Although one of the most common types of artifacts found at Montpelier, the midden towards the rear of the duplex is noteworthy in terms of the sheer numbers of nails that were being removed from this area.  The number of nails suggests the repair of structures or recycling of boards (hence pulling of nails) occurred in the work areas of the duplex with a consequence that the waste nails were thrown in the trash area.

Constitution Day at Montpelier!

I know, it’s a bit late to be making this announcement, but as one might imagine everything has been a bit hectic around Montpelier as we prepare for the grand opening on Constitution Day.  Tomorrow.Anyway, the department is still working in the South Yard, getting to grips with the complex evidence of that site.  At present our third Earthwatch session has joined with us to help further our understanding of the site, so if you’re coming to Montpelier tomorrow come and find us.Only a short post this time, but the next one will be about some of the artifacts that we’ve been recovering from the South Yard, some of which have astounded us, while others have us scratching our heads in bafflement.  So, keep an eager eye for that post in the next couple of weeks, as well as an update on the South Yard duplex (Structure 1).  We hope to begin excavations of the smoke house (Structure 2) by late September or early October.

South Yard Update

Over the past six weeks, Montpelier archaeologists working with the July Montpelier Archaeology Field School, have continued to excavate the South Yard site of the 19th century slave quarters and smoke houses. After the addition of another 20-odd units, now numbering almost 70, the complexity of the site continues to prevent an easy interpretation. While it would have been nice – but certainly less fascinating – to have immediately found the “smoking gun” of a brick chimney base exactly where the 1837 insurance map indicated, what we appear to have is a story of occupation at the site that that is much more complex than a single map can document.

The Chimney Base

While we still haven’t found the “smoking gun” of a brick chimney base, a rectangular stone base has been discovered immediately south of Montpelier’s Spanish fir. Lining up symmetrically in the landscape with the brick chimney base discovered in the early 1990s, it provides an exciting potential candidate for the “slave duplex” in this area, or Structure 1 (see image, right). Unfortunately, we also have a number of interpretative stumbling blocks.First, and perhaps most obviously, the chimney base is approximately 30′ away from where the insurance plat indicates that it should be located. Second, it is much bigger and constructed of angular greenstone (a local rock) in such a way as to provide an approximately flat surface. Third, any central-hearth structure of the dimensions indicated on the insurance plat would overlay the brick path to the north, which has been tentatively identified as being 19th century.The symmetry of the brick and stone chimney bases is strongly suggestive that the structures are contemporary, even if this does not necessarily mean that they were built at the same time. Yet the differences in construction, and the sense that it would overlap the path, may also mean that we are dealing with a much earlier – or much later – structure. As an alternate hypothesis, we might not be dealing with the same center-hearth duplex, but one in which the chimney is located on the end of the structure.Thus it is only through continued excavation and post-excavation study of artifacts recovered from the stone base that these questions will be addressed.

The Brick Path

Continued excavations underneath the yew tree (left of Structure 1; see image at top of this post) revealed not only the continuation of the path, but more intriguingly the end of the path. Once again we’re left with more questions. Why does the path end so suddenly? Is it leading up to a structure and, if so, is this an 18th or 19th century structure?Although primarily anecdotal at the moment, the end of the brick path does seem to line up with what appears to be a break in the paling fence, or what we feel is a gateway.

Postholes… A Fence?

In our last post, we mentioned several postholes as being our only evidence for a structure in the South Yard, though expressed concerns that the post molds, and therefore the posts, were too small. As we’ve been unearthing and excavating more post holes, the distance between the posts began to nag at many of the archaeologists: 7.5 feet Coupled with the small post size, this was remarkably similar to the distance between the posts along the front carriage road. Indeed, the size of the posts are also reminiscent of the white picket fence line of the front lawn, yet lacking the charred outline of the posts.So, could the “structural” post holes be a part of a picket fence line that delineates the curtilage, something previously ascribed to the paling fence? Or could we be seeing a situation where some of the post holes are for a fence, while some might be related to Structure 1? Also, how does this relate to the paling fence? And the brick rubble that is currently being interpreted as a variation of a French drain?

And so…

We once again find ourselves with more questions than answers.

• Is the stone base a chimney base and, if so, is it 18th or 19th century?
• Is the path truly 19th century, or is it from an earlier period of building? Why does the path suddenly stop?
• Are the post holes a part of the fence line and, if so, does demarcate the curtilage? Could the post holes still be a part of Structure 1?
• What is the relationship between the paling fence and the potential fence line? Do they represent two different periods?

Hopefully as we pull together the excavations on Structure 1 over the next month and move to Structure 2 (a smokehouse), we will begin to answer some of these fascinating questions, so expect another post on the South Yard soon.

JMU Field School — Week 5

And that’s it. The end of the JMU field school for 2008. Five weeks and some 40 new units later, the students have left to other summertime pastures, with a handful remaining on to participate in the internship program. The results of our initial five weeks of excavations have brought about more questions than answers but some very intriguing insights into the slave quarters in the South Yard. The length of this blog posting is a testament to the finds we have made during the three weeks since our last blog entry.

The Chimney Base (or lack-there-of!)

In the 1991 excavations, Lynne Lewis and Scott Parker uncovered the physical remains of a chimney base for a slave duplex. Later, an insurance map recovered from the Philadelphia Historic Society would reveal that the true extent of the South Yard slave quarters was not just a single duplex and detached kitchen, but three “dwelling for slaves,” and two smokehouses. (The kitchen is curiously absent from the insurance map.)The purpose of the 2008 excavations was – and remains – to uncover evidence for the southeastern-most slave dwelling, a presumed duplex consistent with the one revealed in 1991, as well as to look at the smoke house lying immediately northwest of this duplex. As such, we merrily began our 2008 excavations with the underlying assumption we would uncover as glamorous a chimney base as the one Lynne and Scott located back in 1991.Unfortunately, and most frustratingly, while the 1991 excavations revealed a chimney base for the adjacent duplex only a few inches beneath the modern ground surface, after opening 48 units (5′x5′ squares) no chimney base has been found to date in our area of excavations. While this initially might be viewed as a failure, the opportunity to open up a large area – 45′x45′, more or less – has allowed a more detailed picture to be built up of this area. It is a picture, however, that only really has begun to draw itself together in the weeks after the JMU field school.

Brick Path

At the end of the third week of the field season there was a flurry of excitement as the traditional rivalry between “Doc” – Professor Clarence Geier, JMU – and Matthew Reeves escalated into predicting just where the presumed chimney base would be located. Wishing to lay this particular argument to bed, the author used an iron rod to probe around the area predicted by Doc to be the location of the chimney base and found indications of a brick pad just below the surface. The question remained….was it the elusive chimney base?Units were opened and a brick surface began to reveal itself. Excitement continued to mount and the ’tension’ between Doc and Matthew Reeves was almost as palpable as a thickening of the air whenever they approached the new units. As they watched eagle-eyed as layer after layer of soil was removed, continued probing around the area revealed that the brick surface extended over a much larger (and linear) area. At about the same time the probing and excavations revealed the same information: the brick layer was not a chimney base, but rather a brick path that extended not only east-west, but also appeared to extend through the center of the “slave street.”If we take a look at the impression produced by Linda Boudreaux Montgomery, we have two north-south paths that parallel the structures in the South Yard. Yet the archaeological record seems to indicate that a pathway may bisect the “slave street” or area between the row of quarters.Could this actually explain why we had not discovered the location of a chimney base or other evidence for the slave dwelling?

The Brick Rubble Layers

As mentioned previously, a brick rubble layer covered the majority of the site for the South Yard excavations. While initially thought to represent the rubble remains of the chimney, the absence of mortar combined with the crumbly and low-fired nature of the brick suggested this brick might represent some sort of surfacing made up of rejects from a brick clamp (a clamp being a brick kiln). Underlying the crushed brick layer, but primarily restricted to south of the N280 line at the site, was a “brick bat” layer, or a layer comprised of essentially half and full bricks. Their restricted distribution coupled with their association with the paling fence revealed in 1991 (and further revealed in the 2008 excavations) promised tantalizing evidence of a void left between the “brick bat” layer to the south, and the brick path to the north.The function of these layers remains a mystery. However, the brick rubble layer potentially served as an excellent substrate for draining water on an otherwise steep slope. The brick layer might represent a deliberate attempt to control storm run off (such as occurred earlier this week with our hail storm!) and prevent erosion in the downslope area of the structure. This would explain the lack of mortar in the brick rubble layer, and the curious delineation of brick along the N280 line might possibly represent the southern extent of a structure that was in the area (click on accompanying image above to see detail).

Post Holes

In the past few days, cut into what appears to be the 19th-century surface underneath the brick rubble layers, several post holes have revealed themselves to us, and in the process have given us our first tentative evidence of a structure. Appearing to have been put into place after the deposition of the brick rubble (the rubble was present within the fill of the post holes), these post holes are somewhat small (post molds appear to represent 5″-6″ posts) to represent evidence for structural supports for the “slave dwelling” itself, yet when coupled with other archaeological evidence, are the only direct structural features found in the current area of excavations.

So…

Where are we with our current interpretation of the archaeology of the South Yard? Well, without the “smoking gun” of a brick chimney base, we still have more questions than answers, a common state within the archaeological discipline. Yet we have begun to answer those questions with tantalizing evidence as to the southeastern-most duplex of the South Yard slave complex. The void between the path and brick rubble layer, combined with the revelation of post holes, might – just might – suggest the exact location of the “slave dwelling” in this area. The only p
roblem is that the dimensions of the void suggest the structure was turned 90 degrees from the orientation of the structure depicted on the insurance plat. One question such an altered orientation would address, however, is the steep slope in the site area. With the structure oriented parallel to the slope, the lower piers would only need to be 2-3 feet in height as opposed to 5-6 feet if the structure was positioned as shown in the insurance map. We are trying to remain impartial while at the same time being excited about the potential of these discoveries. Perhaps more post holes will reveal themselves in as-of-yet unexcavated units, revealing the footprint of the dwelling. For now, however, we are moving forward with an understanding that the 1837 insurance map is not a fail-safe for the orientation of the buildings and that more archaeology is needed to correctly assess the exact nature of the structures in the South Yard.Artifacts uncovered during the field school are already being cleaned and cataloged in the archaeology laboratory, and will soon begin to reveal their own story. Do we see cross-mends with the ceramics from this area to other areas on Montpelier? Can we show that certain artifacts are restricted to certain areas in the South Yard and, therefore, potentially reveal the footprint of the “slave dwelling” through other means?

Do you wish to volunteer with the Montpelier Archaeology Department?The Montpelier Archaeology Department welcomes volunteers to come and help us piece together the history of James Madison’s Montpelier. You can volunteer in the archaeology laboratory or, if you have a desire to come and sift through the dirt in the field, we have a number of excavation programs that may be of interest to you. Come and join us!

— Mark A. Trickett & Matthew Reeves

JMU Field School — Week 2

Last week marked the arrival of the James Madison University Field School. The students and Montpelier Archaeology staff are excavating at the site of the quarters for house slaves. Built around 1808 and occupied into the 1840s when Dolley Madison sold the property, we believe the structures were demolished in the late 1840s—potentially when larger changes were made to the house and landscape by the Thornton family (stuccoing of house, removal of Madison-era front fence and carriage road, etc).In our excavations we are hoping to find the following features:

1. Chimney base for the duplex
2. Path leading from duplex back to mansion
3. Paling fence (located in 1991 excavations)
4. Delineate the exact edge of the yards for the slaves’ homes and where they interface with the mansion lawn (garden and rear lawn).
5. And of course artifact scatters that will allow us to interpret yard activities.

So far, we are finding exciting artifacts—buttons, glass wares, ceramics, nails, etc. But, being a good site, the quarter is grudging in terms of a willingness to reveal its secrets. We have encountered a layer of brick rubble that covers the entire site that contains a range of artifacts. What we are left wondering is whether this is rubble from the destruction of the quarter in the 1840s or whether it is a brick paving placed on the yard surface by the slaves to keep the mud down. By slowly exposed this layer – which lies just below the topsoil – we are hoping to solve this mystery and then progress to excavating through it to reveal the early nineteenth century surface. So far, out bets are on this brick layer being a rubble deposit from the demolition of the structures in the late 1840s.This next week we will uncover the entirety of the brick rubble and hope to be able to assess whether it represents debris from destruction of the duplex or a yard surface.In other news, we have completed the lab and it is open for use. Having a dedicated space for lectures, lab work, and a convenient space for processing water screen samples has been a wonderful way to greet the JMU students.