XIKitchen Foundation(Structure E)

FOOTNOTES:[149]Henry Chandlee Forman,The Architecture of the Old South(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948), pp. 74-75.[150]Op. cit. (footnote 94), p. 21.[151]Louis Caywood,Excavations at Green Spring Plantation(Yorktown, 1955), pp. 11, 12, maps nos. 3 and 4.[152]Robert Beverley, op. cit. (footnote 5), p. 289.[153]Waterman, op. cit. (footnote 94), pp. 23-26;Fiske Kimball,Domestic Architecture of the American Colonies and of the Early Republic(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927), p. 42.[154]Rosamond Randall BeirneandJohn Henry Scarff,William Buckland, 1734-1774; Architect of Virginia and Maryland(Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1958).[155]Waterman, op. cit. (footnote 94), p. 298.[156]Antonio Palladio,The Architecture of A. Palladio ... Revis’d, Design’d, and Publish’d By Giacomo Leoni ... The Third Edition, Corrected ...(London, 1742), p. 61, pl. 40.

FOOTNOTES:

[149]Henry Chandlee Forman,The Architecture of the Old South(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948), pp. 74-75.

[150]Op. cit. (footnote 94), p. 21.

[151]Louis Caywood,Excavations at Green Spring Plantation(Yorktown, 1955), pp. 11, 12, maps nos. 3 and 4.

[152]Robert Beverley, op. cit. (footnote 5), p. 289.

[153]Waterman, op. cit. (footnote 94), pp. 23-26;Fiske Kimball,Domestic Architecture of the American Colonies and of the Early Republic(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927), p. 42.

[154]Rosamond Randall BeirneandJohn Henry Scarff,William Buckland, 1734-1774; Architect of Virginia and Maryland(Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1958).

[155]Waterman, op. cit. (footnote 94), p. 298.

[156]Antonio Palladio,The Architecture of A. Palladio ... Revis’d, Design’d, and Publish’d By Giacomo Leoni ... The Third Edition, Corrected ...(London, 1742), p. 61, pl. 40.

Figure 46.—Excavation planof Structure E, looking southwest.

DESCRIPTION OF EXCAVATIONS

Structure E was a brick foundation, 17 feet by 32 feet, situated at the northwest corner of the enclosure-wall system. Its south wall was continuous with Wall D, which joined it, and was at right angles to Wall E. The latter abutted it in line with an interior foundation wall which bisected the structure into two room areas, designated X and Y. Thus it once stood like a bastion extending outside the enclosure walls, but remaining integral with them and affording a controlled entrance to the enclosure (fig. 46).

The east end of Structure E extended under a modern boundary fence to the present edge of the highway. Ditching of the highway had cut into the foundation and exposed the debris and slabs of stone in place, which indeed had provided the first clues to the existence of the structure. Clearance of the easterly area, Room X, revealed a pavement of roughly rectangular slabs of mixed Aquia-type lime-sandstone and red sandstone. These slabs were flaked, eroded, and discolored, as though they had been exposed to great heat. The pavement was not complete, some stones having apparently been removed. The scattered locations of the stones remainingin situimplied that the entire room was originally paved.

Between the northwest corner of Room X and a brick abutment 5 feet to the south was a rectangular area where the clay underlying the room had been baked to a hard, red, bricklike mass (fig. 49). Wood ash was admixed with the clay. This was clearly the site of a large fireplace, where constant heat from a now-removed hearth had penetrated the clay. Extending north 3.8 feet beyond the bounds of the room at this point was a U-shaped brick foundation 4.75 feet wide. Near the southeast corner of the room, just outside of the foundation, which it abutted, was a well-worn red-sandstone doorstep, which located the site of the door communicating between Structure E and the interior of the enclosure—and, of course, between Structure E and Structure B, the distance between which was 100 feet.

Room Y, extending west beyond the corner of the enclosure walls was perhaps an addition to the original structure. The disturbed condition of the bricks where this area joined Room X, however, obscured any evidence in this respect. In the northeast corner, against the opposite side of the fireplace wall in Room X, was another area of red-burned clay. Lying across this was a long, narrow slab of wrought iron, 34.5 by 6 inches (fig. 50), which may have served in some fashion as part of a stove or fire frame. In any case, a small fireplace seems to have been located here. Approximately midway in the west wall of Room Y, against the exterior, lay a broken slab of red sandstone, which obviously also served as a doorstone. That it had been designed originally for a more sophisticated purpose is evident in the architectural treatment of the stone, which is smoothly dressed with a torus molding along each edge and a diagonal cut across one end (fig. 41). No evidence of floor remained in this room, except for a smooth surface of yellow clay which became sticky when exposed to rain.

Figure 47.—Foundationof Structure E (kitchen).

The north half of Room Y was filled with broken bricks, mortar, plaster, nails, and—significantly—small bits of charred wood and burned hornets’ nests. The concentration of debris here could be explained by the collapse of the chimney as well as the interior wall into the room. The crumbly condition of the southwest portion of the exterior-wall foundation also may indicate a wall collapse. Few artifacts were recovered in this area.

North of Room X lay a large amount of rubble and artifacts, suggesting that the north wall had fallen away from the building, perhaps carrying with it shelves of dishes and utensils. Both rooms contained ample evidence in the form of ash, charcoal, burned hornets’ nests, and scorched flagstones to demonstrate that a fire of great heat had destroyed the building.

ARCHITECTURAL DATA AND INTERPRETATION

John Mercer’s account with Thomas Barry (Ledger G) itemizes for 1749, “building a Kitchen/ raising a Chimney/ building an oven.” It is clear from the features of Structure E, its relation to Structure B, and the custom prevalent in colonial Virginia of building separate dependencies for the preparation of food, that Structure E was the kitchen referred to in Barry’s account. Like this building, kitchens elsewhere were almost invariably two rooms in plan—a cooking room and a pantry or storage room. One of the earliest—at Green Spring—had a large fireplace for the kitchen proper, and in the second room a smaller fireplace, both served by a central chimney. An oven stood inside the building between the larger fireplace and the wall.[157]At Stratford (ca. 1725) the kitchen is similarly planned, as it is at Mannsfield (Spotsylvania County).[158]Mount Vernon has an end chimney in its kitchen, and only one fireplace. The floor of the kitchen proper is paved with square bricks, while thesecond room has a clay floor. The Stratford kitchen is paved with ordinary bricks. Such examples can be multiplied several times.

Figure 48.—Paved floor of Room X, Structure E, showing HL door hinge in foreground. (Seefig. 88a.)

The physical relationship of the kitchen to the main house in Virginia plantations was dictated in part by convenience and in part by the Palladian plans that governed the architecture of colonial mansions. Structure E’s relationship to Structure B is representative of that existing between most kitchens and their main buildings. Mount Vernon, Stratford, Blandfield, Nomini Hall, Rosewell, and many other plantations have, or had, kitchens located at points diagonal to the house and on axes at right angles to them. Usually each was balanced by a dependency placed in a similar relationship to the opposite corner of the house. Sometimes covered walkways connected the pairs of dependencies, curved as at Mount Vernon, Mount Airy, and Mannsfield, or straight as at Blandfield in Essex County (1771). Marlborough, as we shall see, was not typical in its layout, but the relationship between kitchen and house was the customary one.

The thickness of the foundations in Structure E was the width of four bricks—approximately 17 inches. As usual in the case of the lower courses of a foundation, the bricks were laid in a somewhat random fashion. The intact portions of the south and west walls revealed corners of bricks laid end to end so as to expose headers on both sides. The east wall showed pairs of bricks placed at right angles to each other, so that headers and stretchers appeared alternately. On the north wall of Room X bricks were laid as headers on the outside and as stretchers, one behind the other, on the inside. These variations probably are due todifferent bricklayers having worked on the building simultaneously. Since oddly assorted courses would have been below ground level, care for their appearance was minimal. Finished exterior brickwork was required only above the lowest point visible to the eye.

Figure 49.—North wallof Structure E, looking east. Sign stands on partition wall between Rooms X and Y and in front of rectangular section of burnt red clay, upon which fireplace hearth stood. Projecting foundation at left may have supported an oven. Iron slab (seefig. 50) liesin situwith trowel on top.

Brick sizes ran from 9 to 9½ inches long, 4 to 4½ inches wide, and 2¼ to 2¾ inches thick. These measurements are similar to those of bricks in the veranda foundation and the added cellar cross wall of Structure B. It is apparent from Ledger G that the elements in Structure B, as well as the kitchen, were all built by Thomas Barry. Barry probably used bricks that he himself made, according to the custom of Virginia bricklayers, so that the archeological and documentary evidences of the extent of his work in the two buildings reinforce each other.

The protruding rectangle of bricks at the north end of Structure E resembles the foundation for steps in Structure B. However, its position directly adjacent to what must be assumed to have been the fireplace precludes the possibility of its having been the location for a step. Moreover, the pavement and doorstones at the west and south demonstrate that the floor ofthe kitchen was at ground level, so that a raised step at the north side would have been not only unnecessary, but impossible.

Figure 50.—Wrought-iron slab, found in Room Y, Structure E, behind fireplace. Purpose unknown. Size, 6 by 35 inches.

We know from the ledger that Barry built an oven and raised a chimney. That the latter was a central chimney may be assumed on the basis of the evidence of the two fireplaces placed back to back. There is, however, no archeological evidence that there was an oven within the structure, and every negative indication that there was not. The rectangular protrusion, exactly in line with the end of the fireplace thus was apparently the foundation for a brick oven, the domed top of which extended outside the building, with its opening made into the north end of the fireplace. Protruding ovens are known in New York and New England, but none in Virginia has come to the writer’s attention. On the other hand, protruding foundations like the one here are also unknown in Virginia kitchens, except where slanting ground, as at Mount Vernon, has made steps necessary.

It may be concluded that Structure E was the plantation kitchen, that it was built in 1749, that it had two rooms (a cookroom with fireplace paving and a large fireplace, and a second room with a smaller fireplace), that an oven built against the exterior of the building opened into the north end of the fireplace, and that the first, and probably the only, floor was at ground level. Archeological evidence points to final destruction of the building by fire. (Mercer indicated that fire had threatened it previously in the entry in his journal for April 22, 1765, which noted “kitchen roof catch’d fire.”) In the form of datable artifacts, it also shows that the structure was destroyed in the early 19th century, since the latest ceramic artifacts date from about 1800.

FOOTNOTES:[157]Caywood, loc. cit. (footnote 151).[158]Waterman, loc. cit. (footnote 94).

FOOTNOTES:

[157]Caywood, loc. cit. (footnote 151).

[158]Waterman, loc. cit. (footnote 94).

Figure 51.—Excavation planof structures north of Wall D.

DESCRIPTION OF EXCAVATIONS

A nearly square foundation, measuring 18.3 feet by 18.6 feet, with a narrow extended brick structure protruding from it, was situated some 45 feet north of Wall D, about midway in the wall’s length. It was oriented on a north-northwest—south-southeast axis, quite without reference to the wall system. The foundation walls and the narrow extension were exposed by excavation, but the interior area within the walls was not excavated, except for 2-foot-wide trenches along the edges of the walls.

The foundation itself, about 2 feet thick, consisted of brick rubble—tumbled and broken bricks, not laid in mortar and for the most part matching bricks found elsewhere in Marlborough structures. Scattered among the typical Virginia bricks and brickbats were several distinctively smaller and harder dark-red bricks measuring 7¼ inches by 3½ inches (fig. 53).

The most interesting feature of the structure was its narrow extension. This had survived in the form of two parallel walls laid in three brick courses without mortar, the whole projecting from the southeasterly wall. The interior measurement between the walls was 1.75 feet and the exterior overall width was 4 feet. Its southern extremity had an opening narrowed to 1 foot in width by bricks placed at right angles to the walls. Approximately 5 feet to the north the passage formed by the walls was narrowed to 1 foot by three tiers of one brick, each tier laid parallel to the passage on each side. At 8.7 feet from its southern terminus the extension intersected the main foundation. Just north of this intersection, bricks laid within the passage were stepped up to form a platform two courses high and one course lower than the top of the foundation. A fluelike opening was formed by two rows of brick laid on top of the platform, narrowing the passage to a width of 5 inches. North of the southeast foundation wall there remained a strip of four bricks in two courses at the level of the opening, forming a thin continuation of the platform for 3.25 feet.

SIGNIFICANT ARTIFACTS IN STRUCTURE F

The narrow extension contained several bushels of unburned oystershells and some coals. There was limited evidence of burning, although the shells were not affected by fire. A small variety of artifacts was found, few of which dated later than the mid-18th century. The flue or fire chamber yielded the following artifacts:

59.1717 Wine-bottle basal fragments, 5-5½ inches, mid-18th-century form59.1721 Stem of a taper-stem, teardrop wineglass, misshapen from having been melted, ca. 1730-174059.1723 Green window glass, one sherd with rolled edge of crown sheet59.1724 Blue-and-white Chinese porcelain59.1725 “Yellowware” sherd, probably made before 175059.1727 Westerwald gray-and-blue salt-glazed stoneware59.1728 Buckley black-glazed ware59.1730 Miscellaneous late 17th- and early 18th-century delftware fragments59.1731 Staffordshire salt-glazed white stoneware, some with molded rims, ca. 176059.1734 Half of sheep shears (ill. 85)59.1735 Convex copper escutcheon plate (fig. 83g)59.1736 Brass-hinged handle or pull for strap (fig. 83j,ill. 89)

59.1717 Wine-bottle basal fragments, 5-5½ inches, mid-18th-century form

59.1721 Stem of a taper-stem, teardrop wineglass, misshapen from having been melted, ca. 1730-1740

59.1723 Green window glass, one sherd with rolled edge of crown sheet

59.1724 Blue-and-white Chinese porcelain

59.1725 “Yellowware” sherd, probably made before 1750

59.1727 Westerwald gray-and-blue salt-glazed stoneware

59.1728 Buckley black-glazed ware

59.1730 Miscellaneous late 17th- and early 18th-century delftware fragments

59.1731 Staffordshire salt-glazed white stoneware, some with molded rims, ca. 1760

59.1734 Half of sheep shears (ill. 85)

59.1735 Convex copper escutcheon plate (fig. 83g)

59.1736 Brass-hinged handle or pull for strap (fig. 83j,ill. 89)

Figure 52.—Structure F(supposed smokehouse foundation). Firing chamber in foreground.

Elsewhere, in the trenches next to the foundation walls, artifacts typical of those occurring in other parts of the site were found. Worth mentioning are pieces of yellow-streaked, red earthen “agate” ware, sometimes attributed to Astbury or Whieldon, and sherds of cord-impressed Indian pottery.

ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS

Since the interior of this structure was not excavated, many uncertainties remain as to its identity. The peculiar fluelike structure passing through its foundation, the rubble of bricks used to form the foundation, the huge quantities of oystershells in the flue, with partly burnt coals underneath, give rise to various speculations. So does the orientation of the structure, which is off both the true and polar axes and is also unrelated to the mansion or the wall system.

The most likely explanation seems to be that Structure F was the foundation of a smokehouse. A recently excavated foundation in what was known as Brunswick Town, North Carolina, is almost identical (except for the use of ballast stone in the fire chamber and the building foundation). This also is believed to be a smokehouse foundation, since similar structuresare still remembered from the days of their use.[159]

Figure 53.—Virginia brickfrom Structure B (left) 9 by 4 by 2¾ inches. Right, small brick from Structure F, probably imported, 7¼ by 3½ by 1¾ inches. Perhaps one of the 630 bricks brought on theMarigoldby Captain Roger Lyndon and purchased by John Mercer.

The position of the Marlborough structure, outside of the enclosure wall but not far from the kitchen, the relative crudeness of its construction, and its off-axis orientation, support the likelihood of its being a utilitarian structure. The firing chamber and the flue show unquestionably that it was a building requiring heat or smoke. Marlborough had two greenhouses, according to Thomas Oliver’s inventory, and these would have required heating equipment. But the small size of this structure and the absence of any indication of tile flooring or other elaboration suggested by contemporary descriptions of greenhouses seem to rule out this possibility.

FOOTNOTES:[159]Stanley South, “An Unusual Smokehouse is Discovered at Brunswick Town,”Newsletter, Brunswick County Historical Society (Charlotte, N.C., August 1962), vol. 2, no. 3.

FOOTNOTES:

[159]Stanley South, “An Unusual Smokehouse is Discovered at Brunswick Town,”Newsletter, Brunswick County Historical Society (Charlotte, N.C., August 1962), vol. 2, no. 3.

Figure 54.—Structure D, an unidentified structure with debris-filled refuse pit at left.

STRUCTURE D

An exploratory trench was dug northward several yards from a point on Wall D, on axis with Structure B. An irregularly shaped remnant of unmortared-brick structure, varying between two and three bricks wide and one course high was discovered at the undisturbed level. This measured 8.5 feet by 6 feet. Adjacent to it, extending 5.8 feet and having a width varying from 6.5 to 7 feet, was a pit 2 feet 8 inches deep, dug 2 feet below the undisturbed clay level, and filled with a heavy deposit of artifacts, oystershells, and animal bones. The artifact remains were the richest in the entire site. Some of the most significant of these are the following:

59.1656 Key (fig. 88)59.1942 Iron bolt (ill. 69)59.166359.202959.1939}Two-tined forks (ill. 55-57)59.1664 Jeweler’s hammer (ill. 78)59.1665 Fragments of a penknife (fig. 85c)59.1668 Knife blade and Sheffield handle (fig. 86b)59.166959.1670}Pewter trifid-handle spoons (fig. 86f and g,ill. 58)59.1672 Pewter “wavy-end” spoon (fig. 86e,ill. 59)59.1675 Fragments of reeded-edge pewter plate (fig. 86a)59.1676 Pewter teapot lid (fig. 86c,ill. 60)59.1678 Brass rings (fig. 83i)59.1680 Steel scissors (ill. 61)59.1681 Large fishhook (ill. 88)59.1682 Chalk bullet mold (fig. 84b,ill. 51)59.1685 Slate pencil (fig. 85d,ill. 54)59.1687 Octagonal spirits bottle (fig. 80)59.1688 Wine bottle: seal “IC.M1737” (fig. 78,ill. 37)59.1679 Handle sherd of North Devon gravel-tempered earthenware (ill. 15)59.1698 Buckley high-fired, black-glazed earthenware (fig. 65)59.1699 Buckley high-fired, amber-glazed earthenware pan sherds (fig. 65,ills. 17and18)59.1700 Brown-decorated yellowware cup or posset-pot sherds (fig. 64c,ill. 16)59.1701 Nottingham-type brown-glazed fine stoneware sherds (fig. 67a)59.1762 Sherd of Westerwald blue-and-gray stoneware, with part of “GR” medallion showing (fig. 66d)59.1704 Large sherds of brown-glazed Tidewater-type earthenware pan (fig. 63a,ill. 11)59.1706 Blue-and-white delft plate, Lambeth, ca. 1720 (fig. 69)59.1707 Blue-and-white delft plate, [?]Bristol, ca. 1750 (fig. 70)59.1714 Kaolin tobacco-pipe bowls, and one wholly reconstructed pipe (fig. 84f,ill. 53)59.1715 Steel springtrap for small animals (ill. 86)(Also numerous sherds of Staffordshire white salt-glazed ware and creamware. A single disparate sherd of pink, transfer-printed Staffordshire ware, dating from about 1835, is the only intrusive artifact in the deposit.)

59.1656 Key (fig. 88)

59.1942 Iron bolt (ill. 69)

59.166359.202959.1939

}Two-tined forks (ill. 55-57)

59.1664 Jeweler’s hammer (ill. 78)

59.1665 Fragments of a penknife (fig. 85c)

59.1668 Knife blade and Sheffield handle (fig. 86b)

59.166959.1670

}Pewter trifid-handle spoons (fig. 86f and g,ill. 58)

59.1672 Pewter “wavy-end” spoon (fig. 86e,ill. 59)

59.1675 Fragments of reeded-edge pewter plate (fig. 86a)

59.1676 Pewter teapot lid (fig. 86c,ill. 60)

59.1678 Brass rings (fig. 83i)

59.1680 Steel scissors (ill. 61)

59.1681 Large fishhook (ill. 88)

59.1682 Chalk bullet mold (fig. 84b,ill. 51)

59.1685 Slate pencil (fig. 85d,ill. 54)

59.1687 Octagonal spirits bottle (fig. 80)

59.1688 Wine bottle: seal “IC.M1737” (fig. 78,ill. 37)

59.1679 Handle sherd of North Devon gravel-tempered earthenware (ill. 15)

59.1698 Buckley high-fired, black-glazed earthenware (fig. 65)

59.1699 Buckley high-fired, amber-glazed earthenware pan sherds (fig. 65,ills. 17and18)

59.1700 Brown-decorated yellowware cup or posset-pot sherds (fig. 64c,ill. 16)

59.1701 Nottingham-type brown-glazed fine stoneware sherds (fig. 67a)

59.1762 Sherd of Westerwald blue-and-gray stoneware, with part of “GR” medallion showing (fig. 66d)

59.1704 Large sherds of brown-glazed Tidewater-type earthenware pan (fig. 63a,ill. 11)

59.1706 Blue-and-white delft plate, Lambeth, ca. 1720 (fig. 69)

59.1707 Blue-and-white delft plate, [?]Bristol, ca. 1750 (fig. 70)

59.1714 Kaolin tobacco-pipe bowls, and one wholly reconstructed pipe (fig. 84f,ill. 53)

59.1715 Steel springtrap for small animals (ill. 86)

(Also numerous sherds of Staffordshire white salt-glazed ware and creamware. A single disparate sherd of pink, transfer-printed Staffordshire ware, dating from about 1835, is the only intrusive artifact in the deposit.)

The bones were virtually all pork refuse, except for a few rabbit bones. The oystershells, found in every refuse deposit, reflect the universal taste for the then-abundant oyster.

Figure 55.—Refuse found at exterior cornerof Wall A-II and Wall D.

The significance of the structure is not clear. Itwas probably the site of a privy, the remaining bricks having been part of a brick floor in front of the pit.

STRUCTURE G

A few feet southeast of Structure D, another much smaller pit was found, surrounded on two sides by a partial-U-shaped single row and single course of bricks. This brickwork measured 5 feet in length, with a 4-foot appendage at one end and a 7-foot appendage at the other. The pit was small and shallow. Typical ceramic artifacts were found, as well as fragments of black basaltes ware (ill. 32) and some early 19th-century whiteware. The function of this pit is unknown.

PIT AT JUNCTION OF WALLS A-II AND D

Just north of the northeast corner of the wall system a small trash pit was uncovered. It contained a scattering of wine- and gin-bottle sherds, a few miscellaneous, small, ceramic-tableware fragments, and about one-third of a blue-and-white Chinese porcelain plate (figs. 55and77).

UNIDENTIFIED FOUNDATION NEAR POTOMAC CREEK (STRUCTURE H)

Figure 56.—Excavation planof Structure H.

About 60 feet from the shore of Potomac Creek, at the southeast corner of the old road that runs from the highway to the creek, bordered by Wall A, were indications of a brick foundation. This structure was explored to the extent of its width (about 15 feet) for a distance northward of 17 feet, then the east wall was traced 22 feet farther north until it disappeared into the bankside and a thicket. The excavated area disclosed quantities of brickbats, a layer of soil, a number of burnt bricks, a layer of black charcoal ash, and a 6-inch deposit of clay. The brick walls were1.5 feet thick. The structure had been built into the hillside, so that the north end was presumably a deep basement.

Figure 57.—Structure H, from Potomac Creek shore, looking northeast.

Artifacts were few. A complete scythe (fig. 90) was found embedded in the clay above the brickwork on the east side of the structure, and next to it a large body sherd of black-glazed Buckley ware. A few small ceramic sherds occurred—pieces of redware with trailed slip (fig. 64), and small bits of delft, salt glaze, and Chinese porcelain.

The location and implied shape of the building suggest that it had a utilitarian purpose. Near the waterfront, it would conveniently have served as a warehouse, or possibly as either the brewhouse or malthouse, each described by Mercer as having been 100 feet long, of brick and stone. Whether one was of brick and the other of stone, or both were brick and stone in combination, is not clear. There was no evidence of stonework in Structure H. On the other hand, the 100-foot-long rectangular stone enclosure, of which Wall A formed a part, shows no evidence of brickwork. The purposes of both these structures must, for now, remain unexplained, but association with the brewery seems plausible.

INTRODUCTION

The chief archeological problem of Marlborough at the time of excavation was whether or not Structure B had served as the foundation for both the courthouse and for John Mercer’s mansion. Although the possibility still remains that the sites of the two buildings overlapped, preceding chapters have demonstrated that the foundation was constructed by Mercer for his house, and that it did not stand beneath the courthouse.

However, in 1957 it was thought that exploration of the late-18th-century courthouse site, located upstream on the south side of Potomac Creek, might reveal a structure of similar dimensions which would help to confirm the possibility that Structure B had originated with the Marlborough courthouse. Furthermore, the Potomac Creek site was of interest by itself and was closely related to John Mercer’s legal and judicial career.

The location of the site is depicted in surveys included with suit papers of 1743 and 1805.[160]These papers were brought to our attention by George H. S. King of Fredericksburg, and were mentioned in Happel’s carefully documented history of the Stafford and King George courthouses.[161]Previously, we had been led to the site by a former sheriff of Stafford County, who recalled listening as a boy to descriptions of the old courthouse building by an ancient whose memory went back to the early years of the 19th century. The old man’s recollections, in turn, were reinforced by similar recountings of elders in his own youth. Unscientific though the value of such information may be, it emerges from folk memories that often remain sharp and clear in rural areas, spanning in the minds of two or three individuals the periods of several conventional generations. As clues, at least, they are never to be ignored. In this case we were taken to a rubble-strewn site on an eminence that overlooks Potomac Creek. At the foot of a declivity below, on the old Belle Plains road, we were shown another obvious evidence of structure, which we were told had been the jail. Just to the east of this where a road leads away to the site of Cave’s tobacco warehouse (now the “Stone Landing”), we were informed that the stocks had once stood.

Of the latter two sites we have no confirming evidence, although both claims are plausible enough. No archeological effort was made to investigate them, since funds were limited. The surveys of 1743 and 1805 are sufficient to confirm with accuracy the courthouse site. Accordingly, an archeological exploration was made between August 19 and August 23, 1957, revealing unmistakably the footings of a courthouse. As will be shown, these footings in no way bore a resemblance to the Structure B foundation.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The history of the Potomac Creek courthouse site has been presented thoroughly by Happel, but a brief review is in order here. Happel shows that a courthouse was ordered built in 1665, a year after theestablishment of Stafford as a county. He quotes a court reference in 1667 to the road along the south shore of Potomac Creek, running from the “said Ferry,” near the head of the Creek, “to the Court house to the horse Bridge,” which he identifies as having spanned Passapatanzy Gut. In his opinion, this courthouse was near the mouth of the Creek, but he fails to show that it equally well may have been near the site of the later 18th-century structures.

Figure 58.—Drawing made in1743, showing location of Stafford courthouse south of Potomac Creek (orientation to south). (Fredericksburg Suit Papers.)

Figure 59.—Enlarged detailfrom lower right portion offigure 58, showing location of Stafford courthouse south of Potomac Creek.

We have seen that in 1690 court was first held in Thomas Elzey’s house, seemingly located near the 18th-century courthouse site, and that orders were given that it continue to meet there until the new courthouse was ready. The history of the new courthouse at Marlborough has already been recounted, its final demise occurring about 1718. The court’s official removal from Marlborough was agreed upon July 20, 1720, and, as already noted, “the head of Ocqua Creek” was designated for the new site, although obviously by error, since Potomac Creek plainly was intended.

Happel tells us that the Potomac Creek building burned in 1730 or early 1731 and that the justices were ordered on April 27, 1731, to rebuild at the same place. It is this next building that was depicted on the 1743 survey plat (seefig. 58). In 1744 a bill was presented in the Assembly to relieve persons who had suffered or “may suffer” from the loss of Stafford County records “lately consumed by Fire”;[162]apparently thecourthouse had again burned. There seems to have been a delay of about five years in rebuilding it this time. Pressures to relocate it were exerted in the meanwhile and hearings were held by the Governor’s Council on a petition to “remove the Court House lower down.”[163]The Council listened, then "Ordered, that the new Court House be built where the old one stood."[164]

Figure 60.—Excavation planof Stafford courthouse foundation.

This settled, Nathaniel Harrison and Hugh Adie contracted in 1749 with the justices of Stafford court to build a “Brick Courthouse, for the Consideration of 44500 lb. of Tobacco, to be furnished by the last of October, 1750.”[165]Harrison was a distinguished member of the colony who, as a widower, had moved to Stafford County the previous year and had married Lucy, the daughter of Robert (“King”) Carter of “Corotoman” and widow of Henry Fitzhugh of “Eagle’s Nest.”[166]Harrison, who later built "Brandon" for himself in King George County, probably provided the capital and the materials, and perhaps the design, of the courthouse. Adie, of whom nothing is known, was doubtless the carpenter or bricklayer who actually did the work.

Figure 61.—Hanover courthouse, whose plan dimensions correspond closely to the Stafford foundation.

The construction was delayed by “many Disappointments, and the Badness of the Weather.” Finally, in the spring of 1751, it was about to be brought to completion, “when it was feloniously burnt to the Ground.”[167]In April 1752 a special act was passed in order to permit a levy to be made which would allow the Stafford court to reimburse Harrison and Adie for the amount of work which they had accomplished on the courthouse and the value of the materials they had provided.[168]

No record exists of the contract for the next—and last—courthouse building on the Potomac Creek site. Quite possibly Harrison and Adie again did the work. This building was used until removal of the court to a new building completed between 1780 and 1783 on a site near the present Stafford courthouse. It remained standing throughout most of the 19th century, according to local memory. In surveys of 1804 and 1805 the structure was identified as the “old court house.”

DESCRIPTION OF EXCAVATIONS

Excavations were conducted in the simplest manner possible, in order to arrive at the objective of determining the dimensions of the courthouse without exceeding available funds. An exploratory trench soon exposed a line of rubble and disturbed soil. Thisline was followed until the entire outline of the building was revealed. At several points bricks in mortar still remainedin situ, especially at the south end. Two brick piers extended 4 feet 5 inches into the structure, midway along the south wall at a distance of 5 feet 9 inches apart.

Back to Index Next