James Geddy House Archaeological Report, Block 19 Building 11 Lot 161Originally entitled: "The James Geddy Site Block 19, Area B Colonial Lot 161"

R. Neil Frank, Jr.


Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library Research Report Series—1446

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library

Williamsburg, Virginia


Block 19, Area B

December 1969
Prepared by:
R. Neil Frank, Jr.
Drawings by:Paulette Hancock and Daniel Barber

Table of Figures
Table of Photographs
Introduction 1
Precis of Colonial Lot 161's History 4
The Archaeology of Lot 161 22
The Geddy House 22
Structure A1 22
Structure A2 24
Structure B1 26
Structure B2 31
Structure C1 35
Structure C2 35
Possible Rebuilding of the Geddy Main House 37
The Outbuildings
Structure D1 (kitchen-laundry?) 38
Structure D2 (northerly addition) 43
Structure D3 (west addition) 44
Structure El (kitchen) 47
Structure E2 (northerly addition) 47
Structure F (kitchen-laundry) 48
Structure G 50
Structure H (smokehouse) 51
Structure J (dairy) 52
Privy 52
Outdoor Furnace 53
The Wells 54
Well A 54
Well B 55
Well C 59
Walkways and Yard Metalling 60
Path A 60
Path B 61
Path C 62
Path D 63
Path E 64
Path F 64
Path G 65
Yard levels 66
The Drains 70
Drain A 70
Drain B 71
Drains C and D 71
Fence lines 73
Rubbish deposits 76
Architectural Evidence Found on the Geddy Site80
The Artifacts (Summary) 82
Evidence of the Industrial Aspects of Lot 161 83
The Domestic Remains 87
Conclusions 88
The Geddy House 88
The Outbuildings 90
Footnotes 92
Appendix I, Table of Brick Sizes and Mortar Composition 97
Appendix II, Summary of Excavation Register Numbers mentioned in the texts and illustrations 102
Appendix III, Dating of Excavation Register groups from the James Geddy Site 110
Appendix IV, Descriptions and Dating for the Architectural Items in Plate XXII 135
Figure 1Plan of earliest main structure features unearthed in 1967Following page 24
Figure 2Plan of the c. 1750 main house
showing relationship with earlier structure
" " 27
Figure 3Sections of the juncture of north wing with the B1 main block" " 28
Figure 4Plan of the evolution of the extant main Geddy house" " 30
Figure 5Plan showing the conjectured evolution of structure D" " 38
Figure 6East/west section of stratigraphy in the DI structure's east room" "39
Figure 7East/west section of stratigraphy in the D1 structure's west room" "40
Figure 8Plan of foundations in 1930 and 1967 in the vicinity of the reconstructed kitchen" "47
Figure 9Detail from Frenchman's Map showing relevant property with the lot numbers added" "49
Figure 10Plan of features unearthed west of the reconstructed kitchen" "51
Figure 11Plan of features discovered on the east side of Lot 161" "52
Figure 12Section of Well A's infill" "55
Figure 13Section of Well B's infill" "56
Figure 14North/south section showing evolution of Path B" "61
Figure 15Section of various walkway levels south of the extant main Geddy house" "66
Figure 16Plan of the features unearthed south of the F1 kitchen structureFollowing page71
Figure 17Plan of the features discovered outside Lot 161's westerly
property line" "
Figure 18Geddy site master planOn back pocket
Plate I Aerial view of area immediately north of the main house in course of excavation
Plate II Surviving foundations of the earliest main structure on Lot 161
Plate III The remains of the early main building's front porch
Plate IV A portion of an earlier foundation protruding from beneath the existing building's west room chimney footing
Plate V Elevated view of early main building's partially robbed north wall with the remains of a brick path associated with the structure
Plate VI View of the eighteenth century underpinning of the main house's south wall with an earlier brick drain
Plate VII Crude basement beneath the main building's north-west wing
Plate VIII The remains of the bulkhead entrance to the cellar beneath the main structure's north wing
Plate IX Rear view of Geddy House before restoration
Plate X Original northeast corner of the extant main structure's northerly lean-to
Plate XI Bulkhead steps and the remains of the west wall of a passageway which passed beneath the main building's northerly lean-to enroute to structure's main cellar
Plate XII Surviving brickwork from the D1 outbuilding's central H-shaped chimney
Plate XIII Elevated view of features unearthed in the D1 outbuilding's east room
Plate XIV View of the brick flooring installed into the D3 west addition after the forge and working plinth had been abandoned
Plate XV View of the D3 brass founding shop's forge and working plinth along with portions of the addition's east and south walls
Plate XVI View of the pier supported structure's (G) southwest corner with the building's brick rubble path
Plate XVII Excavated remains of a smokehouse along with a brick path associated with the outbuilding
Plate XVIII View of a privy pit and its structure's southeast pier
Plate XIX View of the outdoor forge's foundations discovered off the reconstructed kitchen's southeast corner
Plate XX View of Well B in course of excavation
Plate XXI View of the brick drain discovered outside the Geddy property's existing western fenceline
Plate XXII Architectural fragments
Plates II through XXII appear in the rear of the volume.


The Department of Archaeology would like to thank the personnel in the Landscape, Research, and Architectural Departments for their assistance on the James Geddy project. In addition, we are most grateful to Mr. Douglas White for his surveying work. Mr. Daniel Barber was responsible for the photography and he, along with Mrs. Paulette Hancock, prepared the drawings.


Archaeological work on Colonial Lots #161 was initially undertaken in 19301 and was followed immediately by the restoration of the main James Geddy II building.2 At the same time, a kitchen, with a lean-to attached, was reconstructed; a small frame structure (wood shed) was built and placed arbitrarily between the kitchen and the main house, and a well was fitted with a "local colonial type well head.3" Later, in 1953, additional archaeological work was performed on the eastern portion of the property;4 the findings resulted in the reconstruction of an east wing abutting the main dwelling and shop structure.

The 1931 excavation unearthed the remains of two presumed kitchen buildings, and at that time, it was decided to reconstruct on the foundations of the smaller and earlier of them. However, in 1965, when the decision was reached to make the Geddy House an exhibition building and to return the property to its late-eighteenth century appearance, it was resolved that the dependency should be torn down and replaced by the second, larger structure. This conclusion, no doubt, was based on the fact that the size and relative position of the latter kitchen (?) resembled the dependency shown on the Frenchman's Map of 1782 (?), (Figure 9).

The footing trenches for this new building having been partially dug, the quantities of artifacts found and those physically visible in section enabled this department to 2 request and receive time to perform a small rescue excavation. Mr. C. E. Hackett duly called a halt to construction activities and granted two days' grace for archaeological work. However, the time limitation was extended to ten days when it became apparent that the site was immeasurably rich in well-stratified artifacts. The findings,5 during this minimal archaeological investigation, in the spring of 1966, led to the theory that much of the property had been undisturbed by previous excavations and that a great deal of information concerning the social history of the site could still be retrieved.

The 1967 archaeological work began in May and continued through October of that year. This project was undertaken on the premise that the major buildings on the site were correctly restored or reconstructed, and that the chief purpose for excavation was to recover artifacts to aid in forming an accurate picture of the site's social history and, hopefully, to obtain more knowledge about the crafts practiced on the property. However, a number of discrepancies were found which have since necessitated a re-study of the architectural aspects of the main house in order that the property can more closely resemble its appearance when James Geddy II lived and worked there.

The discovery of new architectural evidence relating to the main building was considered something of a setback to. The reconstruction plans, but, the value of the archaeological 3 evidence of the Geddy crafts made the excavation one of the most rewarding yet undertaken in Williamsburg. The remains of a brassfounding shop, belonging to the James Geddy I period, were unearthed north of the existing main building. Its large, central, H-shaped fire place was in situ as was a small forge abutted to the south by a brick working plinth. A lead pattern for a harness buckle, found wedged between the plinth and the shop's south wall, indicated that the forge was used for brass casting, with the plinth serving as a work table. (Figure 5)

The recovered artifacts revealed at least two important facts about the colonial craftsman: Firstly, the quality of brass work made on the Geddy site was comparable to that generally available in England and other foreign markets, and secondly, the variety of ceramics and glassware used by the Geddy families was of surprisingly good quality.

A large quantity of unfinished brass castings were unearthed, among them shoe buckles, spandrels for clocks, watch keys, sword hilt parts, etc.; all of which were ornately decorated. It would seem that the American craftsman was able to compete, with some success, with the foreign markets and that, judging by the discarded household ceramics, at least one family of tradesmen in Williamsburg had businesses lucrative enough to enable them to purchase what we assume to have been some of the better things of life.



Colonial Lot 161's history6 parallels and is, at times, identical to that of Lot 162. Therefore, it was necessary to review their pasts simultaneously, even though the 1967 excavation was almost entirely limited to Lot 161.7 The combined lots represented a highly desirable property, fronting on Duke of Gloucester Street, filling the entire block from Palace Street to Market Square and stretching northward to Nicholson Street.

The first owner of the two half-acre lots was Samuel Cobbs, of York County, who acquired the land from the trustees of Williamsburg in 1716. The transaction was recorded in the extant York County records dated February 5 (lease)8 and February 6 1716(release).9 The deed contained the usual stipulation that Cobbs must build on the land within twenty-four months or the property would revert to the Trustees. By 1716, Cobbs had three building alternatives, each of which was sufficient to hold both lots. He could construct:

"on each halfe Acre or Lott so granted one good Dweling House containing twenty Foot in width and Thirty Foot in Length at the least...."10
"build & finish one House fifty Foot long and twenty Foot broad..."11
5 or erect:
"one Brick House or framed House with two Stacks of Brick Chimney's & Cellers under ye whole House bricked forty Foot long & twenty Foot broad..."12
Apparently Cobbs met the legal requirements since he held title to the property for three and one-half years.

York County records show that Cobbs sold Lots 161 and 162 to Samuel Boush, Jr., of Norfolk County in 1719. The transfer of title was finalized by lease on July l7th13 and by release14 the following day. There is no evidence that Boush ever lived in Williamsburg so it may be deduced that he purchased the land as an investment.

A thorough investigation by the Research Department failed to disclose the date that Boush sold Lot 161 to James Geddy. It had to be sometime prior to December, 1738, because, in that month and year, Geddy purchased Lot 162 described in the deed as "adjoining the Lot whereon the said James Geddy now dwells ....15"

No references to James Geddy have been located before 1735. On November 4, 1735, Geddy with eleven other men, received a patent for 30,000 acres in Brunswick County.16 In September, 1736, Geddy, along with ten associates received still another grant of 30,000 acres in the same county.17 Neither of these patents were recorded in the Virginia land 6 office.

An anonymous letter, written to the editor of the Times-Dispatch in Richmond on December 22, 1907, stated that "James and William Geddy came to Williamsburg from Scotland in 1735 and settled as bankers in that city.18" The trade, alleged to be that of James Geddy, must have been noted in error since an extant advertisement of 1737 shows that he was a gunsmith. Geddy offered, from his shop in Williamsburg:

"a great Choice of Guns and Fowling Pieces, of several Sorts and Sizes, true bored, which he will warrant to be good; and will sell them as cheap as they are usually sold in England."19
Another announcement from the Virginia Gazette, dated October 6, 1738, stated that Geddy's customers could be supplied with:
"Fowling-Pieces and large Guns fit for killing Wild-Fowl in Rivers...."20
and, in addition to firearms,
"he also makes several Sorts of wrought Brass-work, and casts small Bells."21

Thus, James Geddy was not only skilled in gunsmithing but also in brass-working. A notice, dated October 5, 1739, gave some insight as to the type of work that Geddy contracted:

"a long pun, about 6 or 7 Feet in the Barrel, was brought by a young Gentleman of Gloucester County, to me, the 7 Subscriber, in Williamsburg, to be new Stock'd and Lock'd..."22
Apparently, Geddy knew enough about the woodworking trade to facilitate his restocking weapons. According to Mr. Wallace Gusler, if a gunsmith could restock and relock a gun, he would, no doubt, be capable of making his own firearms—these two tasks being the most difficult in gun making. Thus, it could be assumed that Geddy made at least some of the weapons for sale in his shop. His inventory, discussed on page 8, lists a large quantity of tools and equipment used in all facets of gunsmithing.

Unfortunately, Geddy did not mention his shop's location in the advertisements but, as stated previously, he had occupied Lot 161 prior to 1738. It can be conjectured that he purchased Lot 161 soon after arriving in Williamsburg and that he practiced his trade there until his death.

Geddy died in July or August, 1744, leaving a will dated September 23, 1743, in which Anne Geddy, his widow, was appointed:

"Sole Executrix and heiress of all my real and personal Estate to be disposed by her as she thinks most proper."23
The children—David, James, William, John, Elizabeth, Anne, and Mary—were bequeathed five shillings each. It should be noted that Sarah, the youngest daughter of James and Anne, 8 was not mentioned because she was born after the writing of the will.

Soon after Geddy's death, the court ordered that

"Peter Scott Hugh Orr Mark Cosby and John Coulthard or any three of them being first Sworn Do meet & appraise the Estate of James Geddy decd and that they return on Account thereof to the next Court."24
In accordance with the court's wishes, the four Subscribers appraised Geddy's Estate and submitted an inventory to the court on November 19, 1744.25

Geddy's inventory included all sorts of gunsmithing paraphernalia:

"18 Gun Locks, 12 Pistol do, 5 Gun barls, a Turner Laith, a parcel of Gun Smiths Tools in his Shops, and a parcel rough brass work for Guns ...."26
Also listed were numerous brass-founding items, such as:
"8 li rough Brass work, a Founders laith, 7 pt Flasks, a Sand Bench, and a parcel of Founders patterns."27
Naturally, Geddy also owned tools and equipment common to most founding trades:
"8 doz. files Sorted, 3 hand Vices, a Bench Vice, an iron anvil, a Slack Tubb & 6 pr Iron Tongs, 5 Iron Smiths Staks, 2 screw plates & 1 Brace, a Cutlers Wheel & 2 runners, a parcel of Nail Tools, 19 Melting pots, 2 pr Smiths Bellows and 200 li Sheet Lead."28


In an obvious attempt to straighten her late husband's affairs, Anne Geddy petitioned the House of Burgesses on October 4, 1744. The plea:

"was presented to the House, and read; setting forth, That her late Husband, James Geddy, by Order of the Governor, cleaned Seven Hundred Arms in the Magazine; for which the Treasurer does not think fit to pay her, without the Direction of this House so to do; and praying Consideration of the House therein..."29
The Committee of Claims reported to the House on the following day that:
"On Consideration of the Petition of Anne Geddy, Widow, Resolved, That the Petition be rejected."30
Apparently Mrs. Geddy had been advised erroneously to petition the House of Burgesses, for since the Governor had ordered the cleaning of weapons, the account should have been paid from the King's revenues. Evidently she was made aware of the fact, since after petitioning correctly (although no record of this can be found), the Receiver General was ordered to pay:
"the Sum of Twenty one Pounds eight Shillings and four pence to the Widdow Geddy due to the Estate of her late Husband for cleaning seven hundred Public Arms at the Magazine."31
This payment-order was recorded May 4, 1745, seven months after Mrs. Geddy had first petitioned the Burgesses.

James and Anne Geddy had eight children; four boys and 10 four girls, but unfortunately, existing records did not divulge their dates of birth. This is true of all but Sarah,32 the last born, who was an infant when Geddy died in 1744. The fact that James, Jr. was 76 years of age at his death in 180733 indicates that he was born in 1731 and was 13 years old when his father died.

William and David must have been older than James, Jr. for they apparently carried on their father's gunsmithing operation after James, Sr. died. This conjecture was based on information gained from an advertisement which appeared in the Virginia Gazette of August 8, 1751:

"David and William Geddy Smiths in Williamsburg, near the Church, having all Manner of Utensils requisite, carry on the Gun-smith's, Cutler's, and Founder's Trade, at whose Shop may be had the following Work, viz. Gun work, such as Guns and Pistols Stocks, plain or neatly varnished, Locks and Mountings, Barrels, blued, bored, and rifled; Founder's Work, and Harness Buckles, Coach Knobs, Hinges, Squares, Nails and Bullions, curious Brass Fenders and Fire Dogs, House Bells of all Sizes, Dials calculated to any Latitude; Cutler's Work, as Razors, Lancets, Shears, and Surgeon's Instruments ground, cleaned, and glazed, as well as when first made, Sword Blades polished blued, and gilt in the neatest Manner, Scabbards for Swords, Needles and Sights for Surveyors Compasses, Rupture Bands of different Sorts, particularly a Sort which gives admirable Ease in all Kinds of Ruptures; Likewise at the said Shop may be had a vermifuge, 11 Price, 3s. 6d. per Bottle, which safely and effectually destroys all Kinds of Worms in Horses, the most inveterate Pole-evils and Fistulas cured, and all Diseases incident to Horses; at their said Shop."34
Thus, David and William were not only gunsmiths but cutlers and founders as well.

The location of the business venture, being

"near the Church"
, could be on any number of Lots within a stone's throw of Bruton Parish Church, however, it would seem likely that the brothers practiced their trades on Lot 161. Documentation, to confirm this theory, was not forthcoming but archaeological evidence, found during the 1967 excavation of Lot 161, proved that David Geddy was making and stamping his brass work there as late as c.1755. Additional information, concerning this fact can be found on page 67.

Following her husband's death, Anne Geddy must have moved because on November 17, 1750, when she sold Lot 162 to James Taylor, the deed recorded her as being from James City County.35 In addition to gaining control of the property, Taylor was given:

"....half part of the well Situate and being on the Lot 61...."36
including the liberty to:
".....pass & repass to the said well without interruption...."37


James City County line ran through the middle of lots 161 and 162 from 1699 until 1767. Anne Geddy needn't necessarily have moved to have been designated a James City County resident in the 1750 deed.also applies to p. 27


The acquisition of Lot 162 by James Taylor, a tailor by trade, represents a firm break between the histories of Lots 161 and 162 and, therefore, the remaining portion of the background material will pertain only to Lot 161.

No documentary evidence remains of any trade being practiced on Lot 161 from 1752 to 1760. However, as mentioned previously, it has been conjectured that David and William were working there from 1744 to sometime after 1755. The whereabouts of James Geddy II from 1744 to 1760 could not be determined but it was presumed that during that period he was apprenticed to a silversmith and clockmaker. This last assumption was based on the fact that in 1760, when James purchased Lot 161,38 he was listed as being a silversmith and later, in 1767, he was advertising watch repairing. It would seem possible that Geddy learned his trade on Lot 161 from Samuel Galt, silversmith and clockmaker. Galt was in Williamsburg by 1751, but the first advertisement giving his shop's location as found in a Virginia Gazette notice dated September 2, 1757, in which Galt stated:

"the Subscriber, at the Sign of the Dial, Harp and Crown, next Door to the Church in Williamsburg, would now take a Boy or two as Apprentices...."39
Obviously a great deal of imagination is required to determine if Galt meant Lot 161 but it is mentioned here 13 only as a possibility and it should be noted that the archaeological evidence did not substantiate or refute it. However, numerous fragments of broken watch glass were found strewn about the site but it could have been discarded by James Geddy II.

As previously stated, James Geddy, Jr. purchased Lot 161 from his mother on August 18, 1760. A month later, Geddy rented a portion of the house to Hugh Walker of Williamsburg and John Goode of London. The term of lease was for fifteen years and the section rented was detailed in the contract as being:

"the East End or Room of the said house with the Chamber or Room over the same and the Cellar under neath .... "40
In addition to repairing and improving the east end of the building (work which had apparently been completed when the contract was written), Walker and Goode were given permission to:
"Erect & Build a Shed to the same Sixteen feet long and ten feet wide with an out Side Chimney .... 41"
They were also awarded:
"free use of the necessary house and Well belonging to the said Lot...."42

The east shop's utilization is obscure prior to 1760 14 but it seems possible that Samuel Galt used that part of the house until sometime before November, 1759, when he was appointed "Keeper of the publick Gaol.43" However, it takes a somewhat liberal interpretation to make the east tenement "....next door to the Church in Williamsburg....44"

Historical documents, pertaining to David and William Geddy's business venture after 1751, have not been located. Apparently William lived and practiced his gunsmithing trade in or near Williamsburg until his death in 1784. Alexander Craig's account books list William many times, including an entry dated August 23, 1762 when Geddy purchased "2 Nests of Black Melting Pots.45" The records of William's partial payments to Craig often listed goods purchased:

"June 13, 1763:

Mr Wm Geddy
To Cash3.10..0
To a Gun Bayonet Cartouch box2..0..0"
On April 15, 1763, Geddy bought "15 lb of Brass 47" and again in May, of the same year, he received "10 lb of Old Brass at 9d48" from Craig. Unfortunately, even though William's name appears in numerous records from 1760 through the Revolutionary War period, no mention was made of his business location.

James Geddy, Jr. probably practiced his craft on 15 Lot 161 from 1760 to 1777, at which time he moved to Dinwiddie County. Only four copies of the Virginia Gazette survive between the years 1760-1765. Thus it was not surprising to find that his first extant advertisement was entered in 1766. In that notice, Geddy stated that he had left an assortment of goods at Mr. Bennet White's in Newcastle and these items were for sale "at the lowest rates.49" From 1766 through 1775, Geddy advertised in the Virginia Gazette at least once a year. Judging from the newspaper notices, his shop must have been filled with many different types of items. The advertisements included articles such as: silver table and tea spoons, all sorts of buckles and related jewelry, assortments of County made products and watch chains and keys, to name but a few.50 An indication of the type of work Geddy contracted was found in his account with Colonel William Preston dated December 11, 1766:

"Colonel William Preston
Decr 11 Dr Colo Preston

To mendg A Spoon0..1..3
To repg Seal0..1..3
To odd Stud0..1..0
To Linking pr Do0..1..6
To a Knee Buckle0..3..9
To Makeing Divideing Spoon0..15..0
To Silver added0..2..6
To 1 pr Bobbs2..0..0

The bobbs to be taken back & the money returned if the Lady dont like
James Geddy


Decr 22 1766 recd the within Act in full James Geddy"


As previously mentioned, Hugh Walker and John Goode leased the east tenement on Lot 161 for a fifteen year period ending in 1775. However, they must have seen fit to break their contract with Geddy because, on July 18th and July 25th, 1771, he advertised that:

"The Store, adjoining the Subscriber's shop, lately occupied by William Russell is to be Let, and may be entered on immediately"52
Mary Dickinson, milliner, must have rented the shop from Geddy for, in a Virginia Gazette notice, dated October 17, 1771, she advertised as having her business "…next Door to Mr. James Geddy's Shop, near the Church, in Williamsburg….53" Likewise, James Geddy may have leased a shop to Nathaniel Keith and John Hatch, tailors, for in 1767, they advertised as being "opposite to Mr. John Greenhow's store, on the main street in Williamsburg.54"

On September 17, 1767, William Waddill, goldsmith and engraver, gave notice that he was planning to occupy a shop "next door below the Old Printing Office.55" Geddy, in 1768, described his shop as being "next door to the Post Office.56" The location of the property could not be determined nor could it be ascertained if the men meant the same shop. However, it would seem possible that Geddy and Waddill planned to practice their trades together as early as 1767 since, in an 17 advertisement dated June 4, 1772, Geddy announced that:

"....Mourning Rings, and all Kinds of Engraving, done at the same shop by William Waddill"57

As mentioned previously, William Geddy was working in Williamsburg until about 1784. Extant records indicate that during the Revolutionary period, he was paid numerous times for "Casting ball" and "repairing Arms".58 On March 9, 1776, William was given £64 for a "Gun Furnish'd the Public.59" Naturally, during the war years, a gunsmith would have been busy and, no doubt, his production was increased many times over. A considerable amount of military equipment, such as gun parts, sword pieces, etc., with its associated metallic waste was retrieved from Lot 161, the bulk of which dated in the 1775-1776 war years. This fact would indicate the presence of a gunsmith on the property during the Revolutionary period. It can be conjectured, therefore, that William either returned to, or never left his brother's lot, and remained there until James sold the land in 1777.

On May 2, 1777, in a Virginia Gazette notice, James Geddy offered for sale:

"The houses and lot whereon I now live in Williamsburg, well improved and the whole built within these few years; …."60
This advertisement is important since it indicates a construction date for the buildings on the site. It 18 would seem logical that the structures, referred to in the notice, were erected between 1770 and 1775. At any rate, Geddy did not find an immediate buyer and apparently he continued to rent the shops through 1777.

Ann Neill may have been in one of the rooms in the west portion of Geddy's building when she advertised from "Palace Street" on July 2, 1777, that she proposed to teach the guitar "and instruct young Ladies in Reading, and Needle Work.61" Being located on Palace Street obviously would not necessarily mean Lot 161. However, in November of the same year, Mrs. Neill advertised "that she has opened a Store opposite Mr. John Greenhow's, near the Market Square.... 62" It could be conjectured that Ann first occupied the N-W room of Geddy's building and by November she had rented additional space with access from Duke of Gloucester Street. This theory is based on the presumption that both advertisements were placed in the Virginia Gazette by the same person and that Ann Neill's teaching business was not lucrative, thereby forcing her into selling European goods on commission. Mrs. Neill's presence on the Geddy property would not be as important had she not advertised from Palace Street. However, since she did, it raises the question of access to the Geddy structure on the building's west side. It was impossible, archaeologically, to find evidence of a doorway on the west end of the building, perhaps due to the disturbance caused 19 by the incursion of numerous modern utilities. However, a Palace Street entrance to the building was revealed in the framing by the Department of Architecture in 1967. (See page 31).

James Geddy must have had a difficult time in finding a buyer for his property in Williamsburg. Even though the buildings had been recently constructed, he saw fit to make repairs, apparently, in hopes that the improvements would help sell the land. This work was undertaken after Geddy had moved to Dinwiddie County. William Page had been authorized by Geddy to handle his Williamsburg affairs, thus it was Page who paid for the repairs, on Geddy's behalf. The work included " ....repairing Cellar wall, Mending plastering in O. House Dary & landary, laying harth & mendg Chimney in Chamber, White washing 7 Rooms 2 passages, 4 Closets, & 3 poarches, Whiteng Dary & Mendg Kitchg & layg harth and Mortar & Repairn Steps....63"

The above mentioned improvements were paid for on November 18, 1778, and in less than a month, Geddy had apparently sold the property to Robert Jackson, a merchant of Williamsburg. The deed indicating the change of ownership was dated December 11, 1778 but was not recorded until July 19, 1779.64 Jackson occupied the property for a little over two years, since he died before March, 1781. His brief will 20 dictated that he wished to give "unto my wife Elizabeth Jackson all and everything I am possessed of to put to what use she thinks proper.65"

On the same day the will was recorded, Elizabeth Jackson signed over "one moiety66" of the estate to Dr. John Minson Galt in trust for her daughter, Nancy, who was under age at the time. Apparently, Elizabeth wasted little time in remarrying, because the Williamsburg Land Tax records for 1782 indicate that Robert Martin was the owner of Lot 16.67

Additional proof of Elizabeth's marriage to Martin was found in the accounts of Humphrey Harwood, brick mason and carpenter of Williamsburg. Work was performed for "Capt Robert Martin (that Married Widow Jackson)"68 during the period 1782-1787. The tasks undertaken by Harwood included: "plastering Porch & mending Steps & pinting shead, repairing Well, and Repairg plastering & whitewashg 4 Rooms, 2 passages, 2 Cealings, 2 Closets and 2 porches."69 Apparently, these improvements were made to buildings on Lot 161 since, according to the Williamsburg Land Tax accounts, Martin owned only one lot until 1789.70

Robert Martin retained control of Lot 161 until his death in 1789 and his estate held possession of the property until 1802. According to the Williamsburg Land Tax records, Wells (sometimes written "Wills") Dunsford acquired the 21 land in 1802. Little is known about Dunsford except that he had purchased a shop license in 1802 for $15 and that, between 1802 and 1804, he had erected a stable on either Lot 161 or 162. The latter information was found in a letter from Henry Skipwith and addressed to Judge St. George Tucker in which Skipwith reported:

"....We have had neither Murder, Rape, Adultery, or even Fornication (that I know of) since your departure; so that but for a stable which neighbour Dunsforce has built at the North corner of his Garden for the accommodation (the ensuing Spring) of an English stud and a Maltese Jack, I should not have been able to record a single revolution in our Elysium...."71
Dunsford died in 1808 and his estate retained ownership of Lot 161 until 1820.

This historical summary is intended only to inform and prepare the reader for the archaeological evidence unearthed on Lot 161. Therefore, facts, which may be important to other Departments, have been omitted because they did not aid in the understanding of features and artifacts found on the site. Since archaeological evidence after 1810 does not figure in this report, it is deemed unnecessary to pursue the history of Lot 161 beyond the first year of the nineteenth century.



The historical evidence for the evolution of the buildings on Lot 161 was far from explicit. Indeed, the dated construction records, sparse as they were, merely added fuel to the conjectural thinking pertaining to the Geddy main house and its dependencies. The archaeological work, undertaken in 1967, provided a great deal of new information about the structures, along with knowledge of the people who lived on the site.

As mentioned on page 1, Samuel Cobbs, the first owner of Lots 161 and 162, must have erected a building on either or both lots by 1718 to retain control of the property. Cobbs' three construction alternatives included the choice of erecting a dwelling, with minimum measurements of 20'0" x 30'0" on each lot. Extant documentary evidence failed to indicate which option Cobbs preferred. However, perhaps by coincidence, the earliest building, located archaeologically, on Lot 161 had conjectured dimensions of 20'0" x 32'6".


Structure A1 (Figure 1)

Portions of the early building were unearthed in the southwest corner of Lot 161. A small section of an east/west foundation, 9" in thickness, was found 3'1" north of the existing main structure. This brickwork 23 was all that remained of the first building's north wall. (Plate II) The south wall had been removed during subsequent construction work, though the brick front-porch foundation survived, (Plate III), thus indicating the position of the original main doorway as well as the location of the building's southern extremity. A portion of a north/south drain (page 71), cut through by the builder's trench for the existing structure's south wall, indicated the approximate position of the east wall. If the porch was centered on the building, making the north/south walls equidistant from the stoop, the house would have measured approximately 32'6" x 20'0".

While excavating in the basement of the existing building, a part of an earlier foundation (Plate IV) was discovered protruding from beneath the present chimney footing. This brickwork (possibly a forge) partially sealed a pit (E.R. 1345J) filled with black dirt.(Figure 1) Fragments from a single wine bottle, dating c. 1730-40, were found above the pit and beside the foundation. One of the bottle pieces had the initials JG engraved on it, leaving little doubt that the wine bottle had belonged to James Geddy I. Thus, Geddy's occupation of the early building was ascertained and it would seem likely that he was responsible for the construction of the small foundation 24 within the house. However, it was impossible to determine whether Geddy's brickwork was an alteration or part of the original architectural plan.

It seems possible that part of the present Geddy House east chimney foundation may date back to the James Geddy I building and that it comprised both an interior hearth and an exterior fireplace.(Figure 1) The latter, no doubt, was used for industrial purposes since a great deal of metallic waste (E.R. 1336E) was found north and east of the chimney and the ashes and slag apparently wrapped around the east end of the building since iron waste (E.R. 1359X) was also discovered beside Duke of Gloucester Street, south of the supposed outdoor fireplace.

The early structure's north wall had been cut through by numerous modern builder's trenches. However, between two of them was found a section of a curving walkway. The path stopped against the building's partially robbed north wall, indicating the position of a north doorway. (Plate V) The projected arc of the paving (along with comparable elevations) showed that it was part of the same walk that approached the south face of a brass-founding shop (pages 38 and 60).

Structure A2

Evidence of a northerly addition, abutting the early structure was discovered approximately 3'0" east of the existing building's north wing. All that RR144601 Figure 1 25 remained of the extension was most of its east wall (a single rowlock course) and the southeast and northeast corners. The other annex evidence had been destroyed when a cellar and bulkhead were built as part of later construction on the site (page 30). The addition had a north/south measurement of 12'6" and, if its west wall was on line with the conjectured west extremity of the early structure, the east/west dimension would have been approximately 16'6". The northerly wing was later altered to permit a substantial chimney or forge (measuring about 4'3" x 3'7") to be inserted into the east wall. This last change could be considered to be Period Three.

As pointed out on page 5, James Geddy I occupied Lot 161 prior to purchasing the adjoining property (Lot 162) in 1738. The deed which finalized the transaction described Lot 162 as being next to the lot where "James Geddy now dwells ..."72 Since Geddy was advertising his wares as early as 1737, it could be assumed that he first used the early structure on Lot 161 as a combined living area, workshop, and display room. If the building had been utilized in that way, the unused space must have been minimal, especially since, as Mr. Paul Buchanan has pointed out, the 9" foundations could only support a one and one-half story structure. Perhaps it was these crowded conditions that forced Geddy into purchasing the adjoining real estate.


It would seem probable that, after acquiring Lot 162, Geddy and his family maintained their residence on that property while continuing to use Lot 161 as the industrial area. The huge quantities of iron and brassworking waste found north and east of the existing Geddy structure, along with that discovered beside Duke of Gloucester Street, would help substantiate this theory. Additional material pertaining to the industrial aspects of Lot 161 can be found on page 83. It will suffice to note that the evidence indicates the presence of a substantial gunsmithing and brass founding operation on the site in the period beginning around 1740 and continuing for an uncertain number of years thereafter, perhaps into the 1760's.

It would seem reasonable to conclude that after 1738 the James Geddy I building served as a gun shop and working area. Both the west room, with its possible forge, and the northerly extension may have been the workshops. Strata, adjacent to the north wing, containing metalworking slag and artifacts dating c.1740, would point to this conclusion. The east room, with its fireplace, may have been Geddy's shop, although no substantiating evidence was forthcoming.

Structure B1

Dating evidence for the construction of the earlier foundations of the extant main building was not found, however, it could be conjectured that the brickwork 27 was laid prior to 1750. Anne Geddy, the widow of James Geddy, Sr., sold Lot 162 to James Taylor in 1750 and, if earlier theories were correct, the living quarters were transferred to Taylor while the industrial area was maintained by Mrs. Geddy. This transaction would make little sense if it were not for the fact that Anne had moved to James City County by 1750 (page 11). Even though she had no reason to construct a living area for herself, it seems likely that, before 1750, Anne had erected a building on Lot 161 for her sons David and William. Thus, it can be theorized that most of the existing main structure's plan and foundations were built for Mrs. Geddy around c.1750.

The principal structure had an east/west main block which measured 53'0" in length and 16'0" in width. (Figure 2) Attached to its west room was a northerly wing with dimensions of 25'3" x 16'3". The appendage initially had no basement, while the main block had a cellar whose access was through a bulkhead of which nothing survived but the interior jambs. This entrance had been built into the north foundation approximately 10'0" east of the building's north wing. The basement floor had been lowered in 1930 to facilitate its space being used for the placement of modern mechanical equipment, such as boilers, electrical panels, etc. Consequently only minimal archaeology work was undertaken in the main block's cellar in 1967, but it was determined RR144602 Figure 2 28 that the main cellar was part of the original construction plan by an examination of the exterior brickwork.

The footings for the north wing extended over the basement's foundation's northwest corner at first suggesting that the cellar was of one period and the northerly appendage and the basement's upper courses were of another (Figure 3). However, an examination of the southeast corner of the same cellar and of the main building's foundation extending eastward from it, revealed an identical structural relationship to that at the northwest. Thus, there can be no doubt that the foundations of the cellar, north wing, and the east room are of the same period. As mentioned on page 27, it was deduced that Anne Geddy was responsible for the construction of these foundations and that the brickwork was laid (c.1750), prior to the sale of Lot 162.

If the above theory can be accepted, the early James Geddy I period structure had been dismantled before 1750. However, the interior fireplace, which had been situated in the east room of the earlier A1 building (see page 24) apparently was retained to provide heat for the central of the mid-eighteenth century B1 structure. The room of the fireplace was not equipped with a heat source so it could be conjectured that it was initially used for storage or a shop at least during the winter months. The room's close proximity to the brassfounding shop helps substantiate this theory. (Figure 18)

RR144603 Figure 3


An examination of the house's south wall showed that the foundation for the room, adjoining the east tenement, had been underpinned. (Figure 3 and Plate VI) No doubt, this work was undertaken so that a basement could be added to that section of the building, and the presence of shell mortar would indicate that the bricks were laid in the eighteenth century. The interior of this cellar was not excavated in 1967 since its floor level had been lowered in 1953 during the reconstruction of the eastern portion of the main house. It was theorized that the basement's construction could have been part of the refurbishment activity on the site around c.1770, but substantiating evidence was not forthcoming.

Another cellar, this one crudely constructed, was found beneath the north wing of the main house (Plate VII). The basement had been dug out within the area of the building without underpinning the foundations. Thus, the north and east walls rested on a sloping bank of clay broken only at the point at which the bulkhead entrance cut through it. Although the western portion was not excavated, it was assumed that the wing's west wall was similarly supported.

Nevertheless, water seepage may have caused the foundation-supporting banks to erode. This phenomenon was surmised due to the fact that, after the cellar was in use, two courses of underpinning were added to the east wall for 30 increased support. Even so, during the 1967 digging, rain water was found draining into the basement from beneath the underpinning, as it probably did in the late eighteenth century. This defect could well have threatened the stability of the bank-perched foundations and may have caused the cellar's abandonment.

The basement's bulkhead (Plate VIII) positioned close to the north end of the east wall, (Figure 4) was filled with brown loam and purple ashes, containing datable material of the c.1800-1810 period. This fact, along with the artifacts of comparable date found in the cellar's fill (E.R. 1345B-D), would indicate that the basement was abandoned during the early part of the nineteenth century. It should be noted that this cellar's filling date seemed to coincide with that of the north bulkhead (page 32) suggesting that all of the underground facilities were of no use to the occupants of Lot 161 after c.1810.

Unfortunately, the cellar's construction date could not be pin-pointed archaeologically. However, the fact that it was abandoned in the early part of the nineteenth century would seem to suggest that the basement was being utilized during the last quarter of the eighteenth century. It could be conjectured that the cellar was built around 1770—along with other. improvements that together comprised the new construction advertised by James Geddy II in 1777.

RR144604 Figure 4


In the course of his architectural examination of the west face of the north extension Mr. Buchanan determined that a doorway probably existed in it, an extremely important discovery that tended to support the probability that Mrs. Neill rented that part of the building in 1777 when she advertised as being on Palace Street. (See page 18) Unfortunately, Mr. Buchanan's study was ordered stopped before he could be certain whether the door was contemporary with the construction of the framing or had been inserted at a later date. Archaeological attempts to locate traces of steps or a stoop approaching the doorway had been thwarted by earlier restoration underpinning and by the laying of utilities beside Palace Street.

Structure B2

Sometime after c.1755, the above mentioned B1 structure was extended northward. Actually when Colonial Williamsburg acquired Lot 161, the extant north wing was accompanied by another at the east.73 The resulting U was partially filled by a closed shed or lean-to across the central north face (see Plate IX). The east wing was of nineteenth-century date and was dismantled; the lean-to was assumed to be the same and it, too, was torn down. However, extant photographs of the latter's framing have since led Mr. Buchanan to conjecture that it may have been much older. The 1967 archaeological findings helped support that theory.


The original northeast cornet (Plate X) of the lean-to was unearthed some 19'6" east of the main building's north wing and 10'0" north of that structure's north wall. A small portion of the addition's north wall was found overlaying the remains of the chimney which had cut through the east wall of the Geddy I north addition. The search for dating evidence for the lean-to's construction was impeded by the disturbance caused by the incursion of modern utilities. However, the artifacts, recovered from the small areas maintaining stratigraphy, indicated the lean-to could not have existed prior to c.1755.

The relationship of the lean-to extension to the main house's north wing could not be determined since modern underpinning destroyed any trace of a junction or abutment of the two foundations. However, it was discovered that the addition's outside wall developed in two stages. The first phase enclosed the bulkhead entrance to the main cellar enroute to its northeast corner. The east edge of the corner brickwork had been notched out for a subsequent second phase easterly extension (see page 36).

As mentioned above, the c.1750 main cellar's access was beneath the later north lean-to. Therefore, it was necessary to dismantle the original bulkhead steps and project the entrance northward as a passageway beneath the shed, at which point a new bulkhead entrance outside the lean-to was constructed (Plate XI). This feature was utilized 33 until the early part of the nineteenth century at which time it was abandoned and filled with miscellaneous rubbish including a partially used, inscribed sow of iron. After the fill (E.R. 1331F) had been inserted, a section of brickwork, representing part of the nineteenth-century underpinning for the lean-to, filled the space between the bulkhead walls. Evidence of the poorly installed nineteenth-century brickwork was also found overlapping the shed's colonial northeast corner.

It can be conjectured that the lean-to was built for use as James Geddy II's workshop. The only piece of waste silver found on the site was recovered from a stratum of washed sand and ashes (E.R. 1335J) inside the addition's walls. (Figure 4) The silver fragment, measuring less than 1" in length and about 1/8" in width, along with other small finds in the layer could have conceivably fallen through the cracks between the floorboards. The fact that in this same area parallel lines of straight pins were found would seem to add support to the conjecture. Even so, one piece of waste silver is not enough to prove that the northerly lean-to was used as James Geddy's workshop. However, a fragment of worked metal would not normally be found in or near a craftsman's home, whereas his finished pieces could very well have been.

If the lean-to had been used as Geddy's workshop, he probably would have had an annealing forge in that part of 34 the building. The fact that no evidence of a furnace was found in that area during the 1967 excavations might be used to refute the identification of the shed or lean-to as the silversmith's workshop. However, when Colonial Williamsburg acquired Lot 161, a photograph (Plate IX) of the north side of the house shows a chimney in the northerly lean-to, all evidence of which had vanished prior to the 1967 archaeological work. By the same token, it could be argued that the remains of Geddy's forge disappeared just as completely.

An article having some relevance in regard to the sizes of cutlers' and jewelers' forges was found in a magazine dated 1804. The following was part of a description of the house in London vacated by Nathaniel Bentley, Jr.:

"The second floor was a mere repository of rubbish and filth ... Adjoining this is a small antichamber, which was once his mother's favourite dressing room ... It has been since converted into a workshop, has in it the remains of a forge, workbench, tools for jewelry, smiths'-work, japanning, &c. It has shared the fate of the other rooms, lies neglected, and is nearly blocked up with filth and old iron.... "74

Apparently, all jewelers' and suchlike forges were not of massive construction and some were even situated on an upper floor. While Bentley was a cutler and jeweler, and not a silversmith, the reference helps support the contention 35 that a silversmith's forge on the first floor need not have left any evidence in the ground.

Structure C1

Unfortunately, due to Colonial Williamsburg's thorough construction methods, no dating evidence for the original "East Room or Tenement" could be found. However, the extant documentation (see page 13) would suggest that the east end of the building was in existence when James Geddy, Jr. acquired Lot 161 in 1760. This deduction was based on the fact that Geddy leased the tenement one month after purchasing the property and the rent agreement indicated that repairs were needed prior to the tenant's occupancy. Thus, since it seems unlikely that a wing built in August would be in need of repairs by September, it must be assumed that the tenement was erected before 1760.

Structure C2

The same lease agreement that gave the terminus ante quem for the building of the east end of the house also indicated that a shed addition was to be attached to the repaired east room. The new tenants, Hugh Walker and John Goode, were given permission to erect a "Room or Shed" with measurements of 16'0" x 10'0" and it was to have an outside chimney. It can be argued that the 10' depth was dictated by the depth of the already built Geddy workshop lean-to, in which case both additions may have been part 36 of the same architectural plan. (See below for supporting evidence) The date of construction for the tenement shed could not be determined archaeologically, but it would seem probable that the appendage was standing by c.1761.

It is conjectured that sometime after the tenement shed was added, the space between that feature and the Geddy lean-to was filled. As noted previously (page 32), the original northeast corner of the lean-to had been keyed to facilitate its bonding to an easterly extension; a fact which would suggest that the entire back was planned as one and consequently its components would, no doubt, have been erected near the same time even though they were built independently. Therefore, it would seem that a certain amount of symmetry was brought to the north side of the house after James Geddy II purchased the property in 1760.

Unfortunately only a small portion of the brickwork between the tenement shed and the Geddy lean-to survived and due to the disturbance caused by the reconstruction of the east end of the extant house, it was not possible to determine the relationship between the space-filling foundation and the west wall of the tenement shed. Likewise, it was impossible to ascertain if the brickwork served as a base for another section of closed shed or whether it was a foundation for a stoop. The latter would seem more logical since it would 37 have allowed easy access to the outbuildings from the main house, the tenement shed, and the Geddy lean-to. The fact that a brick walkway (Path C, page 62) was found heading toward the space between the two northerly appendages (tenement shed and the Geddy lean-to) would seem to support the theory that a porch could have connected the closed sheds.

It should be recalled that Geddy, in the lease agreement of 1760, gave Walker and Goode "free Use of the necessary house and Well75" on Lot 161. Consequently it would seem that an exit onto the back of the property would have been considered essential and therefore would probably have been included in the construction of the tenement shed. Since an outside chimney was centered on that addition's north wall, little space remained for a doorway, but if one had been inserted into that side of the shed, no evidence of it survived. On the other hand, if the back additions had been planned as one, a porch, with three doors opening onto it, between the tenement shed and the Geddy lean-to would have not only provided the needed access to the outbuildings, but also would have preserved the symmetry of the north side of the structure.


As previously mentioned (page 17), James Geddy II, in a 1777 notice, stated that all the buildings on the 38 property had been recently constructed. If his words can be taken literally, the main house must have been rebuilt around c.1770. This was strongly supported, if not confirmed, by the archaeological evidence. Although the main building's (B1) south cellar wall was constructed without an exterior builder's trench, a 2" to 3" space existed between the bank and the wall face. The gap had been filled with ashes and black soil and a sherd of creamware, dating after 1770, was found low in the deposit. Hence, James Geddy II may have rebuilt the structure prior to offering the property for sale. However, it should be noted that the 1967 archaeological work produced no evidence of a change in the architectural plan of building from that believed to have been erected for Anne Geddy in c. 1750.


Structure D1 (Figure 5)

As previously mentioned, the curving path, which originated at the James Geddy I building's (A1) north door (page 24), followed a course which led toward the south entrance of another larger structure. The latter's foundations straddled Lots 161 and 162 and were probably erected by Samuel Cobbs, or at least by someone occupying both lots prior to James Geddy I's acquisition of the property. The building RR144605 Figure 5 39 initially may have been a kitchen-laundry complex; however, substantiating evidence was not found.

This dependency, supported by 9" foundations, measured approximately 30'2" x 16'0" and comprised two rooms on the ground floor. Evidence of the east room, extending some 16'6" onto Lot 162, had been found during the 1953 excavations of the Norton-Cole property. Fortunately, that archaeological investigation did not disturb the strata pertinent to the DI structure's evolution. The digging inside the room stopped when an early 19th century brick floor, presumably belonging to the dairy structure shown on the 1806 insurance plat,76 was uncovered.

The sloping subsoil made it necessary to fill areas before laying the original floor. This leveling deposit (E.R. 1385R) overlay a thin stratum of construction waste, i.e. mortar, brick flecks, etc. (Figure 6) The building's first clay floor (E.R. 1385P) overlay the graded surface.

The initial construction included the installation of a large, H-shaped chimney, whose central location enabled it to provide heat for both rooms (Figure 5). The main block of the chimney measured 9'6" x 8'0" and was constructed with orange, shell-mortared bricks averaging 8¾" x 4 3/8" x 2½" (Plate XII). The west fireplace had dimensions of 7'3" x 3'0" and its greatest heat concentration, discernible by the RR144606 Figure 6 40 position of the scorched clay (Figure 5), was confined to an oval in the center measuring 2'9" x 2'8".

The fact that the brick hearth in the west room had been relaid no fewer than three times, would seem to indicate the fireplace was used extensively. However, according to Mr. Paul Buchanan, if andirons had not been used a brick hearth would not have lasted more than two or three years with normal employment. Obviously, each time the hearth level was elevated, the floor was raised. Initially, (Figure 7) the room's deck was paved with brick, but later, the flooring was made of hard-packed clay; the latter being relaid at least twice. Other than the floor level and the hearth being elevated from time to time, no major change in the west room's physical appearance or utilization could be discerned archaeologically. However, this was not the case in the east room. (see page 41)

Before discussing the alterations to the east room, it should be noted that a wooden beam had been inserted horizontally into the lower floor (Plate XIII). Its purpose probably was to prevent the original hearth's bricks from shifting. If that was the case, the timber's west edge would mark the east end of the brick hearth. The fact that brick bats, apparently laid, were found up to 1'3" east of the beam could mean either that the timber RR144607 Figure 7 41 had been put in after the hearth bricks had started shifting or that the original flooring was of brick. The latter would seem more likely since the west room's first floor was of brick; (page 40) however, only that which is indicated on Figure 5 survived.

Another foundation, which apparently was part of the original construction plan, was found abutting the chimney on its north edge. The two surviving courses in the north/south wall were laid in sand rather than mortar. The purpose for such a foundation was not determined; however, it may be conjectured that it was part of a large oven, since a small section of a possibly corresponding wall was found in the west room (see Figure 5). If this interpretation is correct, there could have been no interior door connecting the two rooms.

The alterations to the east room began with the conversion of the open-hearthed fireplace to a forgelike foundation (Plate XIII). At the same time, the clay floor was relaid and this second pavement abutted the lower course of the in-filled fireplace. Small scraps of decayed brass were found pressed into this floor; a phenomenon which was also found in the building's west addition (page 44), in which brass-foundry work was proved to have been undertaken. Therefore, it could be conjectured that, prior to the sale of Lot 162 (1750), this east room was utilized as a foundry. Indeed, it would seem logical 42 that if a room being used for manufacturing purposes was sold, another would be constructed to take its place. The fact that a westerly extension, used for brass casting, was found during the 1967 excavations, suggests that the Geddy family did just that.

The new owner of Lot 162, and subsequent occupants of that property, apparently had no use for a forge. Therefore, it was partially dismantled leaving only the lower two courses of brick to serve as a hearth. This work having been accomplished, a third clay floor was laid so that the pavement would be elevated to the height of the hearth. It should be noted that a considerable amount of wear was present on the fore edges of the hearth's upper brick course (Plate XIII).

The north/south foundation, north of the chimney, (page 41) was being utilized during the existence of the forge. However, the above mentioned third clay floor sealed the brickwork's surviving courses, indicating that it was dismantled at the same time the forge was being torn down.

A thin layer of ash (E.R. 1385D) sealed the upper clay floor and overlying the cinders was found a thick stratum of destruction debris. The latter (E.R. 1385C) contained mortar, plaster, and brick fragments, along 43 with datable material indicating a deposition of c.1750-60, thereby suggesting a terminus post quem date for the demolition of the eastern part of the building. The stratum (E.R. 1321W), which indicated the destruction of the chimney, and the robber's trench for the west room's south wall (E.R. 1321S) contained datable artifacts which suggested a deposition of c. post 1750. Thus, both rooms may have been destroyed at the same time even though they were presumably not jointly owned.

Structure D2

Evidence of additions to the D1 building was found north and west of that structure. The remains of the northerly annex's northwest corner (Figure 5), west wall and sections of the north extremity were unearthed; however, datable material to indicate the construction period was not forthcoming. Brick bats were used in the foundation which extended the building's north/south dimension by 6'0".

Unfortunately, the addition's northeast corner was not located so it was not possible to determine if the extension spanned the length of the building. However, it seems possible that Well B (See Figure 18) cut through the east/west wall which, along with the disturbance caused by later construction work, could have eliminated all evidence of the northerly annex's northeast portion. It could be conjectured that the extension served as the access route between the east and west rooms, in which 44 case, it probably would have extended the length of the building.

Structure D3

As mentioned previously (page 42) a westerly addition to the DI outbuilding was located during the 1967 archaeological investigation (Figure 5). The extension's north/south dimension was 16'0" while its east/west measurement was 13'0". It was conjectured (pages 42-43) that this room was added when the eastern portion of building D1 was sold. Supporting evidence in the form of comparable elevations, helped reinforce the theory. The top of the second clay floor in the east room, which existed during the forge's utilization had an elevation of 80.88 while the bottom reading for the first floor in the west addition was 80.86. Thus, it would seem possible that the annex was erected around c.1750.

The first indication of the west extension's purpose was found while excavating in the northern portion of that room. Small droplets of brass or copper oxide were discovered on the floor and attached to the building's inner north wall. This would suggest that a crucible of molten metal had spilled against the wall and had sprayed out from it. Thus, it would seem that this part of the structure was used for founding operations. The numerous scraps of iron and brass trodden into the clay floor 45 substantiated this conjecture. However, irrefutable evidence of the annex's use as a foundry was discovered in the southeast portion of that room.

A solid brick foundation, measuring 2'6" x 2'2" was unearthed 2" north of the building's south wall (Plate XIV). Abutting the plinth to the north was a small forge with its iron grate in situ. The furnace had outside dimensions of 1'7" x 2' 4½" with an inner ash pit 10½" wide and 1' 7½" deep (Plate XV). The red bricks used in constructing the forge measured 8 3/8" x 4" x 2½" while those used in the plinth were orange and their average size was 8½" x 4" x 2½".

Wedged in the narrow space between the plinth and the shop's south wall (E.R. 1379L) was found a lead pattern for a harness buckle (Figure 5). This important find removed any doubt as to the forge's utilization. No doubt, sand casting flasks were prepared in the room and when the pattern was taken from the sand it was placed on the brick working plinth. At sometime during the remainder of the brass casting operation, the harness buckle pattern was accidentally raked off the table and, having fallen down a 2" wide crevice, was not retrieved.

As previously mentioned, the brass foundry had a dirt floor during the life of the small forge. However, the shop continued to be utilized after the furnace was dismantled, for a later brick floor was laid at the 46 elevation too high to afford access to the forge's ash pit (Plate XIV). A thin ash stratum (E.R. 1347G), beneath and predating the brick paving yielded artifacts dating c. post 1755. The furnace's ash channel bore artifacts dating in the same period, including a virtually complete wine bottle of c.1730. Thus, sometime after 1755, the forge was torn down and the brick floor laid. No indication of the shop's utilization, after the furnace's destruction, could be found. However, it appeared that a workbench or seat had stood against the west wall since the floor's reused bricks still retained scraps of mortar on their upper surfaces indicating that they had not been walked on continuously. The south end of the bench had been propped on bricks set on the floor.

It should be noted that two parallel N/S slots (Figure 5) were discovered in the north portion of the west extension. These shallow trenches, abutting the north wall and extending approximately 4'0" south of it, had cut through the shop's clay floor. The function of these slots could not be determined; however, it would seem possible that wooden beams, supporting a work bench, may have been placed in them.

The artifacts recovered from the fill indicated a deposition post c.1750. The eastern most trench (E.R. 1350F) contained iron and brassworking waste, along with a lead pattern for a sauce boat handle. The latter, the type 47 usually cast in silver, would suggest that silversmithing and brassfounding may have been undertaken at the same time on the Geddy property. Thus, the westerly addition may have been in existence while James Geddy, II, occupied Lot 161; however, it could be argued that if Samuel Galt leased a shop on the property around c.1750 the pattern could have been his.

At any rate, the brassworking shop was destroyed by c. 1770 since another building (page 52), overlaying the remains of the former's foundations, was constructed at that time. The fill, separating the bottom of the c.1770 outbuilding from the upper surface of the brassfounding shop's last brick floor, had an average thickness of 6", but inches of fill cannot indicate an accurate span of time, since a foot of dirt can be deposited by hand in a matter of a few minutes whereas the same depth could take nature several hundreds of years.

Structure E1 (Figure 8)

As stated on page 1, the 1930 archaeological endeavor exposed foundations believed to represent the remains of the early kitchen on Lot 161. The building was small, having measurements of about 12'0" x 16'0", and its walls were 9" thick. Foundations for a large, outside chimney were found at the eastern end of the building. The fireplace had dimensions of 4'6" x 10'0".

Structure E2

An addition to the kitchen was also RR144608 Figure 8 48 located in 1930. The northerly extension measured 16'0" x 8'6" and presumably was a lean-to, using the kitchen's north wall as its southern extremity. It could not be determined if the kitchen complex dated as early as James Geddy I's occupation of the property; however, it was surmised that the structure was torn down around 1770 when James Geddy II erected a second kitchen outbuilding.

Structure F (Figure 8)

As mentioned on page 1, a second kitchen (if that was its purpose), had been discovered during the 1930 archaeological work and its foundations re-examined in 1966. During the latter excavation, it was found that the later kitchen's remains rested on at least ten inches of gray fill (E.R. 985A). From this stratum were recovered numerous fragments of early creamware which gave the building a terminus post quem date of circa 1770.

The surviving brickwork indicated the dependency had an east/west measurement of 30'0" and north/south walls 24'0" in length. Portions of the building's foundations had been destroyed either by the 1930 excavations or by the reconstruction of the first kitchen. However, the 1930 archaeological report indicated that all exterior walls were bonded and thus were erected at the same time.

An interior east/west wall was found about 7'2" from 49 the building's northern extremity. This partition bonded to the outbuilding's east wall but only abutted the structure's western limit. Mrs. Peachy Rogers, who remembered the building, stated that it only had "two rooms on the ground floor.77" Thus, if Mrs. Rogers' memory was correct, it would seem that this east/west interior brickwork eventually served, not as a wall, but as support for a wooden floor.

The Frenchman's Map of 1782 (?) (Figure 9) shows only one building to the rear of the main house and its position was approximately that of the 30'0" x 24'0" structure. The dependency was believed to have been a kitchen-laundry complex.

Humphrey Harwood's ledger showed an entry made May 15, 1778, which indicated repairs were made to Geddy's kitchen, laundry, and dairy. The 1967 excavation unearthed foundations which could readily be those of the dairy (see page 52); however, no separate laundry structure was discovered. It could be conjectured that structure F served both as a kitchen and laundry through, at least, some of its existence. This type of composite structure would not be without precedents for, in Williamsburg, during the eighteenth century, many kitchens had a space for cleaning clothing. The closest example of a kitchen/laundry complex was found next door on the Norton-Cole property.

RR144609 Figure 9


Structure F's large, central chimney foundation was re-studied during the minimal archaeological work in 1966. Most of the brickwork remained intact although the hearth and any dating evidence from beneath it had been dug out in 1930. Colonial strata did survive east of the H-shaped eastern hearth and, cutting into the natural subsoil, was found a dog grave (Figure 8). The burial cavity (E.R. 988C) passed beneath, and so predated the south/west cheek of the chimney. Unfortunately, no dating evidence was obtained for either the interment or for the construction of the fireplace.

During the 1930 archaeological work, a small 9" wall was found in front of the western fireplace and Mr. Ragland conjectured at that time that it was "built to hold fill to support the hearth.78" The wooden flooring could well have required some kind of underhearth and support for the joists beside it since Mrs. Rogers recalled that the building had "wood floors, which were 'springy'.79" It need only be said here that when the remains of the small retaining wall were re-examined in 1966, no evidence was found to refute Mr. Ragland's theory.

Structure G (Figure 8)

During the 1967 excavation, evidence of an outbuilding was found north of the first kitchen's lean-to (E2). Only two corners of the pier-supported 51 unit survived (Plate XVI), but these indicated the building had a north/south measurement of 10"4". The bricks used in the piers were rich red in color with average dimensions of 8½" x 3 7/8" x 2 7/8".

The structure's utilization could not be determined archaeologically nor could it be ascertained if it dated as early as James Geddy I's occupancy of the property. However, the fact that it was built along the same westerly line as the early kitchen (El) would suggest that the two structures were contemporaneous. A brick rubble walkway (see page 63), running east/west between the G and E structures, would support the conjecture. The path's position, south of structure G, would also suggest that access to the building may have been on its south side.

Structure H (Figure 10)

A smokehouse was discovered 8'6" west of the reconstructed kitchen and 11'6" north of the extant well. The building's central firebox was intact, but all of the exterior walls had been robbed out except for a small section of the western extremity (Plate XVII). The structure measured approximately 7'1" x 8'2 1/8" and its firebox's size was 2'3" x 2'2". The artifacts from the ashes in the firebox (E.R. 1356E) included fragments of creamware and tobacco pipe fragments, all indicating that the structure was in use after c. 1770. A brick walkway's (F) northern extremity ended near the center of the smokehouse's 52 south wall. Thus, access to the structure must have been from the south.

Structure J (Figure 11)

The remains of a small outbuilding measuring approximately 10'0" x 10'11" were unearthed about 11'10" from the main house's northeast shed addition (C2). The small building was believed to have been the dairy which Humphrey Harwood repaired in 1778 (pages 20 and 49.)

Unfortunately, the structure's builder's trenches contained no datable material; however, it could be conjectured that the dependency was erected around c.1770 when James Geddy II was making the improvements to his property. At any rate, if the theory as to the small building's utilization was correct, the brickwork had to have been laid prior to 1778.

Privy (Figure 8)

Evidence of a "necessary house", having conjectured measurements of 5'6" x 5'0", was found approximately 12'2" north of the reconstructed kitchen. The privy's pit had an east/west measurement of 3'11" and a north/south dimension of 3'0" (Plate XVIII). Its fill (E.R. 1306K and N) contained artifacts dating circa 1780, thus suggesting a terminus post quem for the privy's abandonment.

The building's southeast pier remained in situ while only brick fragments marked the northeast corner's location. No trace of the other two piers could be found. However, on RR144610 Figure 10 - 18th Century Features of West Side of Lot 161 53 the assumption that the pit was near the center of the structure, the western extremity was estimated to be about 5'0" from that of the east.

A walkway (Path E), surviving as brick rubble and oyster shells (E.R. 1306L), was found curving outward from the east face of the privy and extending south-southwest. Hence, the location of the path would indicate an eastern access to the "necessary house". "It is interesting to note that the 'house of office' faced east thus providing a modicum of privacy for those found seated when the door was inadvertently opened.80"

Outdoor Furnace (Figure 10)

What were considered to be remains of a freestanding forge was found 3'6" southeast of the reconstructed kitchen. The furnace's substantial foundations, having 13" walls except for a 4" one on the west extremity, measured approximately 5'8" x 5'6" (Plate XIX). The fact that only a half-brick width was present in the west end would indicate the smithy worked from that direction.

The forge's ash channel was approximately 2'3" x 4'0" and, as would be expected, it was filled with layers of forge-fuel remains. Unfortunately, these ash strata contained few datable artifacts but those recovered only indicated the furnace was being used after mid-eighteenth century. The artifacts recovered from the south wall builder's trench (E.R. 1322E) suggested a construction 54 date of c. post 1760; however, since that feature cut through strata of the same date, the forge could have been built much later. At any rate, it was theorized that this furnace was being used during the Revolutionary War period, at which time a great deal of industrial activity was taking place on Lot 161.

has been pointed out by Mr. William deMatteo that a silversmith would have little use for an exterior forge. An iron or brass worker, on the other hand, could have used one exclusively. However, since only iron fragments were found within the surrounding ash strata, it was conjectured that the forge was used for gunsmithing or general blacksmithing.


Well A (Figure 10)

A well shaft, some 27'2" deep and approximately 5'0" in diameter, was discovered west of the newly reconstructed kitchen and north of the unearthed smokehouse foundations. The well's position would have also been west of the earlier range of buildings with which it probably was associated. It was conjectured that, Well A was the earliest of the three examined in 1967.

In 1750 when Anne Geddy sold Lot 162, she gave James Taylor one half of the well on Lot 161 along with perpetual access to it. Obviously the water supply was clearly on Lot 161 and since Well A was the only one found that was RR144611 Figure 11 - 18th Century Features of East Side of Lot 161 55 definitely on Lot 161 and was of an early enough date, Mrs. Geddy must have been referring to it.

The brick lining had been totally removed, no doubt, for use in a new well and the abandoned shaft was filled almost entirely with the clay from the new one. The artifacts recovered from the upper strata suggested that the well was not in use after c.1765. It should be noted that a fragment of a delftware bowl, found in the upper layer of Well A's infill (E.R. 1360B) (Figure 12), mended with another found at a depth of approximately 13'0" (E.R. 1340M) in a well (B) positioned on the present property line between Lots 161 and 162. Thus, both wells were being filled at the same time; however, this would not mean that both were dug contemporaneously.

Only two objects of any consequence were found in Well A's lower levels and these at a depth of approximately 24'0". Positioned along the western edge of the shaft was a wooden-handled adze and a badly decayed iron spade blade. Portions of the latter's wooden handle were also recovered and subsequently restored. Since the implements were found in an area that may have been behind the well's brick lining, it could be argued that the tools were lost by either the workman who dug the well or the man who salvaged the bricks, rather than the crew that filled the shaft.

Well B (Figure 11)

The foundations for the wellhead and the upper lining courses of Well B had been uncovered RR144612 Figure 12 - Well A 56 by Mr. James Knight in 1953 and subsequently recorded on the unfinished drawing of that year's excavation discoveries.81 The surviving brickwork was positioned southeast of the reconstructed kitchen and apparently had cut through the north wall of the brassfounding building's north addition (D2).

According to the 1953 architectural drawings, the well straddled the property line between Lots 161 and 162. Thus, it would seem that, if the lot line were correctly placed, the well was constructed when the two lots were jointly owned. This phenomenon did not occur between 1750 and 1782 and since the shaft was abandoned before the latter date (see page 58), it could be argued, in the absence of any other evidence, that the well dated earlier than 1750. However, there was other evidence and it did not support such a conclusion.

A single sherd from a Chinese porcelain saucer, found behind the brick lining at a depth of 25'3" (Figure 13), mended to a fragment found in a gray, ash-flecked clay layer (E.R. 1328R) north of the well. This last stratum contained datable material indicating a deposition post 1760. It would seem reasonable to suggest that the well was dug through that layer thus causing a fragment to drop down behind the lining. If this theory can be accepted, the water supply must have been first used after 1760. The fact that fragments of a "scratch blue" saltglaze tankard RR144613 Figure 13 - Well B 57 dating after c.1750-60 were found in the shaft's primary fill would support such a conjecture.

Hence, the well apparently did not straddle the property line and was constructed sometime after c.1760 on either Lot 161 or 162. It could be argued that the shaft was positioned on the former property; indeed, all of the archaeological evidence would point to that conclusion. The discarded rubbish, filling the well, included metallic slag, broken crucibles, watch glass fragments, and other items which could have been associated with the industrialized Lot 161. At least eleven ceramic fragments found in the well mended with other pieces recovered from post c.1760-70 features and/or strata on the Geddy property. These include the mend to the "scratch blue" tankard (see page 56) discovered in the well's primary fill. This many cross-mends would seem to more than suggest a relationship toward Lot 161. In addition, a mend was found between the delftware bowl [3788.E.R.1360 A-D-19B] recovered from the upper layers in Well A's fill and a stratum some 15'0" deep (E.R. 1340M) in the shaft of Well B. Therefore, it was deduced that when Well B was being filled the settlement in Well A's shaft necessitated its being topped up. Hence, if this theory is correct, both wells must have been on the same property and, since there is no question that Well A was on Lot 161, Well B must have also been on the Geddy property.


The abandonment of Well B was caused by the collapse of a portion of the north lining wall (Plate XX). The shaft was thereupon filled with trash, including datable material discarded no earlier than c. 1765. This initial deposit eventually settled and was topped up in the early 19th century. Dating for these conclusions was based on the following factors: (1) no creamware present in levels below 10'5" (Figure 13); (2) fragments of a clouded ware teapot, unlikely to have reached Williamsburg before 1760, scattered through all levels from 10'5" to 22' 5½"; (3) and pieces of "melon" teapot, decorated with glazes not invented until 1760, found in levels from 19'4" to 22' 5 1½".

The bottom of the well was reached at a depth of 29'0" below the modern grade and only eight brick courses survived intact. These were salvaged, along with the well's waterlogged wooden ring, for use in future exhibits. The shaft's primary deposit (E.R. 1340Z) consisted almost entirely of brickbats and dark brown clay; however, a cat skeleton, two musket balls, a marble, the already mentioned "scratch blue" tankard fragments, and a sherd from a small German stoneware jug were recovered from the bottom of the well. Beneath the primary fill was found a hard-packed bed of marl (E.R. 1341A).

It should be noted that, what was considered to be a barrel stand was discovered southeast of Well B. A large 59 piece of stone, measuring 1'4" x 1'3½" x 2½", had been laid in clay and numerous brickbats flanked it on three sides (Figure 11). If this stone and brick platform was associated with Well B and if previous conjectures concerning that well's ownership are correct, the present property line between Lots 161 and 162 may be at least 5'6" too far west.

Well C

The 1930-31 excavations of Lot 161 exposed the remains of a well (Figure 10), some 12'0" southwest of the kitchen-laundry complex (F1). The shaft was subsequently dug to a depth of 22 feet and it was recorded that the well "was filled with trash and earth" and "part of the bucket was found in it". Unfortunately these facts did not suggest an abandonment date, consequently, we must be content to accept the record's conclusion that the well "was filled in at some distant date.82" It should be noted, however, that an examination of the exterior brickwork in the wellhead disclosed that repairs had been made to the foundation during the 19th century. Thus, the well's abandonment apparently was much later than that of the two shafts excavated in 1967.

It could be argued that Well C was built while Well A was being stripped and that that occurred after Well B's lining collapsed. At any rate, a brick dust stratum (E.R. 1355P), which predated the construction of Wellhead C, contained artifacts of the 1755-60 period. However, 60 included in the objects found in a lower layer (E.R. 1355R) was a single sherd of creamware, which, if not an intrusive fragment, would suggest that the well's construction was sometime after c.1770. Even though the date for the digging of Well C could not be pin-pointed, it was conjectured, from the factors mentioned above, that this shaft was later than either of those (A and B) excavated in 1967 and that it probably was in existence during the latter years of James Geddy II's occupation of Lot 161.


Evidence of numerous paths and yard levels was found on Lot 161 in 1967 and each walkway can be found on the site's master plan (Figure 18).

Path A

As previously mentioned (pages 24 and 38), the remains of a curving brick walkway were uncovered in 1967 and it apparently had been constructed to connect the early main house (A1) with a dependency (DI-2). Much of the path's length had been destroyed, largely by the incursion of numerous modern utilities north of the house; however, the path's western extremity and a section south of the outbuilding survived. The elevation of the bottom of the west end of the walk was 79.46 while that of a portion some 24'0" northeast of the above point, was comparable at 79.55.

The fact that the path, whose average width was 3'6", 61 was utilized as a route between the two earliest buildings found on the site would suggest that the walkway was put down shortly after the initial layout of Lot 161. The stratum of sandy gray clay (E.R. 1377J), which predated the path, contained datable artifacts which would support such a conjecture. Among these were fragments of a wine bottle, a well-preserved latten rat-tailed spoon, pieces of delftware and a Silesian wine glass stem, all of which dated c.1720-1730.

Path B

The principal north/south route from the house to the back of the property was located some 2'0" west of the reconstructed second kitchen structure. The paving was not pursued to its northern limit; however, it was conjectured that the walk may have led to the stable (?) shown on the Frenchman's Map (Figure 9). Portions of the upper brick path had been located in 1930 and subsequently recorded on the archaeological map of those excavations.

The surface of the main walkway had been either repaired or relaid no fewer than four times (Figure 14). Initially the path was of marl with an average thickness of about 2" and width of 3'0". No artifacts were found in the firmly-packed stratum; however, the layer of gray clay (E.R. 1309V), which predated the marl stratum, contained material dating c.1740. Thus, the terminus post quem for the laying of the first north/south path was around 1740. Another walkway, with artifacts dating c.1755, overlay the marl which suggested RR144614 Figure 14 - N/S Section Showing Evolution of Path B

Section Figure 14

62 that the latter was not being utilized long after mid-century.

The second pavement (E.R. 1309R) was, no doubt, initially made of brick although all that survived was brick dust and occasional pieces of marl from the lower path. It would seem probable that this walkway existed throughout James Geddy II's occupation of Lot 161 since the stratum (E.R. 1309Q) which sealed the paving dated c.1840. The layer that sealed the second path was a combination of crushed shell and ashes and it served either as the third pavement or as a solid bed forth laying of the fourth walkway. The latter path was of brick and it was in existence after c.1840.

Path C

A small section of a brick walk was unearthed south of the D1-3 outbuilding. The main portion of the path apparently was extending toward that structure's west addition while a subsidiary pavement was advancing eastward, perhaps to the room adjoining the westerly extension. No doubt, the walks were connecting the main house (B) with the dependency (see page 37); however, modern utility trenches and reconstruction activity had removed all evidence of the path's southern extremity.

Unfortunately, the stratum of yellow clay (E.R. 1344L) which predated the paving contained no datable material. However, a layer of brown loam mixed with ashes and metallic slag (E.R. 1334K) abutted the path and the artifacts recovered suggested the walk was being utilized around 1750. It could be conjectured that the paving was laid at the same time 63 the post 1750 brassfoundry (D3, west addition to D1 structure) was constructed.

Path D (Figure 8)

As noted on page 51, a brick rubble walkway was found immediately south of the outbuilding (G) which suggested that the access to that structure may have been on its south side. The fact that the path was cut through by the construction of the c.1770 kitchen's (F) northwest section would seem to support the conjecture (page 51) that the pier-supported building (G) pre-dated the later kitchen (F) and possibly was contemporaneous with the early kitchen structure (El-2).

A small portion of the path's western extremity survived, and that section overlay the earliest north/south marl walkway (page 61). Thus, since the marl path was abandoned around c.1755, the brick rubble paving was laid sometime after that date. The latter contained fragments of white saltglaze and pieces of a late "scratch blue" bowl which would suggest that the walk was in use around 1765-70 or until the James Geddy II kitchen-laundry was built.

As the path neared the existing property line between Lots 161 and 162, it turned northward, presumably en route to the stable (?) shown on the Frenchman's Map detail (Figure 9). Even though much of the path was abandoned when the later kitchen (F) was built, the north/south portion continued in use and subsequently was repaired (see below).

Path E (Figure 8)

A walkway (E.R. 1307L), surviving as brick rubble and oyster shells, was found curving outward from the east face of the privy (page 53). This path was merely a relaying of the southeast portion of the above mentioned walkway and no doubt the repairs were made when the privy was built. The restored paving apparently terminated some 2'0" west of the c.1770 kitchen's northeast corner. Thus, the path's location not only indicated an eastern access to the "necessary house", but it also provided evidence for a doorway in the kitchen's north wall.

It would seem logical that the paving was abandoned around 1780 when the privy's pit was filled. However, the artifacts recovered from the walkway included a sherd of transfer printed white ware, a piece which could not date before 1820. Hence, if not an intrusive fragment, the presence of the sherd would suggest that the path continued in existence through the early part of the nineteenth century.

Path F (Figure 10)

The area north of the existing well apparently suffered considerably from erosion caused by rain shedding off the roof of the kitchen-laundry structure (F). Consequently, the brick walks and paving had been re-laid at least four times in that portion of the site. Only one path could be identified among the layers of brick and this ran north/south. The walkway's northern extremity 65 ended near the center of the smokehouse's (H) south wall (page 51). From that point, the pavement extended southward toward the extant Geddy House; however, due to modern disturbances, it was not possible to determine where, or if they met.

The north/south walkway had been relaid twice; however, the dating evidence would suggest that the life span of the path was relatively short. The initial paving was predated by a stratum of yellow sand and clay (E.R. 1355M) whose artifacts indicated a post 1770 terminus post quem date. The layer which sealed the upper brick walk contained material which suggested a deposition of c. post 1780. Hence, both paths were apparently constructed and abandoned within a ten-year span.

The first walkway was constructed almost entirely of well bricks. The fact that they showed little wear would indicate not only that the path was infrequently used but also that the upper brick paving was added for some reason other than the initial one's dilapidation. It could be conjectured that the erosion problem (page 64) contributed to the need for the repair.

Path G

The 1967 excavations produced evidence that numerous walkways had been laid between the main house's southwest portion and the Duke of Gloucester Street. The earlier paths may have been merely packed clay, however, due 66 to the difficulty in discerning a walk from a yard level when both are of clay, this theory could not be proved. At any rate, the first distinguishable paving (Figure 15) (E.R. 1367Y) was made of burnt shell and brick fragments. Artifacts recovered from the path, along with those from the stratum sealed by it, indicated that the walkway was being utilized after c.1760. Consequently, James Geddy, II may have been responsible for its existence.

Unfortunately, the yellow clay stratum (E.R. 1367T), which overlay the above mentioned path, was void of artifacts. Hence, it was not possible to determine an approximate abandonment date for the paving. However, a layer of gray clay (E.R. 1367S), which passed above the barren stratum, contained material suggesting a c.1820 deposition. Thus, the shell and brick pavement, laid around 1760, was no longer in use by 1820.

Subsequent paths were in existence during the nineteenth century. One made of burnt brick was laid after c.1820 and another thick marl walk was being used after c.1830. The most recent paving, discounting the Colonial Williamsburg brick one, was made of coal cinders sometime after c.1850.

Yard Levels

Apparently the appearance of Lot 161 during most of the eighteenth century was not as picturesque RR144615 Figure 15 - Section Q R Showing Various Walkway Levels S. of Extant Main Geddy House

Section QR

67 as one might have hoped. As noted on page 24, James Geddy, I's metallic slag wrapped around his main building and consequently was in full view of those passing by on Duke of Gloucester Street. The same situation existed near Palace Street during the Revolutionary War years except that the rubbish there was in far greater quantities (see page 79). Metallic waste was also encountered behind the house in the area surrounding the brassfoundry (D3). Some of these deposits, north of the main house, were of too late date to be James Geddy I's, and these were conjecturally attributed to the brothers, David and William.

Support for a portion of this last theory was found in a stratum of mixed ashes and clinker (E.R. 1327M), which layer spread over the ground northwest of the brassfounding shop (D3), and contained datable material of the period post 1750-55, including one of the most important finds recovered from the site. The object was a small cabinet or box latch, made of brass, with the maker's mark (DG) stamped on the back. The hook's presence in the industrial waste would seem to indicate that David Geddy was responsible for some of the metallic scraps and sprue discarded after c.1755. It should be noted that another brass latch, also marked DG, was recovered from the stratum (E.R. 1327L) overlaying the above mentioned metallic refuse.

All this evidence points to a substantial gunsmithing 68 and brassfounding operation, with its inevitable debris strewn about the property, from c.1740 to 1755, and possibly later. The work would appear to have ceased or to have been very considerably reduced by 1760 since the strata which were associated with James Geddy II did not contain indications of subsequent brassworking. Indeed, from the archaeological evidence, it would seem that after 1760 an attempt was made to give the property a more presentable appearance. This was achieved by laying new and repairing old walkways, constructing proper drains (page 72) and improving the yard work areas.

The first paving (E.R. 1355P), southwest of the second kitchen and east of path G (Figure 10), was in existence around c.1760—65. It survived only as brick dust, however, the initial construction was probably much more substantial. As mentioned on page 64, this area sustained considerable erosion damage and consequently the brick pavement was relaid at least four times from c.1760 to c.1780.

The section of yard, west of path G (Figure 10), apparently had never been paved with brick. However, a layer of oyster shells (E.R. 1348Z), presumably a yard level, had been spread there after c.1755-60. A later stratum of tightly-packed marl (E.R. 1355H) abutted the west edge of path G. Hence, during the walk's utilization (pages 64-65) the yard, west of it, was laid with marl.


During the existence of the marl level, the area south of the extant well was covered with brick rubble and oyster shells (E.R. 1368M). The artifacts, recovered from the latter deposit, included a fragment of delftware which crossmended with another found in a sandy wash layer (E.R. 1339H) southeast of the kitchen (F) structure. The presence of creamware in both strata would indicate a post 1770 date of deposition for each. The important crossmend suggested that when the area south of the extant well (C) was paved, the eastern portion of the property was not. However, a brick rubble spread (E.R. 1339G) sealed the sandy layer (E.R. 1339H) and thus, it would seem possible that the crossmending fragment may have been pressed into the lower level, in which case, the east and west parts of the property could have been paved contemporaneously, i.e., around 1770.

Additional paving (E.R. 1343A) was encountered near the center of Lot 161 (Figure 10), between the F kitchen and main structure. The burned orange brick overlay a stratum of brick dust, mortar and red ashes (E.R. 1343B). The latter's artifacts indicated a deposition of post c.1760-70 and thus suggested the terminus post quem for the pavement's construction. The datable fragments between the bricks indicated that the paving was not abandoned until sometime after c.1785.

The above archaeological evidence apparently indicates 70 that during the late eighteenth century, some type of paving existed between the east and west property lines and from the kitchen to some point southward. Unfortunately, due to modern utility and reconstruction disturbance, it was not possible to determine if the pavements extended to the main house; however, it could be argued that the logical southern limit was that building's northerly lean-to.

As noted on page 68, the property's appearance apparently was improved when James Geddy II acquired the land. However, the archaeological evidence would indicate that, during the Revolutionary War years, Lot 161 lapsed into something akin to the area's pre-1760 semblance. Large rubbish deposits were found immediately north of the main building's north wing (page 79), and a sizable pile of discarded iron gun parts, both civilian and military, was discovered west of the extant well (page 79). In addition to these pits, another large trash area (E.R. 13801 and K) was found crossing the west property line and extending toward Palace Street (Figure 17). The latter (page 78) contained industrial and household rubbish discarded after c. 1770. Hence, those passing the Geddy lot on Palace Street during the war years may have seen a flourishing industrial area, but not a well kept lawn or formal gardens.


Drain A (Figure 1)

The excavations, south of the 71 main building, unearthed a section of a north/south drain, which apparently was associated with the A1 structure. The bricks had been sealed by a stratum of brown sandy clay (E.R. 1359N) whose artifacts suggested a deposition after c.1740. Hence, the drain was probably abandoned before c.1750 and consequently was being utilized during James Geddy I's occupation of the property. The fact that the c.1750 main building seemingly cut through the brick-lined trough would support such a conjecture.

Drain B (Figure 16)

Another drain was discovered southwest of the outdoor forge and directly beneath a large paper mulberry tree. Unfortunately, root disturbance and subsequent construction trenches eliminated any evidence of the drain's origin. The fact that the drain had been cut through by a rubbish pit (E.R. 987M), whose artifacts dated after c.1750 would indicate the terminus ante quem for the construction of the brick gutter. It was theorized that the trough could have been associated with the outbuilding (DI) since the bricks were laid so that the water would flow north/northwest. No doubt, as the drain proceeded northward, its course changed in order to prevent the water from entering the early kitchen structure (El-2).

Drains C & D (Figure 17)

The digging in the western portion of Lot 161 revealed two brick drains which originally RR144616 Figure 16. - Excavated Features South of the F1 Kitchen Outbuilding 72 may have been connected. One of them began at a point close to the extant well (C) and extended westward toward the Palace Green. Apparently, the feature was contemporary with the changes that occurred on the property after c.1770. This assumption was based primarily on the fact that the artifacts found between the bricks (E.R. 1353H) and those recovered from the stratum (E.R. 1353N), which predated the drain's construction, included creamware sherds.

The east/west drain may have emptied into another unearthed outside the west property line. The latter, extending northeast to southwest, apparently decanted its water into Palace Street. Unfortunately, the area where the drains would have joined was disturbed by relatively modern post holes; however, the elevations of both channels could suggest a connection between them. The upper surface of the east/west drain's floor had an elevation of 79.82 as compared to a 79.60 reading on the corresponding part of the northeast to southwest trough. Hence, a 2.64 inch differential (approximately one brick course) existed in the drains' floor levels.

Ordinarily, this much variance might point to a disassociation between features; however, in this case, a relationship between these channels remains a possibility. The fact that no trace of mortar could be found on the upper surface of the east/west drain's one course walls would RR144617 Figure 17 - 18th Century Features uncovered outside lot 161's westerly property line along with a possibly related E/W drain 73 suggest that they were no higher originally. However, portions of the northeast to southwest drain's walls were constructed two courses high (Plate XXI). Thus, if the drains were contemporaneous, the east/west channel's floor abutted the lower wall course of the northeast to southwest trough and the former's wall abutted the upper brick's in the latter's southern edge (Figure 17 detail).

Another factor would suggest that the channels were being utilized simultaneously. Both had apparently been abandoned at the same time. The east/west drain had been filled with brown ashy loam (E.R. 1346C) whose recovered artifacts suggested a deposition of post c. 1825. The other trough was sealed by a stratum of dark brown soil (E.R. 1375C) which contained material dating after c. 1820. Hence, both drains were filled in around 1825 or later and consequently were probably used in conjunction with each other during the latter part of the eighteenth century and the first quarter of the nineteenth century.


Numerous post holes were found on Lot 161 during the 1967 excavations; however, their inter-relationships have not been totally ascertained due to the, as yet, incomplete study of the artifacts recovered from each feature. The absence of eighteenth century post holes on the eastern edge of the property could suggest that the lot 74 was not enclosed by a fence during the Geddy family's occupation. The limited digging outside the western boundary revealed three holes (Figure 17), running on a north/south line, which could have been part of the land's western property line fence. The holes had been dug and refilled sometime after c.1755; however, it was not possible to determine when the fence was abandoned since only one of the holes (E.R. 1375N) retained a recognizable post mold and it, unfortunately contained no datable artifacts.

A secondary fenceline (Figure 18), extending east/west, was found between the extant well (C) and the early kitchen structure (El-2). It was conjectured that this barrier may have joined the above mentioned north/south fence since the former's post holes contained artifacts dating in the same period (c. 1760) as those recovered from the latter's holes. Unfortunately, no crossmends were found to substantiate the theory, but it was apparent that the east/west fence was torn down around c. 1770.

The brick path (G) leading to the unearthed smokehouse foundations overlay the remains of the east/west barrier (Figure 18). Since the initial paving had been laid after c. 1770 (page 66), the secondary fence must have been dismantled prior to or as part of the c. 1770 changes which occurred on Lot 161. It would seem possible that the east/ 75 west barrier had originally turned northward and passed some 9'0" west of the first kitchen structure (E). This conjecture was based on the fact that no evidence of the fence was found north, south, or east of the post hole E.R. 1366Y (Figure 10). If that hole had been the position of a corner post and the barrier's route had changed to a northerly one, the lack of post holes north of E.R.1366Y could be explained readily. The construction of the c.1770 kitchen's west wall would have erased all evidence of the fence's return. If this theory can be accepted, it would support the c.1770 destruction date for the fence.

As mentioned on page 58, Well B had been abandoned after c.1765 when its north side collapsed. The break in the lining caused a subsidence of the natural clay north of the shaft. In order to prevent anyone from accidentally falling into the resulting depression or the well's shaft, a protective barrier seems to have been erected around the area. The encircling post holes (Figure 16) were spaced approximately 5'6" apart and contained artifacts dating after c.1755-60.

Sometime after c.1780-85, a north/south fence was erected north of the c.1770 kitchen. It apparently originated at the northwest corner of that structure and pursued a northerly course along the east edge of the main north/south path (B). The artifacts recovered from the stratum which 76 sealed the post holes (E.R. 1313K) indicated that the fence was not in existence after c.1820.


Large quantities of nineteenth and twentieth century domestic refuse were scattered all over the site; however, eighteenth century debris, both domestic and industrial, seemed to be just as plentiful and was far more informative. The trash, deposited during the Geddy family's occupation, was not only helpful in determining the household items in use, but the metallic waste added greatly to our knowledge of the crafts practiced on the site.

A rubbish pit (E.R. 1370C-E), probably filled by James Geddy I, was found north of the extant main building's north wing (Figure 18). The recovered artifacts, dating no later than c.1740, included brass and iron pieces; crucible fragments; ceramics such as dipped white saltglaze, delftware, and Chinese porcelain; and an intact wine bottle dating c.1730. Another pit (E.R. 1336H-J), filled by Geddy or someone who preceded him on the property, was discovered northeast of the earliest main building (A1). Unfortunately the area surrounding the refuse had been disturbed by recent reconstruction activity, but wine bottle fragments dating after c.1720 were retrieved from the surviving strata. (Figure 18)


The most rewarding trash hole, found on Lot 161, was partially excavated in 1966 and completed in 1967. It was located in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the reconstructed c.1770 kitchen (Figure 16) and its artifacts suggested a deposition of c.1755-60. The rubbish included fragments of delftware bowls and plates, chamber pots of white salt glaze and delft, a Staffordshire slipware dish, a rare lead-glass pitcher and 28 complete or restorable wine bottles.

The assemblage also contained crucible fragments, brass and iron scraps, metallic slag, iron gun parts and brass kettle pieces. This group probably represented waste products from the gunsmithing and brassfounding business carried on by David and William Geddy.

An oval hole (E.R. 987N) measuring approximately 3'7" x 1'3", was found at the west end of the above pit (Figure 16). It was filled with washed sand and a large quantity of charcoal, the latter probably intended for use in the craftsman's forge. From the same deposit came an unfinished casting for a brass trigger plate which demonstrated that such parts were actually being manufactured, rather than merely assembled at the Geddy site in the mid-eighteenth century.

Sometime after c.1750, a deep hole (E.R. 1362C) was dug north of the D1 outbuilding's west addition (Figure 16) 78 for the apparent purpose of disposing of a sizable quantity of odorous pine tar. The pitch-like material had originally been kept in a wooden tub and parts of that container were recovered. The pit also contained window and bottle glass fragments, pieces of a delftware drug pot and saucer, bits of a crucible, two cannon balls and a feather.

An extension of digging, across the existing westerly fenceline toward Palace Green, revealed a late eighteenth century brick drain (page 71) which had cut through the filling of a shallow but wide depression (Figure 17). The artifacts recovered from the apparently natural gully (E.R. 1380J) included metallic waste and important copper alloy objects which may date from the David and William Geddy brassworking era.

The brass items found in the gully's fill included an unfinished buckle, part of a fine watch key and, most important of all, an elaborate but unfinished spandrel for a bracket or tall case clock. It was in the shape of a crown supported by two cherubs whose legs extended into a scroll ornament. (A consideration of the spandrel and its meaning was published in Antiques, Volume XCV, No. 1, January 1969, p. 110.) The presence of such an object left no doubt that the workmen on the Geddy property were capable of casting fine brass pieces.

Unfortunately, no clue was found to help identify 79 the maker of the brass clock parts found on Lot 161. By 1767, James Geddy, Jr. advertised that he repaired clocks, but this would not necessarily mean that he cast his own brass pieces. His brothers, David and William, or some other metal worker could have been making the parts.

Apparently a substantial amount of gunsmithing and general blacksmithing activity was undertaken on the Geddy property during the period c. 1770-1780. A large but shallow rubbish deposit (E.R. 1346J and E.R. 1374K and L), discovered southwest of the extant well (Figure 18), contained evidence to support such a conjecture. The artifacts, mostly discarded iron objects, included broken padlocks and keys, spikes, bridle bit fragments, hinge pieces and numerous gun parts.

The presence of many different sizes and types of gunlocks in association with other non-military iron would seem to indicate that scrap metal was being stockpiled for use in making weapons and other related paraphernalia for the colonial soldiers during the Revolution. The fact that an early dog lock (c. 1640) was found in the pit along with other dog lock pieces would suggest that outmoded firearms were being brought to the Geddy property to be converted to the contemporary flint lock mechanism.

Another Revolutionary Period rubbish deposit (E.R. 1369D and E) was discovered between the existing main 80 building's north wing and the iron-waste filled pit discussed above (Figure 18). The refuse must have been deposited after June, 1775, since sherds from Lord Dunmore's Chinese porcelain dinner service were among the many recovered artifacts. Also included were numerous Dutch tobacco pipe fragments and plain French faience pieces, both of which are extremely rare in Williamsburg excavations. The presence of these Dutch and French items would support the pit's post 1775 date since, during the middle years of the Revolution, English goods were not available. It should be noted that the 1775 date is merely a terminus post quem for the deposition and, consequently, the refuse could have been discarded by the French soldiers who were in Williamsburg by September, 1781.


An archaeological investigation of a site often reveals architectural data unmentioned in extant documents. Unfortunately, the excavations can only expose that which has survived underground. Hence, the size and shape of a building may be determined and possibly an access route to it, but the number of windows or the slope of the roof obviously could not be ascertained archaeologically.

However, the recovered artifacts often give excellent clues to aid in reconstruction planning. For instance, almost 81 every site excavated in Williamsburg has produced evidence that at least some of the earlier buildings had casement type windows. The Geddy property was no exception since numerous "turned lead" fragments were recovered during the 1967 archaeological work. Many of these, from strata dating in the period c.1745-60, were found in the vicinity of the outbuildings D and E. Hence, it might be deduced that those structures initially were constructed with casement windows.

Fragments from at least four different blue and white delftware tiles were recovered from the Geddy property and these, from strata dating around the mid-eighteenth century, were found in areas immediately north and south of the main house. Thus, it could be conjectured that at least one mantle in the main structure was faced with these decorative tiles. Only one plain white piece was recovered and that from a modern hole. Evidence that manganese decorated tile was used on Lot 161 was also found; however, the fragments, belonging to at least five tiles of different ornamental design, were in contexts of from after 1775 to post 1820.

Eight pieces of clay roofing tile were retrieved from the Geddy site in 1967, all of which were the rectangular variety and orange in color. All but two of the eight fragments were found in strata dating c.1745-55 and were widely scattered throughout the site. The deposition date 82 could possibly indicate that the c. 1750 main house that Mrs. Geddy erected or the one which it replaced may have had a tile roof, but substantiating evidence was not forthcoming.

Only a minimal quantity of marble and stone was recovered from the Geddy property, and of these pieces two could have been utilized architecturally on Lot 161. Both were small, but they had edging similar to that which could have served as part of a mantel. One sizable fragment of shaped marble reused in Drain C, appeared to have been from a mantel, however, Mr. Buchanan believed it to be a base piece from a tombstone.

Many items of hardware were retrieved during the 1967 excavations, but a complete report on the better examples must be delayed until the objects can be properly treated in the laboratory. At this point it is enough to say that fragments of hinges, latches, pintles, locks and keys, along with many other iron objects which once were associated with the Lot 161 structures, were recovered.


The 1966 and 1967 finds are to be the subject of the fifth publication in Colonial Williamsburg's archaeological series and will also, no doubt, figure in later publications on crafts practiced in Williamsburg during the eighteenth 83 century. For these reasons only the most important objects or fragments thereof are mentioned below.

Industrial Aspects of Lot 161

Many crafts were practiced on the Geddy site from before 1738 to the last part of the eighteenth century. The 1967 excavations unearthed the discarded products of gunsmiths, locksmiths, brassfounders, silversmiths, clockmakers (or repairers), and cutlers. Of these, the brass founding operation provided the greatest amount of archaeological evidence.

It seems curious that so much brass waste was recovered from Lot 161 since it was a simple operation to remelt the metal. The fact remains that numerous unfinished objects, spoiled castings, channel sprue and unused brass from crucibles were retrieved. At least 16 unfinished or spoiled buckle castings were found along with an uncompleted trunk handle part, a copper multiple rivet casting and a hollow mask which may have been intended as a pistol butt ornament. As mentioned on page 67, two of the most important finished brass objects found on the property were cabinet latches with the initials DG stamped on their shanks.

The recovery of lead patterns used in the sand casting technique identified some of the types of items which were 84 being manufactured on Lot 161. These included a musket side plate, a trigger guard, a weight, two sizes of harness buckles, and two other objects which are, as yet, unidentified. It should be noted that an earlier excavation of the Norton-Cole property (Lot 162) produced a lead pattern in the form of a miniature ship's anchor. Another smaller lead anchor was found during the 1965 archaeological work at the Wetherburn's Tavern site. Unfortunately, the Research Department's staff has been unable to find documentation to suggest a purpose for the replicas.

Other unfinished brass objects were recovered in 1967; however, they were associated with crafts that would also utilize the casting operation. Two of these rough objects were trigger plates, one for a musket and another for a pistol. A decorative pistol side plate, with its sprue still attached, was found south of the main house (E.R. 1359M). Many gun locks and firearm parts, made of iron, were retrieved and these included a forged cock which had been partially shaped with a hammer but had not been finished. The recovered gun locks, dating from c.1640 through the late eighteenth century, had been completed so it could not be proved that any were made on the Geddy property. The recovery of two unfinished iron keys suggest that locksmithing was practiced on the site. 85 Evidence was found that the clockmaking or at least watch repairing trade was practiced on the Geddy property. Many watch glass fragments were recovered along with four watch keys, one of which was unfinished. As noted on page 78, an unfinished spandrel for a clock was discovered as well as another one which had been trimmed leaving only the face of a cherub. The completed clock pieces retrieved in 1967 included a gathering pallet, a gear wheel, and a clock rack. These last three items were identified by Mr. Joseph Grace who is presently the clockmaker for Colonial Williamsburg. Many grinding stone fragments were discovered on the Geddy site and these were believed to have been related to the cutlery work undertaken on the property in the mid-eighteenth century. The recovery of a piece of sliced bone and a partially cut down ivory tusk could suggest that the craftsmen were making, or at least repairing handles. However, these items may have been intended for inlay work on gun stocks or clock cases. The piece of ivory had been dropped vertically down a small hole (E.R. 1323J), whose diameter was 6" and depth 9", (Figure 16), apparently as a child's prank.

A small number of sword parts were found; but as most of them were finished pieces, it could not be determined if they had been manufactured on Lot 161. However, an unfinished quillon block for a small sword was recovered; and it is 86 reasonable to conclude that it was cast on the Geddy property. It should be noted that another uncompleted quillon block, undoubtedly from the same mold as the Geddy example, was discovered in 1930 during excavations in the vicinity of the Governor's Palace.*

The silversmithing operation on the site left few traces; however, one piece of waste silver was recovered (page 33). As mentioned on page 46, a lead pattern for a sauce boat handle was found (E.R. 1350F) and, since it was the type usually cast in silver, the discarded piece could have been associated with the silversmithing craft. The most important evidence of that trade came from the silty wash overlaying the brick paving north of Well C.

In that deposit** were found four silver teaspoons, and a once repaired tablespoon (E.R. 1352R) owned by James Geddy, II. The latter had been engraved with the initials I 1G2 E (James and Elizabeth Geddy). The twelve presumably indicated that the spoon was one of a set of twelve. Unfortunately, the tablespoon bore no maker's touch mark so it was not possible to determine whether it was of Geddy's own making. Of the teaspoon assemblage, three had 87 been stamped with the manufacturer's initials. Two (E.R. 1348Q) bore the initials IG (James Geddy II) while the other was stamped with the BH mark of an, as yet, unidentified silversmith. This last spoon was engraved with the owner's initials (RS), but his or her name has not been determined. The same deposit (E.R. 1352K) that produced the BH-made spoon contained another that was unmarked.

The recovery of the Geddy-made spoons was of utmost importance since it is now possible to identify objects with that mark as Geddy's. In fact, the find has already proved that a spoon in Colonial Williamsburg's archaeological collections was made by him. During the excavations at the Governor's Palace in 1930, a silver teaspoon was found bearing the maker's mark (IG) and engraved with initials attributed to Christopher and Anne Ayscough.83 The spoon's touchmark had led to the conjecture that it may have been made by Geddy; however, this could not be substantiated until 1967, at which time, a comparison of the touchmarks suggested beyond reasonable doubt that the Ayscough spoon was manufactured by Geddy.

The Domestic Remains

Many of the important ceramic finds have already been mentioned throughout the report. 88 The Geddy property yielded something in excess of 100,000 pottery sherds during the 1966 and 1967 excavations. Some were plain; however, most of them had been decorated with patterns common to the eighteenth century. The majority of plates, bowls, cups, and saucers found were of white salt-glazed stoneware; but a sizable quantity of delftware, Chinese porcelain and creamware items were recovered. Numerous wine glass fragments were retrieved, as were tankard sherds of delftware, German stoneware and saltglaze. The greater portions of pitchers of Jackfield, Nottingham, and "scratch blue" stoneware were also found.


The Geddy House

The structure (A1) located archaeologically on Lot 161 had conjectural measurements of 20'0" x 32'6". It was built prior to 1738 and possibly as early as 1718. A northerly addition had been attached and later a forge-like foundation had been inserted into the extension's east wall.

The building had been replaced around c.1750 by one whose foundation plan resembled that of the extant house. 89 The second structure (B1) originally was L-shaped with the main east/west block measuring 53'0" in length and 16'0" in width and having a contemporary north wing with an east/west measurement of 16'0"; and if its north wall was reconstructed on the original foundation line, the wing had a north/south length of 24'0". This building had a basement beneath its east/west section; however, when a northerly lean-to (B2) was added to the house, the cellar's bulkhead entrance had been shifted northward.

Sometime prior to 1760, an east room or tenement (C1) had been added to the main house. By 1761, a shed (C2) had been attached to that tenement which resulted in the architectural plan of the main structure changing from an L-shaped to a U-shaped complex. The space between the B2 northerly lean-to and the C2 tenement shed was subsequently filled either by a closed shed or a stoop.

It would seem possible that the main (B1) structure had been totally or partially rebuilt around 1770; however, the 1967 excavations produced no evidence of a change in the architectural plan of the c.1750 house. Apparently, although irrefutable dating indications were not found, the below ground facilities had been expanded around 1770. 90 A crudely constructed basement had been dug out within the area of the (B1) building's north wing. This project had been accomplished initially without underpinning the foundations which meant that the walls rested on a sloping bank of clay. Water seepage may have caused these banks to erode since, after the cellar was in use, two courses of underpinning were added to the east wall for increased support. The bulkhead for the basement had been positioned close to the north end of the wing's east wall. Underpinning found beneath the room next to the east tenement, indicated that a cellar had been added to that part of the structure and it was surmised that the work may have been performed c.1770.

The Outbuildings

The earliest dependency (D1) found on the Geddy property had two sizable rooms with a large H-shaped chimney between them. The building straddled the property line between Lots 161 and 162 and this factor caused changes to the structure in 1750 when the lots were no longer jointly owned. Originally the dependency could have served as a combination kitchen-laundry, however, the east room had been converted to a foundry with the insertion of a forge into that room's fireplace. When Lot 162 was 91 sold, the foundry operation was moved into a newly constructed western addition (D3) and the east room's forge was dismantled and its base made into an open hearth.

The 1930 excavations on Lot 161 had uncovered foundations (El) believed to have represented the remains of a kitchen. Evidence was also found that the structure had been extended northward (E2). During the 1967 work, a pier-supported building (G) was discovered north of the E2 remains; and since both structures had been erected along the same westerly line, it was surmised that both were contemporaneous. At any rate, the walls of the two buildings had been dismantled prior to c. 1770.

Four new outbuildings appeared on Lot 161 around c. 1770. The above mentioned E2 structure had been replaced by a much larger one (F) believed to have been a kitchen-laundry complex. A dairy (J) and smokehouse (H) were erected, along with a privy and possibly an outdoor forge and Well C. Hence, the archaeological work undertaken in 1967 would appear to substantiate that James Geddy II greatly improved his property during the period c. 1770-77.



^1. Herbert S. Ragland, Archaeological Report on Neale House Outbuildings, Block #19, House #11, C.W. Ms. Report, December, 1930.
^2. Thomas T. Waterman, Architectural Report, James Geddy (Neale) House, Block #19, Colonial Lot 161, Building 11, C.W. Ms. Report, October, 1932.
^3. Ibid., p. 29.
^4. Archaeology Survey of Foundations On Norton-Cole and Geddy Property, Block 19, Area A and B, Department of Architecture Map, July, 1953.
^5. I. Noël Hume, The James Geddy Site: An Interim Archaeological Report, C. W. Ms. Report, 1966.
^6. Harold B. Gill, Jr., Materials Relating to the History of Lots 161 and 162, C.W. Ms. Report, November, 1967.
^7. All historical data has been derived from Mr. Gill's compilation report unless otherwise noted. (see note 6).
^8. York County Records, Deeds 3, 1713-1729, p. 149.
^9. York County Deeds, Bonds 3, 1713-1729, pp. 150-151.
^10. Rutherford Goodwin, Williamsburg in Virginia, Richmond, 1959, p. 341.
^11. Ibid., p. 347.
^12. Ibid.
^13. York County Deeds, Bonds 3, 1713-1729, pp. 297-298.
^14. Ibid.
^15. York County Records, Deeds 4, 1729-1740, pp. 535-536.
^16. H. R. McIlwaine, ed., Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, Richmond, 1930, IV, p. 365.
^17. Ibid., p. 381.
^18. Times-Dispatch, Richmond, December 22, 1907.
^19. Virginia Gazette, July 8, 1737.
^20. Virginia Gazette, October 6, 1738.
^21. Ibid.
^22. Virginia Gazette, October 5, 1739.
^23. York County Records, Wills, Inventories, 19, 1740-1746, pp. 306-307.
^24. Ibid., p. 300.
^25. Ibid., pp. 321-323.
^26. Ibid.
^27. Ibid.
^28. Ibid.
^29. Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1742-1747, 1748-1749. R. McIlwaine, ed. (Richmond, 1909), p. 118.
^30. Ibid., p. 121.
^31. Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, Wilmer L. Hall, ed., Richmond, 1945, V, p. 174.
^32. Bruton Parish Register, 1662-1797, p. 5.
^33. George Barton Cutten, Silversmiths of Virginia, Richmond, 1952, p. 199.
^34. Virginia Gazette, August 8, 1751, 32 Hunter, ed.
^35. York County Records, Deeds 5, pp. 402-404.
^36. Ibid.
^37. Ibid.
^38. York County Records, Deeds 6, 1755-1763, pp. 276-278.
^39. Virginia Gazette, September 2, 1757.
^40. York County Records, Deeds 6, 1755-1763, pp. 288-290.
^41. Ibid.
^42. Ibid.
^43. Journal of the House of Burgesses, IX, p. 144.
^44. See note 39.
^45. Alexander Craig Account Book, 1761-1763, August 23, 1762.
^46. Ibid., June 13, 1763.
^47. Ibid., April 15, 1763.
^48. Ibid., May 18, 1763.
^49. Virginia Gazette (PD), August 1, 1766.
^50. Mr. Gill's compilation (see note 6) contains complete advertisements put into the Virginia Gazette by James Geddy, Jr.
^51. Preston Papers (LC), pt. 5, folder 515.
^52. Virginia Gazette (PD), July 18 and July 25, 1771.
^53. Virginia Gazette (PD), October 17, 1771.
^54. Virginia Gazette (PD), March 12, 1767.
^55. Virginia Gazette (PD), September 17, 1767.
^56. Virginia Gazette (PD), October 27, 1768.
^57. Virginia Gazette (PD), June 4, 1772.
^58. These references can be found in Mr. Gill's compilation (see note 6) and in that volume they are listed as items 266, 267, 268, 277, and 278.
^59. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XXIX, p. 61.
^60. Virginia Gazette, (P), May 2, 1777.
^61. Virginia Gazette (D), July 4, 1777.
^62. Virginia Gazette (D), November 14, 1777.
^63. Webb-Prentis Papers, May 19, 1778, and July 2, 1778.
^64. York County Records, Deeds 6, 1777-1791, pp. 48-49.
^65. York County Records, Wills and Inventories, 22, pp. 573-574.
^66. York County Records, Deeds 6, 1777-1791, p. 145.
^67. Item 465 in Mr. Gill's compilation (see note 6) gives complete listing of Lot 161 owners from 1782-1861.
^68. Humphrey Harwood Ledger B, p. 1.
^69. Ibid.
^70. Mary A. Stephenson, James Geddy House, Block 19, Colonial Lot 161, C.W. ms., September, 1965, Illustration #2.
^71. Tucker-Coleman Uncatalogued Ms., folder 19, CWI archives.
^72. See note 15.
^73. This substantial nineteenth century foundation was encountered; however, since the structure was still standing in 1930 when Colonial Williamsburg purchased the property and since the 1967 archaeology confirmed its post colonial date, the brickwork does not appear on the drawings and no further mention of it will be made. It should be noted that the foundation had been constructed of reused eighteenth century bricks with average dimensions of 8½" x 4¼" x 2 5/8".
^74. William Granger, The New Wonderful Museum and Extraordinary Magazine, Vol. II, London, 1804, p. 948.
^75. See note 40.
^76. Eleanor Graham, Norton House Research Report, Block 19, #13, Colonial Lot 162, C.W. ms., 1944, Illustration #4.
^77. Op. cit., Herbert S. Ragland, p. 2.
^78. Ibid., p. 3.
^79. Ibid., p. 4.
^80. Department of Archaeology Monthly Report for May, 1967, p. 2.
^81. See note 4.
^82. Op cit., Herbert S. Ragland, p. 4.
^83. Noël Hume, I., Here Lies Virginia, New York, 1963, p. 113, Fig. 33.
^*. See also Appendix IV and Plate XXII.
^* While this report was being prepared, still another parallel was discovered during rescue archaeological work at the Wray Site (Block 31, Area A).
^** The silty wash was found in three different areas and consequently, even though the silver spoons came from the same stratum, they were given three separate E.R. numbers.


Brick samples removed from the Geddy site.

Main Structure.
A1 building's north wall (E.R. 131OZ)9 1/8" x 3 7/8" x 2 5/8"orange
A2 northerly addition (E.R. 1384A)8½" x 3 7/8" x 2½"salmon
Forge foundation cutting through A21s east wall (E.R. 1384B)8¾" x 4¼" x 2½"orange
Northeast corner of B2's northerly lean-to (E.R. 131OX)8'4" x 4" x 3"salmon
North bulkhead beneath B2's northerly lean-to (E.R. 1310R)7 5/8" x 3¾" x 2 5/8"orange
Bulkhead in east wall of B1's northwest wing (E.R. 1310S)8 3/8" x 4" x 2 5/8"dark red
The Outbuildings.
D1 structure's west wall (E.R. 1384F)8½" x 4" x 2 3/8"orange
D1's central chimney (E.R. 1384J)8 5/8" x 4" x 2½"orange
D2's west wall (no sample)8½" x 4¼" x 2½"orange
D building's east room forge (E.R. 1384K)8¾" x 4" x 2½"orange
D3 structure's south wall (E.R. 1834D)8½" x 4" x 2½"orange
D3's small forge (E.R. 1384C)8¼" x 4" x 2½"orange
D3's working plinth (E.R. 1384E)8 3/8" x 3 7/8" x 2½"orange
Pier-supported G building (1310B)8¼" x 3 7/8" x 2 5/8;"orange
Smokehouse's (H) west wall (E.R. 1310Q)8 3/8" x 4 1/8 x 2 1/8"dark red
H building's firebox (E.R. 1310P)8 3/8" x 4 1/8" x 2¼"salmon
J structure's west wall (no sample)8½" x 4¼" x 2½"dark red
Privy's southeast pier (E.R. 1310A)8½" x 4¼" x 2 5/8"orange
Outdoor furnace (E.R. 1310F)8 3/8" x 4" x 2 3/8"orange
Well B
Wellhead bricks (E.R. 1310D)8¼" x 4" x 2 7/8"salmon
Well B's upper lining (E.R. 1310J)8¼" x (4" x 5½") x 2¾"burnt orange
Well B's lower lining (E.R. 1310M)8 5/8" x (53/8" x 4¼") x 2¾"orange
Barrel stand south/east of Well B (E.R. 1310H)8 5/8;" x 4 1/8" x 2 5/8"orange
Drain A (E.R. 1384G)8½" x 4" x 2 3/8"salmon
Drain B (E.R. 1310N)7" x (4 5/8" x 3 3/8") x 2½" 8 5/8" x 4 1/8" x 2 5/8"salmon orange
Drain C (E.R. 131OW)8½" x 4¼" x 2½"burnt orange
Drain D (E.R. 1384H)8 3/8" x 4" x 2½"dark red

Mortar samples removed from the Geddy site and preserved

Main Structure
A1 building's north wall (E.R. 131OZ)generally finely ground oystershellbuff
A2 northerly addition (E.R. 1384A)medium composition, some limestone and charcoalbuff to gray
Forge foundation cutting through A21s east wall (E.R. 1384B)fine but very hard, some limestone and charcoal fragmentsbuff
Northeast corner of B2's northerly lean-to (E.R. 131OX)coarse, containing oystershell and deep buffcharcoal
Keying section of B2's northerly lean-to (E.R. 1310K)medium composition, great deal of oyster- shellsgray
North bulkhead beneath B2's northerly lean-to (E.R. 1310R)generally finely ground oystershellbuff
Bulkhead in east wall of B1's northwest wing (E.R. 1310S)finely groundbuff to dark gray
The Outbuildings
D1 structure's south wall (E.R. 1384D)fairly coarse, large oystershell fragments, some limestone and charcoalgray
D1's central chimney (E.R. 1384J)medium composition, some oystershell, limestone and charcoalbuff
D building's east room forge great (E.R. 1384K)medium composition, deal of limestone and charcoalgray
D3's small forge (E.R. 1384C)medium composition, some oystershell, limestone and charcoalbuff
D3's working plinth (E.R. 1384E)fairly fine, hard, some limestone and small oystershell fragmentsdark buff
Pier-supported G building (E.R. 1310B)medium composition, some limestone, charcoal and small pebblesgray
Smokehouse's (H) west wall (E.R. 1310Q)coarse, some limestone and oystershellbuff
H building's firebox (E.R. 1310P)medium composition, limestone, charcoal, and oystershellgray
Privy's southeast pier (E.R. 1310A)fairly coarse, some oystershelllight to dark gray
Outdoor furnace (E.R. 1310F)fairly fine compositiongray
Well B
Wellhead bricks (E.R. 1310D)fairly fine composition, very little oystershellgray
Drain B (E.R. 1310N)fairly coarse, great deal of oystershell, some charcoalbuff
Drain C (E.R. 131OW)coarse, some oyster- shellbuff
Drain D (E.R. 1384H)medium composition, great deal of oyster- shellbuff


Summary of Excavation Register Numbers
Mentioned in the Text and Illustrations
Excavation Register
(E.R.) Number
Description of Feature or Stratum
985AGray flecked soil predating kitchen wall and sealed by C.W. disturbance, post c.1770.
987MTrash pit containing gray clay flecked with ashes, post c.1745-50.
987NOval shaped hole cutting through the western portion of the above pit, post c.1750.
988CGrave filled with gray clay and ashes and containing a dog skeleton, no datable artifacts, sealed beneath southeast cheek of chimney for Structure F.
1306KPrivy filled with dirty mixed clay and sealed by the 19th century black loam stratum E.R. 1306D, post c.1780.
1306LBrick and oyster shell path curving into privy from the east, post c.1820.
1309FLarge and deep hole, located in the SW corner of IIID3, filled with mixed yellow clay and sealed by the dark brown loam E.R. 1309D. This hole cut through the marl patch in that area but predated the brick paving along west edge of area, post c.1780.
1309NPost hole, located north of the hole E.R. 1309F, filled with mixed dark loam and cutting through the brick paving in the west section of IIID3, post c.1785.
1309QThin stratum of brown loam flecked with ashes immediately beneath latest brick path in west portion of IIID3, post c.1840.
1309RBrick dust and marl path, located in west portion of IIID3, sealed by the above stratum of brown loam to a thick layer of marl, post c.1755.
1309VHard-packed light brown loam beneath thick marl path (1309T) to natural, post c.1740.
1313K19th century ashy shell layer sealed by E.R. 1313F and located in west portion of area, post c.1820.
1313PSmall post hole, located in the west portion of area, filled with mixed gray loam and sealed by the ashy shell layer E.R. 1313K, post c.1760.
1321SRobber trench for the south wall of brass founding shop, post c.1740.
1321WLoose brown loam with brick and plaster (destruction layer for fireplace) sealing the chimney's south builder's trench, post c.1750.
1322BBuilder's trench for south wall of forge foundation, post c.1760.
1322MPost mold for 1322N, south of the forge, filled with loose black loam and beginning beneath the rich black loam E.R. 1322C, post c. 1750.
1322NPost hole, south of the forge, filled with mixed black and gray ashes and sealed by the brick rubble with brown loam E.R. 1322L, post c.
1326YPost hole, east of post hole E.R. 1326 filled with mixed brown clay and cutting through the brick rubble spread south of the well, post c.
1327MMixed ash fill northeast of brass- founding shop, sealed by the mixed clay and sand stratum E.R. 1327K, post c. 1750-55.
1328QDriven post hole, east of the forge, filled with loose black loam and sealed by the greenish-brown clay 1328H, no finds.
1328RThick stratum of gray loam with ash flecks beneath the brick rubble with light brown loam 1328J, post 1760.
1331FDark purple ashes and brown loam beneath the east/west timber line south of the 19th century east/west foundation, post c. 1820.
1334KBrown loam with black ash and slag beneath the cinder layer E.R. 1334H to black ashes, post c. 1750.
1334LYellow clay beneath brown loam E.R. 13—to black ash (confined to central port of area), no datable artifacts.
1335JThin stratum of gray ash and sandy wash beneath the destruction layer E.R. 1335E and overlay the forge and the rubble south of it, post
1336EBlack ash with slag beneath topsoil, east of 19th century wall to mixed gray clay, no datable artifacts.
1336HThick stratum of gray clay beneath the brick dust layer E.R. 1336G to brick rubble, post c.1720.
1336JBrick rubble spread, only in north portion of area, beneath the gray clay layer E.R. 1336H, post c.1720.
1338BDriven post hole, east of the well, filled with loose black loam.
1350FHole, northeast of hole E.R. 1324T, filled with gray loam and sealed by the ash layer E.R. 1350A, post c.1750.
1353BRectangular post hole, north of post hole E.R. 1346W, filled with loose brown loam and sealed by the dark brown loam E.R. 1346Z, post c.1750.
1353HDark loam between the bricks in the east/west drain, post c.1770.
1353NGray loam stratum beneath the ashy loam layer E.R. 1353M, post c.1770.
1355MMixed yellow sand and clay beneath the second brick pavement to a brick dust spread. (Represents the construction of the paving), post
1355PBrick dust spread beneath the yellow sand and clay layer E.R. 1355M to oyster shells (predates wellhead), post c.1755-60.
1355RThin stratum of gray clay with brick dust beneath the oyster shell spread E.R. 1355Q to gray clay with ash, post c.1750 with 1770 intervening.
1355WLarge post hole, west of the hole 1376G, filled with mixed gray and yellow clay and sealed by the gray clay with ash layer 1355V, post c.1750.
1355XLarge post hole, northwest of the hole 1355S, filled with mixed clay and brick fleck and sealed by the gray clay with ash layer E.R. 1355V, post c.1750.
1359NThin stratum of light brown sandy clay beneath the ash layer E.R. 1359M to a mortar spread, post c.1740.
1359XStratum of black ash beneath brown sandy clay E.R. 1359W, post c.1740.
1360BRed ashy fill beneath dark gray loam E.R. 1360A, post c.1765.
1362CLarge circular hole, in south portion of area, filled with gray ashy loam and cutting through the mixed ash area E.R. 1362B, post c.1750.
1366YLarge hole in southeast portion of are filled with mixed yellow and gray clay and cutting through the gray clay with ash layer E.R. 1366X, post c.1755.
1367SThin stratum of gray clay beneath the burned brick paving E.R. 1367Q to yellow clay, post c.1820.
1367TThick stratum of yellow clay beneath the above gray clay layer to a brick and shell path, no datable artifacts.
1367YBurnt shell and brick paving beneath the above gray clay layer to a brick and shell path, no datable artifacts.
1368MThick and trashy yard layer with brick rubble and oyster shells beneath the gray clay with ash layer E.R. 1368L, post c.1770.
1369DRubbish deposit with brick bats, purple ashes and shells beneath the purple ash layer E.R. 1369C (continued through E.R. 1370), post
1369ERubbish deposit south of east/west pip probably same as E.R. 1369D (continued through E.R. 1370), post c.1775.
1370CLarge and deep hole, in west portion area, filled with mixed ashy clay and sealed by the rubbish deposit E.R. 136 post c.1740.
1370DMixed yellow clay and ash fill at the top of the large pit sealed by the gray ashy loam E.R. 1369F, post c.1740.
1370EMixed gray clay with oyster shells beneath the above clay and ash fill, post c.1740.
1374KRubbish deposit filled with mixed brow loam and iron wash and sealed by the black loam E.R. 1374J, post c.1770.
1374LLarge depression with brick rubble and trash, on same level and possibly same as the rubbish deposit E.R. 1374K, post c.1770.
1375CDark brown loam, in the center of the southwest to northeast drain, which was dumped in after the drain was discontinued, post c.1820.
1375MRectangular post hole, south of the hole 1375E, filled with dirty yellow clay and sealed by the gray ashy loam E.R. 1375L, post c.1750.
1375NPost hole, in southeast corner of area, filled with mixed yellow clay and seal by the gray clay E.R. 1380J, post c.1755.
1376APost hole in southern portion of area filled with yellow clay and sealed by brick paving, post c.1750.
1376GSmall circular post hole, northeast of the large and deep post hole E.R. 1376 filled with loose gray clay and brick bats and sealed by the gray clay with ash E.R. 1355V, post c.1745.
1377JSandy gray clay beneath and predating brick paving north of the first Geddy building, post c.1725.
1379LNarrow trench between the forge's working area and the brass shop's south wall filled with loose dark loam, no datable artifacts.
1380JGray clay with brick and ash flecks beneath the brown loam layer E.R. 1380 post c.1770.
1380KLight brown clay with brick flecks beneath the gray clay layer E.R. 1380J to natural, post c.1750.
1385BFine yellow sand used for laying brick paving E.R. 1385A, post c.1800.
1385CThick destruction layer beneath the yellow sand E.R. 1385B to a mixed ash stratum., post c.1750-60.
1385DThin stratum of mixed purple ashes beneath the above destruction rubble a clay floor, post c.1760.
1385EUpper clay floor beneath the mixed ash stratum E.R. 1385D to another ash layer post c.1750.
1385FMixed ash stratum between upper clay floor (1385E) and the second clay paving, post c.1750.
1385GSecond clay flooring beneath the ash layer 1385F to mixed gray clay with ashes, post c.1740-45.
1385JHole (root disturbance?) in the northeast corner of the area, filled with mixed gray-clay and ashes and sealed by the yellow sand layer 1385B, modern.
1385MMixed ash stratum beneath the yellow clay 1385L and the gray clay with ash 1385H to a yellow clay
floor (?), post c.1745.
1385PThird yellow clay floor with brick heat beneath the mixed ash layer 1385M to dirty gray clay, colonial.
1385RDirty gray clay with brick and mortar beneath the third clay floor E.R. 1385 to a mortar spread with brick flecks, finds.
1385TThin mortar spread beneath the dirty 9 clay 1385R to gray sand clay, no finds.


Dating of Excavation Register groups
from the James Geddy Site
Vol. Page
984UnstratifiedXV 1
985TopsoilXV 1
985APost 1775XV 1
986TopsoilXV 1
986APost 1770XV 1
986BPost 1770XV 1
987TopsoilXV 2
987APost 1825XV 2
987BPost 1780XV 2
987CPost 1770XV 2
987DPost 1750XV 2
987EPost 1750XV 2
987FNo findsXV 2
987GPost 1785XV 3
987HPost 1750XV 3
987IPost 1770XV 3
987KPost 1825XV 3
987LPost 1775XV 3
987MPost 1755-1765XV 3
987NPost 1755XV 3
988TopsoilXV 4
988APost 1820XV 4
988BPost 1825XV 4
988CNo dating evidenceXV 4
988DPost 1755XV 4
988EPost 1755XV 4
989No findsXV 5
990TopsoilXV 5
990APost 1740XV 5
991TopsoilXV 5
991APost 1780XV 5
991BPost 1770XV 5
992TopsoilXV 6
992APost 1830XV 6
992BPost 1830XV 6
992CPost 1830XV 6
992DPost 1830XV 6
992EPost 1770XV 6
992FPost 1760XV 6
992GPost 1830XV 6
993Not used
994UnstratifiedXV 7
994AUnstratifiedXV 7
1300UnstratifiedXV 8
1300AUnstratifiedXV 8
1301TopsoilXV 9
1301APost 1830XV 9
1301BNo findsXV 9
1301CNo datable artifactsXV 10
1302TopsoilXV 11
1302APost 1850XV 11
1302BPost 1830XV 11
1302CNo datable artifactsXV 12
1303TopsoilXV 13
1303AModernXV 13
1303BNo findsXV 13
1303CNo findsXV 14
1303DNo findsXV 14
1303EPost 1850XV 15
1304TopsoilXV 16
1304ANo findsXV 16
1304BNo findsXV 16
1304CPost 1850XV 17
1304DNo datable artifactsXV 17
1305No findsXV 18
1305APost 1850XV 18
1306TopsoilXV 19
1306APost 1850XV 19
1306BModernXV 19
1306CModernXV 20
1306DModernXV 20
1306EPost 1830XV 20
1306FPost 1830XV 21
1306GPost 1790XV 22
1306HModernXV 22
1306IPost 1790XV 22
1306KPost 1755XV 23
1306LPost 1820XV 23
1306MPost 1790XV 24
1306NPost 1780XV 24
1306PPost 1740XV 24
1306QPost 1770XV 61
1306RPost 1780XV 61
1306SModernXV 61
1306TPost 1755XV 62
1306VPost 1730XV 62
1306WPost 1745XV 62
1307TopsoilXV 25
1307ANo datable artifactsXV 25
1307BModernXV 25
1307CModernXV 26
1307DPost 1770XV 26
1307EModernXV 26
1307FPost 1850XV 27
1307GModernXV 27
1307HPost 1750XV 27
1307JPost 1790XV 28
1307KModernXV 28
1307LPost 1760XV 47
1307MPost 1760XV 47
1308TopsoilXV 29
1308AModernXV 29
1308BNo findsXV 29
1309TopsoilXV 30
1309AModernXV 30
1309BPost 1830XV 30
1309CModernXV 31
1309DPost 1800XV 31
1309EPost 1745XV 31
1309FPost 1780XV 49
1309GPost 1830XV 49
1309HNo datable artifactsXV 49
1309IPost 1785XV 50
1309KNo datable artifactsXV 50
1309LColonialXV 50
1309MNo findsXV 51
1309NPost 1785XV 51
1309PPost 1830XV 51
1309QPost 1840XV 52
1309RPost 1755XV 52
1309SPost 1760XV 52
1309TNo findsXV 70
1309VPost 1740XV 70
1310ABrickXV 32
1310BBrickXV 32
1310CBrickXV 32
1310DBrickXV 32
1310EBrickXV 81
131OFBrickXV 81
131OGBrickXV 81
1310HBrickXV 81
1310IBrickXV 82
1310KMortarXV 82
1310LMortarXV 82
1310MBrickXV 82
131ONBrickXV 82
1310PBrickXV 83
1310QBrickXV 83
131ORBrickXV 83
1310SBrickXV 83
1310TBrickXV 83
1310VBrickXV 84
131OWBrickXV 84
131OXBrickXV 84
1310YBrickXV 84
131OZBrickXV 84
1311TopsoilXV 33
1311APost 1850XV 33
1311BModernXV 33
1311CPost 1830XV 34
1311DPost 1850XV 34
1311EModernXV 35
1311FModernXV 35
1311GPost 1850XV 36
1311HPost 1770XV 36
1311IPost 1770XV 36
1311KPost 1770XV 48
1311LNo findsXV 48
1312TopsoilXV 37
1312ANo findsXV 37
1312BPost 1850XV 37
1312CPost 1820XV 38
1312DPost 1780XV 38
1312EPost 1775XV 38
1312FPost 1785XV 71
1312GPost 1770 (or 1820)XV 71
1312HColonialXV 71
1313TopsoilXV 39
1313AModernXV 39
1313BPost 1830XV 39
1313CPost 1840XV 40
1313DPost 1820XV 40
1313EModernXV 40
1313FPost 1785XV 41
1313GModernXV 41
1313HPost 1820XV 41
1313IPost 1782XV 59
1313KPost 1820XV 59
1313LPost 1750XV 59
1313MPost 1750XV 60
1313NPost 1760XV 60
1313PPost 1760XV 60
1313QPost 1850XV 69
1313RPost 1760XV 69
1313SNo findsXV 69
1314TopsoilXV 42
1314APost 1850XV 42
1314BModernXV 42
1314CModernXV 43
1314DPost 1880XV 43
1314EModernXV 43
1314FModernXV 44
1314GPost 1840XV 44
1314HNo datable artifactsXV 44
1314JPost 1820XV 44
1314KPost 1790XV 46
1314LPost 1820XV 46
1314MPost 1820XV 46
1314NNo findsXV 46
1315TopsoilXV 45
1315AModernXV 45
1315BPost 1850XV 45
1316TopsoilXV 53
1316APost 1825XV 53
1316BModernXV 53
1316CPost 1782XV 53
1316DPost 1782XV 54
1316ENo findsXV 54
1316FNo findsXV 54
1317TopsoilXV 55
1317AModernXV 55
1317BModernXV 55
1317CModernXV 55
1317DPost 1820XV 56
1317EPost 1780XV 56
1318TopsoilXV 57
1318AModernXV 57
1318BModernXV 57
1318CPost 1820XV 57
1318DPost 1810XV 58
1318EPost 1755XV 58
1319TopsoilXV 63
1319AModernXV 63
1319BModernXV 63
1319CPost 1820XV 63
1319DPost 1770XV 64
1320TopsoilXV 65
1320APost 1820XV 65
1320BPost 1830XV 65
1320CPost 1840XV 66
1320DPost 1840XV 66
1320EPost 1760XV 66
1320FPost 1820XV 72
1320GPost 1790XV 72
1320HPost 1782XV 72
1320JPost 1880XV 73
1320KPost 1820XV 73
1320LColonialXV 73
1320MPost 1830XV 74
1320NPost 1820XV 74
1320PPost 1760XV 74
1320QColonialXV 78
1320RNo datable artifactsXV 78
1320SPost 1750XV 78
1320TPost 1750XV 79
1320VPost 1830XV 79
1320WPost 1750XV 79
1320XPost 1750XV 80
1320YNo findsXV 80
1320ZNo datable artifactsXV 80
1321TopsoilXV 67
1321AModernXV 67
1321BPost 1775XV 67
1321CPost 1770XV 68
1321DPost 1820XV 68
1321EPost 1750XV 68
1321FPost 1750XV 75
1321GPost 1825XV 75
1321HPost 1750XV 75
1321JPost 1785XV 76
1321KColonialXV 76
1321LPost 1750XV 76
1321MPost 1745XV 77
1321NPost 1740XV 77
1321PPost 1810XV 77
1321QNo findsXIX 37
1321RPost 1735XIX 37
1321SPost 1740XIX 37
1321TPost 1740XIX 38
1321VPost 1750XIX 38
1321WPost 1750XIX 38
1321XPost 1750XIX 39
1322TopsoilXVI 1
1322APost 1825XVI 1
1322BColonialXVI 1
1322CPost 1840XVI 2
1322DPost 1780XVI 2
1322EPost 1760XVI 2
1322FPost 1775XVI 3
1322GPost 1790XVI 3
1322HPost 1790XVI 3
1322JPost 1790XVI 53
1322KPost 1825XVI 53
1322LPost 1790XVI 53
1322MPost 1750XVI 54
1322NPost 1750XVI 54
1322PPost 1750XVI 54
1322QPost 1750XVI 55
1322RPost 1760XVI 55
1322SPost 1755XVI 55
1322TPost 1755XVI 78
1322VNo datable artifactsXVI 78
1322WPost 1750XVI 78
1322XPost 1750XVI 94
1322YPost 1750XVI 94
1322ZPost 1750XVI 94
1323TopsoilXVI 4
1323APost 1825XVI 4
1323BPost 1760XVI 4
1323CPost 1850XVI 5
1323DPost 1790XVI 5
1323EPost 1780XVI 5
1323FPost 1850XVI 6
1323GModernXVI 6
1323HPost 1760XVI 6
1323JPost 1760XVI 68
1323KPost 1770XVI 68
1323LPost 1750XVI 68
1323MPost 1750XVI 69
1323NPost 1815XVI 69
1323PPost 1750XVI 69
1323QPost 1740XVI 73
1323RPost 1770XVI 73
1323SPost 1750XVI 73
1323TPost 1750XVI 74
1323VPost 1750XVI 74
1323WPost 1750XVI 74
1323XPost 1740XVI 75
1323YNo datable artifactsXVI 75
1323ZPost 1770XVI 75
1324TopsoilXVI 7
1324AModernXVI 7
1324BPost 1820XVI 7
1324CModernXVI 8
1324DPost 1785XVI 8
1324EModernXVI 8
1324FNo datable artifactsXVI 9
1324GNo datable artifactsXVI 9
1324HPost 1820XVI 9
1324IPost 1750XVI 47
1324KPost 1760XVI 47
1324LPost 1770XVI 47
1324MPost 1750XVI 48
1324NModernXVI 48
1324PPost 1750XI 48
1324QPost 1740XVI 49
1324RPost 1785XVI 49
1324SPost 1760XVI 49
1324TPost 1825XVI 76
1324VPost 1760XVI 76
1324WPost 1750XVI 76
1325TopsoilXVI 10
1325AModernXVI 10
1325BPost 1820XVI 10
1326TopsoilXVI 12
1326APost 1850XVI 12
1326BPost 1770XVI 12
1326CPost 1850XVI 13
1326DPost 1850XVI 13
1326EPost 1765XVI 13
1326FPost 1775XVI 14
1326GPost 1775XVI 14
1326HPost 1750XVI 14
1326I19th centuryXVI 34
1326KColonialXVI 34
1326LPost 1825XVI 34
1326MPost 1825XVI 35
1326NPost 1785XVI 35
1326PPost 1785XVI 35
1326QPost 1750XVI 36
1326RPost 1770XVI 36
1326SPost 1745XVI 36
1326TPost 1770XVI 37
1326VPost 1830XVI 37
1326WPost 1755XVI 37
1326XNo datable artifactsXVI 72
1326YPost 1730XVI 72
1326ZColonialXVI 72
1327TopsoilXVI 15
1327APost 1790XVI 15
1327BPost 1815XVI 15
1327CPost 1790XVI 16
1327DPost 1780XVI 16
1327EPost 1780XVI 16
1327FPost 1780XVI 17
1327GPost 1820XVI 17
1327HModernXVI 17
1327JModernXVI 18
1327KPost 1750XVI 18
1327LPost 1770XVI 18
1327MPost 1755XVI 19
1327NPost 1785XVI 19
1327PPost 1780XVI 19
1327QPost 1775XVI 20
1327RPost 1770XVI 20
1327SPost 1770XVI 20
1327TPost 1750XVI 21
1327VPost 1820XVI 21
1327WPost 1760XVI 21
1327XPost 1770XVI 79
1327YPost 1780XVI 79
1327ZPost 1785XVI 79
1328TopsoilXVI 22
1328APost 1785XVI 22
1328BPost 1820XVI 22
1328CPost 1840XVI 23
1328DPost 1760XVI 23
132BEPost 1770XVI 23
1328FPost 1820XVI 24
1328GColonialXVI 24
1328HPost 1750XVI 24
1328IPost 1770XVI 44
1328KPost 1762XVI 44
1328LPost 1760XVI 44
1328MPost 1760XVI 45
1328NColonialXVI 45
1328PPost 1760XVI 45
1328QNo findsXVI 46
1328RPost 1760XVI 46
1328SPost 1750XVI 46
1328TPost 1770XVI 80
1328VPost 1770XVI 80
1329TopsoilXVI 25
1329APost 1815XVI 25
1329BPost 1775XVI 25
1329CPost 1770XVI 26
1329DPost 1770XVI 26
1329EPost 1766XVI 26
1329FPost 1750XVI 27
1329GPost 1750XVI 27
1329HPost 1730XVI 27
1329IPost 1750XVI 43
1329KPost 1745XVI 43
1329LPost 1740XVI 43
1329MNo datable artifactsXVI 61
1329NPost 1740XVI 61
1330TopsoilXVI 28
1330ANo findsXVI 28
1330BPost 1840XVI 28
1330CPost 1840XVI 29
1330DPost 1840XVI 29
1330EPost 1840XVI 29
1330FPost 1780XVI 30
1330GPost 1775XVI 30
1330HPost 1755XVI 30
1330JPost 1775XVI 62
1330KColonialXVI 62
1330LPost 1830XVI 62
1330MPost 1750XVI 63
1330NPost 1750XVI 63
1330PPost 1745XVI 63
1330QPost 1745XVI 64
1330RPost 1745XVI 64
1330SPost 1740XVI 64
1330TPost 1740XVI 82
1330VPost 1740XVI 82
1330WPost 1745XVI 82
1330XPost 1740XVI 83
1330YPost 1750XVI 83
1331TopsoilXVI 31
1331APost 1810XVI 31
1331BModernXVI 31
1331CPost 1800XVI 32
1331DPost 1800XVI 32
1331EPost 1810XVI 32
1331FPost 1820XVI 33
1331GPost 1750XVI 33
1331HModernXVI 33
1331JNo datable artifactsXVI 81
1331KModernXVI 81
1331LPost 1830XVI 81
1331MNo findsXVI 88
1331NPost 1750XVI 88
1331PPost 1760XVI 88
1331QPost 1750XVIII 36
1331RPost 1750XVIII 36
1331SPost 1740XVIII 36
1331TPost 1730XVIII 37
1331VColonialXVIII 37
1331WPost 1750XVIII 37
1331XNo findsXVIII 38
1331YPost 1730XVIII 38
1331ZPost 1750XVIII 38
1332TopsoilXVI 38
1332APost 1850XVI 38
1332BPost 1840XVI 38
1332CPost 1780XVI 39
1332DPost 1760XVI 39
1332EPost 1760XVI 39
1332FPost 1760XVI 40
1332GPost 1790XVI 40
1332HPost 1785XVI 40
1332JPost 1760XVIII 6
1332KPost 1740XVIII 6
1332LPost 1740XVIII 6
1332MPost 1740XVIII 7
1332NPost 1740XVIII 7
1332PPost 1735XVIII 7
1332QPost 1740XVIII 8
1332RPost 1740XVIII 8
1332SPost 1760XVIII 8
1332TPost 1750XVIII 9
1332VPost 1750XVIII 9
1332WPost 1760XVIII 9
1332XColonialXVIII 10
1332YPost 1750XVIII 10
1332ZPost 1750XVIII 10
1333TopsoilXVI 41
1333ANo datable artifactsXVI 41
1333B2nd¼ C18XVI 41
1334TopsoilXVI 50
1334APost 1755XVI 50
1334BColonialXVI 50
1334CPost 1780XVI 51
1334DPost 1810XVI 51
1334EPost 1750XVI 51
1334FPost 1750XVI 52
1334GPost 1760XVI 52
1334HNo findsXVI 52
1334JPost 1750XVIII 3
1334KPost 1750XVIII 3
1334LNo datable artifactsXVIII 3
1334MNo datable artifactsXVIII 4
1334NNo datable artifactsXVIII 4
1334PPost 1740XVIII 4
1334QPost 1745XVIII 5
1334RPost 1745XVIII 5
1334SPost 1745XVIII 5
1334TPost 1740XVIII 14
1334VNo findsXVIII 14
1335TopsoilXVI 56
1335ANo datable artifactsXVI 56
1335BPost 1790XVI 56
1335CPost 1825XVI 57
1335DPost 1820XVI 57
1335EPost 1750XVI 57
1335FPost 1825XVI 58
1335GPost 1825XVI 58
1335HPost 1780XVI 58
1335IPost 1750XVI 70
1335KPost 1760XVI 70
1335LNo datable artifactsXVI 70
1335MPost 1750XVI 71
1335NPost 1750XVI 71
1335PPost 1750XVI 71
1335QPost 1750XVI 89
1335RPost 1820XVI 89
1335SC18XVI 90
1335TPost 1770XVI 90
1335VPost 1750XVI 90
1335WPost 1750XVI 90
1335XPost 1745XVII 60
1335YPost 1750XVII 60
1335ZNo datable artifactsXVII 60
1336TopsoilXVI 59
1336APost 1840XVI 59
1336BPost 1840XVI 59
1336CPost 1755XVI 60
1336DPost 1760XVI 60
1336ENo datable artifactsXVI 60
1336FNo findsXIX 9
1336GPost 1820XIX 9
1336HPost 1790XIX 9
1336IPost 1720XIX 10
1337TopsoilXVI 65
1337APost 1830XVI 65
1337BPost 1810XVI 65
1337CColonialXVI 66
1337DPost 1785XVI 66
1337EPost 1785XVI 66
1337FPost 1750XVI 67
1337GNo datable artifactsXVI 67
1337HPost 1760XVI 67
13371Post 1760XVI 91
1337KPost 1770XVI 91
1337LPost 1755XVI 91
1337MPost 1755XVI 92
1337NPost 1755XVI 92
1337PPost 1750XVI 92
1337QPost 1760XVI 93
1337RNo datable artifactsXVI 93
1337SPost 1760XVI 93
1337TPost 1750XVIII 1
1337VPost 1750XVIII 1
1337WPost 1770XVIII 1
1337XPost 1740XVIII 2
1337YPost 1750XVIII 2
1337ZNo datable artifactsXVIII 2
1338Not usedXVI 84
1338APost 1780XVI 84
1338BNo findsXVI 84
1338CPost 1790XVI 85
1338DPost 1750XVI 85
1338EPost 1795XVI 85
1338FPost 1750XVI 86
1338GPost 1750XVI 86
1338HPost 1750XVI 86
1338JPost 1750XVI 87
1339TopsoilXVII 1
1339APost 1840XVII 1
1339BPost 1750XVII 1
1339CPost 1750XVII 2
1339DPost 1770XVII 2
1339EPost 1760XVII 2
1339FNo datable artifactsXVII 3
1339GPost 1785XVII 3
1339HPost 1830XVII 3
1339JPost 1756XVII 13
1339KPost 1750XVII 13
1339LPost 1760XVII 13
1339MNo datable artifactsXVII 14
1339NPost 1740XVII 14
1339PPost 1750XVII 14
1339QNo findsXVII 17
1339RPost 1755XVII 17
1340Not usedXVII 4
1340APost 1740XVII 4
1340BPost 1842XVII 4
1340CPost 1780XVII 5
1340DPost 1770XVII 5
1340EPost 1770XVII 5
1340FPost 1760XVII 6
1340GPost 1760XVII 6
1340HNo datable artifactsXVII 6
1340IPost 1755XVII 7
1340KPost 1755XVII 7
1340LPost 1755XVII 7
1340MPost 1755XVII 8
1340NPost 1755XVII 8
1340PPost 1755XVII 8
1340QPost 1755XVII 9
1340RPost 1762XVII 9
1340SPost 1762XVII 9
1340TPost 1750XVII 10
1340VPost 1762XVII 10
1340WPost 1750XVII 10
1340XPost 1750XVII 11
1340YPost 1750XVII 11
1340ZPost 1750XVII 11
1341Not usedXVII 12
1341APost 1750XVII 12
1342TopsoilXVII 15
1342APost 1820XVII 15
1342BPost 1820XVII 15
1342CPost 1820XVII 16
1342DPost 1850XVII 16
1342EPost 1820XVII 16
1343Not usedXVII 18
1343APost 1785XVII 18
1343BPost 1770XVII 18
1343CPost 1770XVII 19
1343DPost 1770XVII 19
1343EPost 1750XVII 19
1343FNo findsXVII 20
1343GPost 1750XVII 20
1343HPost 1750XVII 20
1343JPost 1745XVII 30
1343KPost 1770XVII 30
1343LPost 1750XVII 30
1343MPost 1750XVII 31
1344Not usedXVII 21
1344APost 1765XVII 21
1344BPost 1770XVII 21
1344CPost 1770XVII 22
1344DPost 1750XVII 22
1344EPost 1770XVII 22
1344FPost 1820XVII 23
1345No findsXVII 24
1345APost 1840XVII 24
1345BPost 1800XVII 24
1345CPost 1790XVII 25
1345DPost 1760XVII 25
1345EModernXVII 25
1345FNo datable artifactsXVII 26
1345GColonialXVII 26
1345HPost 1745XVII 26
1345IPost 1730XVII 51
1345KPost 1785XVII 51
1345LPost 1760XVII 51
1346TopsoilXVII 27
1346APost 1825XVII 27
1346BPost 1810XVII 27
1346CPost 1825XVII 28
1346DPost 1750XVII 28
1346EPost 1830XVII 28
1346FPost 1770XVII 29
1346GPost 1760XVII 29
1346HPost 1790XVII 29
1346IPost 1780XVII 33
1346KPost 1840XVII 33
1346LPost 1830XVII 33
1346MPost 1825XVII 34
1346NPost 1760XVII 34
1346PPost 1820XVII 34
1346QNo findsXVII 35
1346RPost 1750XVII 35
1346SPost 1760XVII 35
1346TPost 1785XVII 36
1346VPost 1780XVII 36
1346WPost 1775XVII 36
1346XPost 1775XVII 41
1346YPost 1775XVII 41
1346ZPost 1785XVII 41
1347Not usedXVII 37
1347APost 1750XVII 37
1347BPost 1750XVII 37
1347CPost 1750XVII 38
1347DPost 1745XVII 38
1347EPost 1820XVII 38
1347FPost 1780XVII 39
1347GPost 1755XVII 39
1347HPost 1740XVII 39
1347JPost 1760XVII 40
1347KPost 1750XVII 41
1347LPost 1750XVII 41
1347MPost 1740XVII 52
1347NPost 1730XVII 52
1347PPost 1745XVII 52
1347QPost 1730XVII 63
1347RNo datable artifactsXVII 63
1347SNo findsXVII 63
1347TNo datable artifactsXIX 40
1347VNo datable artifactsXIX 40
1347WPost 1740XIX 40
1347XPost 1740XIX 41
1347YPost 1740XIX 41
1347ZPost 1745XIX 41
1348TopsoilXVII 42
1348APost 1830XVII 42
1348BPost 1825XVII 42
1348CPost 1820XVII 43
1348DPost 1830XVII 43
134BEPost 1785XVII 43
1348FNo findsXVII 44
1348GPost 1760XVII 44
1348HPost 1760XVII 44
1348IPost 1830XVII 45
1348KNo datable artifactsXVII 45
1348LNo datable artifactsXVII 45
1348MPost 1850XVII 46
1348NPost 1840XVII 46
1348PPost 1790XVII 46
1348QPost 1780XVII 47
1348RPost 1785XVII 47
1348SPost 1780XVII 47
1348TPost 1775XVII 73
1348VPost 1755XVII 73
1348WPost 1775XVII 73
1348XPost 1755XVII 74
1348YPost 1755XVII 74
1348ZPost 1755XVII 74
1349TopsoilXVII 48
1349APost 1850XVII 48
1349BPost 1850XVII 48
1349CPost 1840XVII 49
1349DPost 1825XVII 49
1349EPost 1820XVII 49
1349FPost 1780XVII 50
1349G(see ER1349Q)XVII 50
1349HPost 1760XVII 50
1349IPost 1780XVII 61
1349KPost 1740XVII 61
1349LPost 1745XVII 61
1349MPost 1770XVII 62
1349NNo findsXVII 62
1349PPost 1765XVII 62
1349QPost 1770XIX 68
1349RPost 1770XIX 68
1349SPost 1810XIX 68
1349TPost 1750XIX 69
1349VPost 1780XIX 69
1349WPost 1815XIX 69
1350Not usedXVII 53
1350APost 1780XVII 53
1350BPost 1750XVII 53
1350CNot usedXVII 54
1350DPost 1750XVII 54
1350ENo datable artifactsXVII 54
1350FPost 1750XVII 55
1350GPost 1745XVII 55
1350HPost 1740XVII 55
13501No findsXVII 56
1350KPost 1750XVII 56
1350LPost 1750XVII 56
1350MPost 1750XIX 12
1350NPost 1750XIX 12
1350PPost 1720XIX 12
1350QPost 1750XIX 13
1350RPost 1750XIX 13
1350SPost 1730XIX 13
1351TopsoilXVII 57
1351AColonialXVII 57
1351BPost 1825XVII 57
1351CPost 1780XVII 58
1351DPost 1830XVII 58
1351EPost 1825XVII 58
1351FPost 1820XVII 59
1351GPost 1785XVII 59
1351HPost 1750XVII 59
1351IPost 1750XVII 75
1351KNo datable artifactsXVII 75
1351LPost 1830XVII 75
1351MPost 1830XVII 76
1351NPost 1750XVII 76
1352TopsoilXVII 64
1352APost 1850XVII 64
1352BPost 1825XVII 64
1352CPost 1825XVII 65
1352DPost 1825XVII 65
1352EPost 1775XVII 65
1352FPost 1790XVII 66
1352GPost 1840XVII 66
1352HPost 1880XVII 66
1352JPost 1770XVII 77
1352KPost 1785XVII 77
1352LPost 1790XVII 77
1352MPost 1785XVII 78
1352NPost 1810XVII 78
1352PPost 1790XVII 78
1352QPost 1790XVII 79
1352RPost 1770XVII 79
1352SPost 1770XVII 79
1352TPost 1770XVII 80
1352VPost 1770XVII 80
1352WPost 1755XVII 80
1352XPost 1815XVII 87
1352YPost 1782XVII 87
1352ZPost 1750XVII 87
1353Not usedXVII 67
1353APost 1815XVII 67
1353BPost 1810XVII 67
1353CPost 1750XVII 68
1353DPost 1785XVII 68
1353EPost 1760XVII 68
1353FPost 1770XVII 69
1353GPost 1815XVII 69
1353HPost 1770XVII 69
1353JPost 1750XVII 83
1353KPost 1760XVII 83
1353LPost 1755XVII 83
1353MPost 1810XVII 84
1353NPost 1770XVII 84
1353PPost 1750XVII 84
1353QPost 1750XVII 85
1353RPost 1770XVII 85
1353SPost 1770XVII 85
1353TPost 1760XVII 86
1353VPost 1750XVII 86
1353WPost 1750XVII 86
1353XPost 1750XVII 90
1353YNo datable artifactsXVII 90
1354Not usedXVII 70
1354APost 1780XVII 70
1354BPost 1780XVII 70
1354CPost 1760XVII 71
1354DPost 1760XVII 71
1354EPost 1750XVII 71
1354FPost 1750XVII 72
1354GPost 1760XVII 72
1354HPost 1740XVII 73
1354IPost 1750XVII 81
1354KPost 1750XVII 81
1354LNo datable artifactsXVII 81
1354MPost 1750XVII 82
1354NNo datable artifactsXVII 82
1354PNo datable artifactsXVII 82
1354QPost 1750XVII 88
1354RNo findsXVII 88
1354SNo findsXVII 88
1354TPost 1750XVII 89
1354VPost 1745XVII 89
1354WPost 1800XVII 89
1355Not usedXVIII 11
1355APost 1760XVIII 11
1355BPost 1760XVIII 11
1355CPost 1760XVIII 12
1355DPost 1765XVIII 12
1355EPost 1770XVIII 12
1355FPost 1775XVIII 13
1355GPost 1750XVIII 13
1355HPost 1765XVIII 13
1355IPost 1760XIX 54
1355KPost 1760XIX 54
1355LPost 1775XIX 54
1355MPost 1775XIX 55
1355NPost 1760XIX 55
1355PPost 1760XIX 55
1355QPost 1760XIX 56
1355RPost 1770XIX 56
1355SPost 1760XIX 56
1355TPost 1755XIX 70
1355VPost 1760XIX 70
1355WPost 1750XIX 70
1355XPost 1750XIV 71
1355YPost 1760XIX 71
1355ZPost 1755XIX 71
1356TopsoilXVIII 15
1356APost 1850XVIII 15
1356BPost 1850XVIII 15
1356CPost 1840XVIII 16
1356DPost 1820XVIII 16
1356EPost 1790XVIII 16
1356FPost 1770XVIII 17
1356GPost 1782XVIII 17
1356HPost 1735XVIII 17
1356IPost 1780XVIII 18
1356KPost 1782XVIII 18
1356LPost 1740XVIII 18
1356MNo datable artifactsXVIII 21
1356NPost 1730XVIII 21
1357TopsoilXVIII 19
1357APost 1834XVIII 19
1357BPost 1825XVIII 19
1357CPost 1820XVIII 20
1357DPost 1815XVIII 20
1358TopsoilXVIII 22
1358APost 1750XVIII 22
1358BPost 1830XVIII 22
1358CPost 1785XVIII 23
1358DPost 1760XVIII 23
1359TopsoilXVIII 25
1359ANo datable artifactsXVIII 25
1359BNo datable materialXVIII 25
1359CPost 1780XVIII 26
1359DPost 1770XVIII 26
1359EPost 1760XVIII 26
1359FModernXVIII 27
1359GPost 1785XVIII 27
1359HPost 1782XVIII 27
1359IPost 1770XIX 15
1359KPost 1755XIX 15
1359LPost 1740XIX 15
1359MPost 1785XIX 16
1359NPost 1740XIX 16
1359PPost 1745XIX 16
1359QNo datable artifactsXIX 17
1359RPost 1750XIX 17
1359SPost 1750XIX 17
1359TPost 1750XIX 18
1359VPost 1730XIX 18
1359WNo datable artifactsXIX 18
1359XPost 1740XIX 19
1359YNo findsXIX 19
1359ZPost 1735XIX 19
1360Not usedXVIII 28
1360APost 1760XVIII 28
1360BPost 1760XVIII 28
1360CPost 1760XVIII 29
1360DPost 1760XVIII 29
1360EPost 1760XVIII 29
1360FPost 1760XVIII 30
1360GPost 1760XVIII 30
1360HPost 1760XVIII 30
1360IPost 1760XVIII 31
1360KPost 1760XVIII 31
1360LPost 1760XVIII 31
1360MPost 1760XVIII 32
1360NNo datable artifactsXVIII 32
1361TopsoilXVIII 33
1361APost 1820 (disturbed)XVIII 33
1361BNo findsXVIII 33
1361CPost 1815XVIII 40
1361DPost 1750XVIII 40
1361EModernXVIII 41
1362Not usedXVIII 34
1362APost 1750XVIII 34
1362BPost 1750XVIII 34
1362CPost 1755XVIII 35
1362DPost 1740XVIII 35
1362EPost 1750XVII 35
1362FPost 1740XVII 20
1362GPost 1745XVII 20
1362HPost 1740XVII 20
1362JModernXVII 21
1363Not usedXVIII 39
1363APost 1790XVIII 39
1363BPost 1740XVIII 39
1364Not usedXVIII 42
1364APost 1740XVIII 42
1364BPost 1730XVIII 42
1364CPost 1730XVIII 43
1364DPost 1730XVIII 43
1364EPost 1730XVIII 43
1364FPost 1750XVIII 44
1364GPost 1730XVIII 44
1365Not usedXVIII 46
1365APost 1750XVIII 46
1365BPost 1730XVIII 46
1365CPost 1725XVIII 47
1365DNo findsXVIII 47
1365EPost 1750XVIII 47
1365FPost 1730XVIII 48
1365GPost 1740XVIII 48
1365HNo datable artifactsXVIII 48
1365JNo datable artifactsXVII 72
1365KNo datable artifactsXVII 72
1365LNo findsXVII 72
1366TopsoilXVIII 49
1366APost 1825XVIII 49
1366BNo datable artifactsXVIII 49
1366CPost 1820XVIII 50
1366DModernXVIII 50
1366EModernXVIII 50
1366FNo findsXVIII 51
1366GNo findsXVIII 51
1366HPost 1810XVIII 51
1366JPost 1760XVIII 69
1366KPost 1745XVIII 69
1366LPost 1775XVIII 69
1366MPost 1775XVIII 70
1366NPost 1755XVIII 70
1366PPost 1810XVIII 70
1366QPost 1785XVIII 71
1366RNo datable artifactsXVIII 71
1366SNo datable artifactsXVIII 71
1366TPost 1770XVIII 72
1366VPost 1750XVIII 72
1366WPost 1750XVIII 72
1366XPost 1755XVII 8
1366YPost 1755XVII 8
1366ZPost 1770XVII 8
1367TopsoilXVIII 52
1367APost 1830XVIII 52
1367BPost 1875XVIII 52
1367CPost 1850XVIII 53
1367DPost 1800XVIII 53
1367ENo datable artifactsXVIII 53
1367FNo datable artifactsXVIII 54
1367GPost 1850XVIII 54
1367HPost 1850XVIII 54
1367JPost 1740XVIII 55
1367KPost 1780XVIII 55
1367LPost 1830XVIII 55
1367MPost 1820XVIII 56
1367NPost 1780XVIII 56
1367PPost 1810XVIII 56
1367QPost 1820XVIII 57
1367RPost 1775XVIII 57
1367SPost 1820XVIII 57
1367TNo findsXVIII 58
1367VPost 1750XVIII 58
1367WPost 1760XVIII 58
1367XPost 1750XVIII 59
1367YPost 1755XVIII 59
1367ZNo datable artifactsXVIII 59
1368TopsoilXVIII 60
1368APost 1825XVIII 60
1368BPost 1790XVIII 60
1368CPost 1800XVIII 61
1368DPost 1820XVIII 61
1368EPost 1782XVIII 61
1368FPost 1780XVIII 62
1368GNo datable artifactsXVIII 62
1368HPost 1750XVIII 62
1368IPost 1765XIX 57
1368KPost 1760XIX 57
1368LNo findsXIX 57
1368MPost 1770XIX 58
1368NPost 1755XIX 58
1368PPost 1740XIX 58
1368QPost 1750XIX 59
1368RPost 1725XIX 59
1368SNo findsXIX 59
1368TPost 1755XIX 60
1368VPost 1770XIX 60
1368WNo findsXIX 60
1368XPost 1755XIX 61
1368YPost 1750XIX 61
1368ZPost 1720XIX 61
1369TopsoilXVIII 63
1369APost 1780XVIII 63
1369BPost 1840XVIII 63
1369CPost 1775XVIII 64
1369DPost 1775XVIII 64
1369EPost 1775XVIII 64
1369FPost 1785XVIII 65
1369GPost 1750XVIII 65
1369HPost 1770XVIII 65
1370TopsoilXVIII 66
1370APost 1770XVIII 66
1370BPost 1770XVIII 66
1370CPost 1760XVIII 67
1370DPost 1760XVIII 67
1370EPost 1730XVIII 67
1370FPost 1740XVIII 68
1371TopsoilXIX 1
1371ANo datable artifactsXIX 1
1371BPost 1750XIX 1
1371CPost 1750XIX 2
1371DNo datable artifactsXIX 2
1371EPost 1750XIX 2
1371FPost 1740XIX 22
1371GPost 1740XIX 22
1371HPost 1740XIX 22
1372TopsoilXIX 3
1372APost 1770XIX 3
1372BPost 1760XIX 3
1372CColonialXIX 4
1372DPost 1770XIX 4
1372EPost 1750XIX 4
1372FPost 1750XIX 5
1372GPost 1740XIX 5
1372HPost 1740XIX 5
1372IPost 1740XIX 6
1372KPost 1740XIX 6
1372LPost 1740XIX 6
1373TopsoilXIX 7
1374TopsoilXIX 24
1374Ac.1920-30XIX 24
1374BPost 1790XIX 24
1374CModernXIX 25
1374DPost 1765XIX 25
1374EPost 1755XIX 25
1374FPost 1770XIX 26
1374GPost 1850XIX 26
1374HPost 1785XIX 26
1374IPost 1800XIX 27
1374KPost 1770XIX 27
1374LPost 1750XIX 27
1374MPost 1740XIX 28
1374NPost 1760XIX 28
1374PPost 1725XIX 28
1374QPost 1782XIX 29
1374RPost 1750XIX 29
1374SPost 1750XIX 29
1374TPost 1750XIX 30
1374VNo findsXIX 30
1374WPost 1770XIX 30
1375TopsoilXIX 31
1375APost 1840XIX 31
1375BPost 1820XIX 31
1375CPost 1820XIX 32
1375DPost 1800XIX 32
1375EPost 1800XIX 32
1375FPost 1800XIX 42
1375GPost 1750XIX 42
1375HPost 1755XIX 42
1375IModernXIX 43
1375KPost 1755XIX 43
1375LPost 1750XIX 43
1375MPost 1750XIX 44
1375NPost 1740XIX 44
1375PPost 1755XIX 44
1376TopsoilXIX 33
1376APost 1750XIX 33
1376BPost 1760XIX 33
1376CPost 1770XIX 34
1376DPost 1750XIX 34
1376EPost 1770XIX 34
1376FPost 1740XIX 45
1376GPost 1745XIX 45
1377Not usedXIX 35
1377APost 1780XIX 35
1377BPost 1750XIX 35
1377CPost 1750XIX 36
1377DNo findsXIX 37
1377EPost 1750XIX 37
1377FPost 1740XIX 62
1377GPost 1755XIX 62
1377HNo datable artifactsXIX 62
1377JPost 1725XIX 63
1378Not usedXIX 46
1378APost 1735XIX 46
1378BPost 1750XIX 46
1378CNo datable artifactsXIX 47
1378DPost 1740XIX 47
1378EPost 1790XIX 47
1378FNo datable artifactsXIX 48
137BGNo findsXIX 48
1379Not usedXIX 49
1379ANo datable artifactsXIX 49
1379BNo findsXIX 49
1379CColonialXIX 50
1379DNo datable artifactsXIX 50
1379EPost 1735XIX 50
1379FNo findsXIX 51
1379GPost 1770XIX 51
1379HPost 1750XIX 51
1379JNo datable artifactsXIX 52
1379KPost 1760XIX 52
1379LNo datable artifactsXIX 52
1379MPost 1750XIX 53
1380TopsoilXIX 64
1380APost 1840XIX 64
1380BModernXIX 64
1380CPost 1782XIX 65
1380DPost 1800XIX 65
1380EPost 1745XIX 65
1380FPost 1770XIX 66
1380GPost 1770XIX 66
1380HPost 1765XIX 66
1380JPost 1760XIX 73
1380KPost 1755XIX 73
1380LPost 1790XIX 73
1380MPost 1750XIX 74
1381TopsoilXIX 67
1381ANo datable artifactsXIX 67
1382Not usedXIX 75
1382APost 1720XIX 75
1382BPost 1720XIX 75
1382CPost 1760XIX 76
1382DPost 1740XIX 76
1382EPost 1730XIX 76
1382FPost 1730XIX 77
1383Not usedXIX 78
1383APost 1750XIX 78
1383BPost 1740XIX 78
1383CNo findsXIX 79
1383DPost 1750XIX 79
1383EPost 1770XIX 79

Descriptions and Dating for the Architectural Items in Plate XXII

Descriptions and Dating for the Architectural Items in Plate XXII

  • 1.Delftware tile fragments; dark blue decoration of a rearing horse with rider carrying a spear on white ground; corners contain dark blue "bug" design; soft, pale buff body; probably of Dutch manufacture during the last years of the seventeenth century.
    [1985. E.R. 1334K, 1334Q, 1347E-19.B.]
  • 2.Delftware tile corner fragment; dark blue "bug" design on white ground as 1; soft, pale buff body; date of deposition: post c.1770.
    [1986. E.R. 1355-19.B.]
  • 3.Delftware tile fragments; two corner pieces with medium blue "lox-head" designs and an edge portion presumed to be from a "ship tile"; all three have a blue pattern on white ground; soft, pale buff body; date of deposition: post c.1750.
    [1987. E.R. 1323P, 1369D-19.B.]
  • 4.Delftware "biblical" or "scriptural" tile fragments; manganese (purple) decoration on white ground; soft, pale buff body; date of deposition: post c.1775.
    [1988. E.R. 1331F, 1346B, 1346J, 1369C-19.B.]
  • 136
  • 5.Marble corner fragment finished on the top, bottom, and two sides; probably from a mantle or grave stone; square cut surround, recessed within; light to medium gray in color; maximum existing length—3—7/16"; maximum existing width—2—¼"; thickness—1— 1/8", at the outside corner and 11, at the interior; date of deposition: post c.1830.
    [1991. E.R. 992A-19.B.]
  • 6.Marble edge fragment finished on the top, bottom and one side; slight bevel along one of the broken sides; white with gray veining; maximum existing length—2—7/16;"; maximum existing width—2"; thickness—1—¼"; date of deposition: post c.1770.
    [1993. E.R. 1353S-19.B.]
  • 7.Marble fragment finished only on the top and bottom; recessed ¼", near one of the broken sides similar to 5; white with slight-gray veining; maximum existing length—2—1/16;"; maximum existing width—1—3/16;"; thickness—1—3/16;", at the highest surface; date of deposition: post c.1820.
    [1994. E.R. 1318C-19.B.]
  • 8.Marble fragment finished on the top, bottom, and a portion of one side; probably from a grave stone; white with light gray veining; markings appear to be the edge of arms or crest scroll; the partially finished side is beveled as quarter-round; maximum existing length—4—½"; maximum existing width—3—¼"; thickness—1—1/8"; date of deposition: modern.
    [1996.E.R. 1322-19.B.]
  • 137
  • 9.Specimen fragments of "turned lead" from quarry-paned windows; date of deposition: post c.1755.
    [2902. E.R. 1340Q-19.B.]
  • 10.Marble pedestal-shaped base fragment finished on the bottom and on the unbroken side; the piece is white at the broken edges and light tan on the exterior finished side; probably from a mantle but possibly from a decorative grave stone; a continuation of the existing arc would form a column with an approximate maximum diameter of 4—5/8"; maximum existing height—1—½"; date of deposition: post c. 1810.
    [2903. E.R. 1318D-19.B.]
  • 11.Roofing tile (rectangular type) fragment; clay fired to a dull orange; maximum existing length—2—¼"; maximum existing width—1—13/16;"; thickness—7/16;"; date of deposition: post c.1750.
    [4065. E.R. 1343M-19.B.]
  • 12.Roofing pan tile corner fragment; clay fired to a dull orange but slightly darker than the above; maximum existing length 1—15/16;"; maximum existing width 1—7/16;"; thickness ½" average; date of deposition: post c.1760.
    [4066. E.R. 1380J-19.B.]
  • 138
  • 13.Marble grave stone (?) fragment finished only on the top and bottom; white with gray variegation; surviving markings appear to be 115—6 r (or n)" along with undeterminable figures beneath them; maximum existing length—4—5/8"; maximum existing width—2—1/16;"; thickness—13/16;"; date of deposition: Colonial.
    [4067. E.R. 1328N-19.A.&B.]
  • 14.Marble molding strip fragment finished on two sides, dressed for butting on one end, and rough finished on the back and the widest face; probably from a mantle; white with gray veining; top exhibits a hole and chiseled slot to house a clamp for attaching an abutting molding and recessed to seat another element overlying the clamp; maximum existing length—11—15/16;"; maximum existing width—5—1/8"; maximum thickness—2—½"; date of deposition was not determinable.
    [4068. E.R. 1348L-19.B.]

RR144634 Plate I

Elevated view of various features unearthed immediately north of the restored main Geddy structure. The remains of a bulkhead are seen at bottom center, the northerly lean-to's northeast corner is in the center; beyond it lies the foundation for a porch and to the left of that the remains of brickpaving. The brassfounding shop's South wall and brick working plinth is at top left, and the west wall of a nineteenth century addition cuts through it. Photo from the west. 68-DB-2927

RR144635 Plate II

The surviving foundations for the north extension (A2) of the earliest main structure (A1) encountered on Lot 161. The building's north wall (foreground) was abutted by the southeast corner of its northerly addition (rowlock construction). The extension's eastern wall had been cut through by a forge-like foundation (background). Perched on the forge are the remains of the footing for a lean-to (B2) associated with the extant Geddy house. The latter's north wing is visible at left. Photo from the south. 68-DB-2928

RR144636 Plate III

The remains of the early main building's (A1) front porch as revealed beneath the stoop for the extant Geddy House. Photo from the southwest. 68-DB-2929

RR144637 Plate IV

Early foundation (associated with the first building) protruding from beneath the existing main (B1) structure' west room chimney footing. The circa 1730 wine bottle at left had James Geddy's initials engraved on its side. Photo from the north. 68-DB-2930

RR144638 Plate V

Elevated view of the early main building's partially robbed north wall and the remains of a curving brick path associated with it. Photo from the S.S.E. 68-DB-2931

RR144639 Plate VI

Underpinning for the c.1750 dwelling's south wall beneath the room adjoining the "east tenement". The drain at right belonged to the earlier main structure (A1). Photo from the southwest. 68-DB-2934

RR144618 Plate VII

Crudely constructed cellar beneath the c.1750 main building's north wing. The lower two-brick courses at right were inserted while the basement was in use. The east/west wall in the foreground was originally the north wall of an earlier cellar. Photo from the south. 68-DB-2935

RR144619 Plate VIII

The remains of the bulkhead entrance to the cellar beneath the extant James Geddy House's north wing. Photo from the north. 68-DB-2990

RR144620 Plate IX

View of the north side of the Geddy House with its lean-to before restoration work in 1930. Photo from the N.N.E. S-1199

RR144621 Plate X

Original northeast corner of the c.1750 dwelling's northerly lean-to (B2). Notice the notching on its eastern end (left) which enabled a later easterly addition to bond to the original brickwork. The overlapping upper courses were part of a 19th century repair to the lean-to foundation. Photo from the northeast. 68-DB-2932

RR144622 Plate XI

Bulkhead steps constructed when the northerly lean-to was added to the c.1750 dwelling. The west wall of the passageway which passed beneath the extension can be seen at left center. Photo from the east. 68-DB-2933

RR144623 Plate XII

Surviving brickwork from brass-foundry's (D1) central H-shaped chimney. Modern sewer line at right cut through a portion of the fireplace's south edge. Photo from the west. 68-DB-2936

RR144624 Plate XIII

Elevated view of features unearthed in the brass-working structure's (D1) east room. The foundation in the right background was the northern cheek of a chimney that was subsequently converted into a forge, the foundation of which is to be seen to the left of it. The forge was later removed and the footing converted into an open hearth. The wooden beam (center) presumably was to keep the first hearth bricks in place. The bricks in the foreground could have-been part of an earlier floor. Photo from the east. 68-DB-2937

RR144625 Plate XIV

Forge and working plinth foundation with grating bars still in situ within the brass-foundry's western addition (D3). Note wine bottle of about 1730 lying in the ash pit entrance. The brick paving in the foreground was laid after the forge was dismantled and has been partially removed to expose the foundations sealed beneath it. Photo from the west. 68-DB-2938

RR144626 Plate XV

View of the brassfounding shop's (D3) forge and working plinth (following partial dismantling of the ash pit), along with portions of the addition's east and south walls. Photo from the northwest. 68-DB-2940

RR144627 Plate XVI

View of the pier-supported structure's (G) southwest corner with the building's brick rubble path beyond it. The reconstructed kitchen (F) is in the background. Photo from the northwest. 68-DB-2939

RR144628 Plate XVII

Elevated view of the smokehouse (H) remains uncovered west of the reconstructed kitchen (F). Path at left indicated the location of the building's entrance. Photo from the east. 68-DB-2941

RR144629 Plate XVIII

View of excavated privy pit with the structure's probable southeast pier in center background. The building's access path is to be seen at top left. Photo from the northwest. 68-DB-2942

RR144630 Plate XIX

View of the outdoor forge foundations discovered near the reconstructed kitchen's (F) southeast corner. Photo from the northwest. 68-DB-3143

RR144631 Plate XX

Well B as first uncovered showing the hole in the lining which apparently caused its abandonment. The supposed barrel stand is seen in the background. Photo from the north. 68-DB-2944

RR144632 Plate XXI

View of the brick drain discovered outside the Geddy property's existing western fenceline. Photo from the S.S.W. 68-DB-2945

RR144633 Plate XXII

Architectural fragments. (69-PH-829)