Adaptation and innovation: Archaeological and architectural perspectives on the seventeenth-century Chesapeake

William and Mary Quarterly

Volumn 64, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 451-522

  Graham, Willie ^a   Hudgins, Carter L ^b   Lounsbury, Carl R ^a   Neiman, Fraser D ^c   Whittenburg, James P ^d  

^a Colonial Williamsburg Foundation ^*

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Monticello)

^d Dept of Economics and Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy at the College of William and Mary

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 45949112171     PISSN: 00435597     EISSN: 1933-769     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/25096728     Document Type: Article

References (140)

1. Edmund S. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York, 1975);
2. Cary Carson et al., "Impermanent Architecture in the Southern American Colonies, " Winterthur Portfolio 16, nos. 2-3 (Summer-Autumn 1981):135-96.
3. Cary Carson et al., "New World, Real World: Improvising English Culture in Seventeenth-Century Virginia, " paper presented at "The Atlantic World and Virginia, 1550-1624, " sponsored by the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, the College of William and Mary, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, the Reed Foundation Inc., and the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, Mar. 4-7, 2004, Williamsburg, Va.
4. See for example Michael S. Alvard and Lawrence Kuznar, "Deferred Harvests: The Transition from Hunting to Animal Husbandry, " American Anthropologist 103, no. 2 (June 2001): 295-311;
5. Bram Tucker, "A Future Discounting Explanation for the Persistenceof a Mixed Foraging-Horticulture Strategy among the Mikea of Madagascar, "in Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture, ed. Douglas J. Kennettand Bruce Winterhalder (Berkeley, Calif., 2006), 22-40.
6. For signaling theory, see Rebecca Bliege Bird and Eric Alden Smith, "Signaling Theory, Strategic Interaction, and Symbolic Capital, "Current Anthropology 46, no. 2 (April 2005): 221-48.
7. For a brief discussion of its relevance to the consumer revolution, seecomments by Fraser D. Neiman, Current Anthropology 46, no. 2 (April 2005):242-43.
8. Carson et al., Winterthur Portfolio 16: 135-96;
9. Carter L. Hudgins, "Seventeenth-Century Virginia and Its20th-Century Archaeologists, " in The Archaeology of 17th-Century Virginia, ed. Theodore R. Reinhart and Dennis J. Pogue (Richmond, Va., 1993), 167-82.
10. Emerson W. Baker et al., "Earthfast Architecture in Early Maine, " paper presented at the Vernacular Architecture Forum annualmeeting, Portsmouth, N.H., 1992.
11. The most authoritative book on archaeology at Jamestown Island is William M. Kelso, Jamestown: The Buried Truth (Charlottesville, Va., 2006).
12. Kelso and Beverly A. Straube summarize the results of the first decade ofarchaeology undertaken at Jamestown under the aegis of Jamestown Rediscovery(Kelso and Straube, Jamestown Rediscovery: 1994-2004 [Richmond, Va., 2004], 34).
13. Recent archaeological excavations at Jamestown are not the first on Jamestown Island. Archaeology preceded construction of a protective seawallthere in 1903. Prior to the current work, the most ambitious excavations werethose conducted under the auspices of the National Park Service from the late1930s to the 1950s when two pioneers of American historical archaeology, John L.Cotter and J. C. Harrington, directed work in the so-called New Towne, a suburbthat spread away from James Fort in the 1620s and that eventually supplantedit. See Cotter, Archeological Excavations at Jamestown Colonial National Historical Park and Jamestown National Historic Site Virginia (Washington, D.C., 1958). This article depends to a great extent on a database of mostlystatistical information drawn from more than three hundred published andunpublished reports of archaeological projects during the last three decades.The database will eventually be available to researchers online through the College of William and Mary and will be expanded and updated over time.
14. Kelso and Straube, Jamestown Rediscovery, 33-49.
15. For a plan of another company-era enclosure at one of the colony'sso-called particular plantations, see James Deetz, Flowerdew Hundred: The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation, 1619-1864 (Charlottesville, Va., 1993), 27.
16. Carson et al., "New World, Real World." Architectural historian Eric Mercer coined the term slight framing. See Mercer, English Vernacular Houses: A Study of Traditional Farmhouses and Cottages (London, 1975), 125.
17. New scholarship also suggests that clay-wall and earthfast constructionwas more prevalent among cottages in seventeenth-century England than historianshad formerly recognized. On the prevalence of flimsy construction practices, see Robert Machin, "The Lost Cottages of England: An Essay on Impermanent Building in Post-Medieval England, " paper presented at the Winter Conference, Vernacular Architecture Group, London, Dec. 13-14, 1997;
18. Rodney Cousins, Lincolnshire Buildings in the Mud and Stud Tradition(Lincolnshire, Eng., 2000);
19. J. Eric Deetz, "Architecture of Early Virginia: An Analysis of the Origins of the Earth Fast Tradition" (master's thesis, University of Leicester, 2002).
20. On English framing systems, see Mercer, English Vernacular Houses, 125;
21. J. R. Harrison, "The Mud Wall in England at the Close of the Vernacular Era, " Transactions of the Ancient Monuments Society 28 (1984):154-74;
22. Harrison, "Some Clay Dabbins in Cumberland: Their Construction and Form, Part I, " Transactions of the Ancient Monuments Society, new ser., 33(1989): 97-151;
23. Harrison, "Some Clay Dabbins in Cumberland: Their Construction and Form, Part II, " Transactions of the Ancient Monuments Society 35 (1991):29-88;
24. Machin, "Lost Cottages of England."
25. William Strachey, "A True Reportory of the Wreck and Redemption of Sir Thomas Gates, Knight, " in A Voyage to Virginia in 1609, ed. Louis B.Wright (Chatlottesville, Va., 1964), 79 (quotation).
26. Surviving firsthand accounts give a sense of the appearance of thesefirst structures. John Smith reported that the buildings constructed after the1608 fire were raised with mud walls packed around forked poles. Their roofswere covered with a thatch of reeds set in a bedding of earth. See Smith, The Complete Works of Captain John Smith (1580-1631) in Three Volumes, ed. Philip L.Barbour (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1986), 3: 295.
27. A cruck is a roof truss composed of a pair of curved timbers whose lowerends are set either on a low plinth or directly in the ground. The cruck bladescarry the roof load directly to the ground rather than to a wall plate. Cruckconstruction was popular in parts of Britain from the early twelfth centurythrough the late seventeenth century. Willie Graham, "A Report on the Nature of the Kirbye House Frame and Wall System, " report for Blaney Services, 2004. Interpretation of the archaeological evidence is similar to whathas been imagined for Cheddar Palace. See Philip Rahtz, The Saxon and Medieval Palaces at Cheddar, Excavations, 1960-62 (Oxford, Eng., 1979).
28. J. G. Hurst, "A Review of Archaeological Research (to 1968), "in Deserted Medieval Villages: Studies, ed. Maurice Beresford and Hurst (London, 1971), 76-144.
29. Richard Harris, Discovering Timber-Framed Buildings (Princes Risborough, Eng., 1978), 23-24;
30. Dell Upton, "Early Vernacular Architecture in Southeastern Virginia" (Ph.D. diss., Brown University, 1979), 1: 58-59. Upton notes theevolution of common seventeenth-century framing from earlier close-studdedmodels. While other ornamental framing styles often relied on middle rails tobreak the length of studs (in part because long timbers were increasinglydifficult to obtain), conventional close studding did not. Commonseventeenth-century framing of the type that inspired Chesapeake carpentryomitted horizontal rails as principal framing members.
31. In 1647 the Virginia General Assembly enacted a bill stipulating" that such houses provided for that purpose shall be accompted sufficientprisons as are built according to the forme of Virginia houses, from which noeescape can be made without breaking or forcing some part of the prisonhouse" (William Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of All Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619 [New York, 1819], 1: 340).
32. Periodic use of older, outdated modes and the regular introduction of newideas from abroad continued to give variety to the Chesapeake landscape. Bentconstruction, common in the first half of the century, was the ideal framingmode for center chimney plans because bay spacing could be easily adjusted toaccount for varying room sizes and chimney bays. With end-chimney plans, baysbecame less important. For an overview of the early framing system in Virginiaand Maryland, see Willie Graham, "Preindustrial Framing in the Chesapeake, " in Constructing Image, Identity, and Place, ed. Alison K.Hoagland and Kenneth A. Breisch (Knoxville, Tenn., 2003), 179-96. Earthfastbent-frame structures often show a poor alignment of posts along the length ofthe building, making it difficult to nail wood siding to it. Sidewall structureshave the advantage of a continuous plate to help keep the posts in alignment.
33. Slate, stone, and tiles were rarely used in the Chesapeake countrysideand never as part of the Virginia house system. Besides being labor intensive toproduce locally and expensive to purchase from abroad, they also requiredstouter roof frames than those fashioned for a clapboard covering. For adiscussion of the origins of the false plate, see Cary Carson, "The'Virginia House' in Maryland, " Maryland Historical Magazine 69, no. 2(1974): 185-96.
34. Graham, "Preindustrial Framing in the Chesapeake, " 181-96.
35. Henry Michael Miller, "Colonization and Subsistence: Change on the17th Century Chesapeake Frontier" (Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University, 1984);
36. Miller, "Transforming a 'Splendid and Delightsome Land': Colonistsand Ecological Change in the 17th and 18th-Century Chesapeake, " Journal ofthe Washington Academy of Sciences 76, no. 3 (September 1986): 173-87;
37. Miller, "An Archaeological Perspective on the Evolution of Diet inthe Colonial Chesapeake, 1620-1745, " in Colonial Chesapeake Society, ed.Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan, and Jean B. Russo (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1988), 176-99;
38. Joanne Bowen, "Foodways in the 18th-Century Chesapeake, " in The Archaeology of 18th-Century Virginia, ed. Theodore R. Reinhart (Richmond, Va., 1996), 87-130;
39. Lorena S. Walsh, Ann Smart Martin, and Joanne Bowen, "Provisioning Early American Towns. The Chesapeake: A Multidisciplinary Case Study, Final Performance Report, " National Endowment for the Humanities, Grant RO-22643-93, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1997;
40. unpublished information supplied by Joanne Bowen, curator ofzooarchaeology at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. For an introduction toevolutionary ecology, see Eric Alden Smith and Bruce Winterhalder, eds., Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior (New York, 1992).
41. The prey-choice model is a quantitative analysis of foraging thatmathematically describes food selection based on recognition of which sourcesare most likely to yield the best results. For examples of archaeologicalapplication of the prey-choice model, see Jack M. Broughton, "Declines in Mammalian Foraging Efficiency during the Late Holocene, San Francisco Bay, California, " Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13, no. 4 (December1994): 371-401;
42. C. Stiner et al., "Paleolithic Population Growth Pulses Evidenced by Small Animal Exploitation, " Science 283, no. 5399 (Jan. 8, 1999): 190-94.
43. The relevance of future discounting to animal domestication and husbandryis outlined in Alvard and Kuznar, American Anthropologist 103: 295-311.
44. Miller, "Colonization and Subsistence, " 364-67.
45. Hening, Statutes at Large, 2: 172-76 (quotation, 172).
46. Martha W. McCartney, Documentary History of Jamestown Island, Volume I:Narrative History (Williamsburg, Va., 2000), 122 (quotation).
47. Structure 19 a/b may be a two-unit row erected during this campaign. Thebrick foundations for each measure twenty by forty feet, the standard size forindividual houses in the other rows. For a study of the politics involved inimproving the capital, see Warren M. Billings, Sir William Berkeley and the Forging of Colonial Virginia (Baton Rouge, La., 2004), 174-84.
48. As excavations at Jamestown and other locations indicate, rivercobblestones were occasionally used for foundations. Outcroppings of soft andporous marlstone found along the York River enticed colonists to use it to build Grace Church in Yorktown in 1697. Beyond these modest and limited sources, easily collectible fieldstone did not exist east of the fall line in the Chesapeake. A few bands of fieldstone in Maryland enabled builders to findenough materials for the construction of a foundation, cellar, or chimney.Except for part of northern Maryland and certain areas between the Rappahannockand Potomac rivers in Virginia, the area also lacked stone for quarrying. Thefirst quarries did not open until the 1730s when a vein of soft but easilyworkable buff-colored sandstone was extracted from Aquia Creek in Stafford Co., Va. On the use of Dutch brick in Anne Arundel Co., see Al Luckenbach, Providence1649: The History and Archaeology of Anne Arundel County, Maryland's First European Settlement (Annapolis, Md., 1995);
49. Jason D. Moser et al., "Impermanent Architecture in a Less Permanent Town: The Mid-Seventeenth-Century Architecture of Providence, Maryland, "in Hoagland and Breish, Constructing Image, Identity, and Place, 197-214.
50. Marion Tinling, ed., The Correspondence of the Three William Byrds of Westover, Virginia, 1684-1776 (Charlottesville, Va., 1977), 1: 111. Arthur Allenof Surry County covered his roof with English stone slates.
51. Robert Beverley, Richard Kemp, and William Sherwood are examples of theassertive men who historian Bernard Bailyn observes "assumed control ofpublic office by virtue not of inherited status but of newly achieved andstrenuously maintained economic eminence" (Bailyn, "Politics and Social Structure in Virginia, " in Seventeenth-Century America: Essays in Colonial History, ed. James Morton Smith [Chapel Hill, N.C., 1959], 90-115[quotation, 96]).
52. Their rapid rise to dominate Virginia's politics in the mid-seventeenthcentury emanated from a shrewd combination of merchant and planter roles.Signaling theory suggests that they benefited from greater investments in brickbecause their social and economic standing owed much to commercial and politicalconnections that were not easily discernible. On the rising prestige of brickand stone building in seventeenth-century England, see Nicholas Cooper, Housesof the Gentry, 1480-1680 (New Haven, Conn., 1999).
53. Billings, Sir William Berkeley, 58-64.
54. For a discussion of Kemp's Jamestown house (Structure 44), see Cary Carson et al., Jamestown Archaeological Assessment, 1992-1996: Evaluation of Previous Archaeology (Williamsburg, Va., 2006), 63-67.
55. 44WB52): Descriptionof the Features, " Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2003.
56. For the Page House, see John Metz et al., "Upon the Palisado"and other Stories of Place from Bruton Heights (Williamsburg, Va., 1998).
57. Carl R. Lounsbury, The Courthouses of Early Virginia: An Architectural History (Charlottesville, Va., 2005), 67-68.
58. Just how substantial the repairs to the Jamestown church were followingits burning by followers of Nathaniel Bacon in 1676 is uncertain. The survivingwest tower was added in the 1690s. See Lounsbury et al., "The Early Churchat Jamestown, Virginia: A History and Precedents for its Design and Reconstruction, " report for Jamestown Settlement, December 2004, 6-8.
59. On the number of brick churches in Virginia in the late seventeenth andearly eighteenth centuries, see Dell Upton, Holy Things and Profane: Anglican Parish Churches in Colonial Virginia (Cambridge, Mass., 1986), 11-13, 38-39.
60. For the cost of building the Middlesex Co. churches, see Darrett B.Rutman and Anita H. Rutman, A Place in Time: Middlesex County, Virginia, 1650-1750 (New York, 1984), 202.
61. Carl Lounsbury, "Anglican Church Design in the Chesapeake: English Inheritances and Regional Interpretations, " in Hoagland and Breisch, Constructing Image, Identity, and Place, 22-38 (quotations, 26).
62. Magistrates in Saint Marys Co. convened their monthly meetings in thebrick statehouse built in the mid-1670s and took over the building when theprovincial government moved in the 1690s. After the construction of the newbrick statehouse in Annapolis, Anne Arundel Co. justices were allowed the use ofa room in the building. See Morris L. Radoff, The County Courthouses and Records of Maryland Part One: The Courthouses (Annapolis, Md., 1960), 13, 131.
63. Morris L. Radoff, Buildings of the State of Maryland at Annapolis(Annapolis, Md., 1954).
64. Lounsbury, Courthouses of Early Virginia, 117, 125-27.
65. On artisans engaged in the metal trade at Jamestown, see Carter C.Hudgins, "Articles of Exchange or Ingredients of New World Metallurgy? AnExamination of the Industrial Origins and Metallurgical Functions of Scrap Copper at Early Jamestown (c. 1607-17), " Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 3, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 32-64.
66. J. C. Harrington, "Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes, " Quarterly Bulletin: Archeological Society of Virginia 9, no. 1 (September 1954): 10-14.
67. See also Lewis R. Binford, "A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples, " Newsletter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference 9, no. 1 (June 1962): 19-21.
68. A subset of Harrington's data was published by Cotter, Archeological Excavations at Jamestown.
69. Alexander von Gernet, "Nicotian Dreams: The Prehistory and Early History of Tobacco in Eastern North America, " in Consuming Habits: Drugs in History and Anthropology, ed. Jordan Goodman, Paul E. Lovejoy, and Andrew Sherratt (London, 1995). 67-87.
70. They are supplemented with the few assemblage measurements available fromthe recent excavations at Jamestown. See J. Cameron Monroe and Seth Mallios, "A Seventeenth-Century Colonial Cottage Industry: New Evidence and a Dating Formula for Colono Tobacco Pipes in the Chesapeake, " Historical Archaeology 38, no. 2 (2004): 68-82.
71. Archaeologists have noticed the increased variance in assemblages from Flowerdew Hundred and Carter's Grove. See James Deetz, "American Historical Archaeology: Methods and Results, " Science 239, no. 4838 (Jan. 22, 1988):362-67;
72. Andrew C. Edwards and Marley R. Brown III, "Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake Settlement Patterns: A Current Perspective from Tidewater Virginia, " in Reinhart and Pogue, Archaeology of 17th-Century Virginia, 285-309.
73. For an innovative review of this pattern of consumption, see Cary Carson, "Consumption, " in A Companion to Colonial America, ed. Daniel Vickers(Malden, Mass., 2003), 334-65.
74. The historical meaning of locally made red clay pipes found onseventeenth-century Chesapeake sites is a contentious subject. For the largevariety of names archaeologists have invented to refer to them, includingred-clay pipes, terra-cotta pipes, and Chesapeake pipes, see J. C. Harrington, "Tobacco Pipes from Jamestown, " Quarterly Bulletin: Archeological Society of Virginia 5, no. 4 (June 1951): 2-8;
75. Susan L. Henry, "Terra Cotta Tobacco Pipes in 17th Century Marylandand Virginia: A Preliminary Study, " Historical Archaeology 13 (1979):14-37;
76. Matthew C. Emerson, "Decorated Clay Tobacco Pipes from the Chesapeake: An African Connection, " in Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, ed. Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little (Washington, D.C., 1994), 35-49;
77. Emerson, "African Inspirations in New World Art and Artifact:Decorated Clay Tobacco Pipes from the Chesapeake, " in "I, Too, AmAmerica": Archaeological Studies of African-American Life, ed. Theresa Singleton (Charlottesville, Va., 1999);
78. Monroe and Mallios, Historical Archaeology 38: 68-82.
79. Emerson's suggestion that the decorative designs are African is aquixotic interpretation that flies in the face of the bulk of the evidence. Thedefinitive statement is L. Daniel Mouer et al., "Colonoware Pottery, Chesapeake Pipes, and 'Uncritical Assumptions, '" in Singleton, "I, Too, Am America, " 83-115.
80. Fraser D. Neiman and Julia A. King, "Who Smoked Chesapeake Pipes?" paper presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Salt Lake City, Utah, Jan. 6-10, 1999.
81. Bailyn, "Politics and Social Structure in Virginia, " 90-115.
82. Carson, Maryland Historical Magazine 69: 185-96;
83. Fraser D. Neiman, "Domestic Architecture at the Clifts Plantation:The Social Context of Early Virginia Building, " Northern Neck of Virginia Historical Magazine 28, no. 1 (December 1978): 3096-3128;
84. Stone, "Society, Housing, and Architecture"; Upton, "Early Vernacular Architecture in Southeastern Virginia."
85. For the pattern of indentured servitude, see Russell R. Menard, "British Migration to the Chesapeake Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, " in Carr, Morgan, and Russo, Colonial Chesapeake Society, 104-5, 121.
86. It was common for young English agricultural laborers to enter servicefirst with families in their home communities and then move farther afield. OnEnglish agricultural servants, see Ann Kussmaul, Servants in Husbandry in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1981);
87. Ian D. Whyte, Migration and Society in Britain, 1550-1830 (Basingstoke, Eng., 2000).
88. Historians of the early Chesapeake have traced the transformation fromindentured white servants working in the tobacco fields to enslaved Africans inthe last decades of the seventeenth century. As the supply of indenturedservants declined in the 1670s and 1680s, planters turned increasingly to theimportation of slaves, first from the Caribbean and then from Africa. By the1690s and early 1700s, black slaves constituted between two-thirds andthree-quarters of the unfree labor force in the Chesapeake. See Menard, "From Servants to Slaves: The Transformation of the Chesapeake Labor System, " Southern Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the South 16, no. 4 (Winter 1977): 355-90;
89. Rutman and Rutman, Place in Time, 75-76, 165-70;
90. Allan Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Culturesin the Chesapeake, 1680-1800 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1986), 39-43.
91. In a study of the advent of slaveholding in the Chesapeake, John C.Coombs has argued that large planters along the James River began substantialinvestment in slaves as early as the 1640s and that by the 1670s almost allprovincial and county-level officeholders had acquired slaves. See Coombs, "Building 'The Machine': The Development of Slavery and Slave Society in Early Colonial Virginia" (Ph.D. diss., College of William and Mary, 2003), 69-99.
92. Lorena S. Walsh and Russell R. Menard, "Death in the Chesapeake: Two Life Tables for Men in Early Colonial Maryland, " Maryland Historical Magazine 69, no. 2 (1974): 211-27;
93. Carville V. Earle, "Environment, Disease, and Mortality in Early Virginia, " in The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society and Politics, ed. Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman(Chapel Hill, N.C., 1979), 96-125.
94. On the development of New England house plans, see Abbott Lowell Cummings, The Framed Houses of Massachusetts Bay, 1625-1725 (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), 22-39;
95. Cummings, "Three Hearths: A Socioarchitectural Study of Seventeenth-Century Massachusetts Bay Probate Inventories, " Old-Time New England 75, no. 263 (1997): 5-49.
96. On the retention of many English cultural values in New England, see T.H. Breen, Puritans and Adventurers: Change and Persistence in Early America (New York, 1980).
97. Martin H. Quitt has explored the cultural implications of the commercialbackgrounds of many midcentury Virginia merchant-planters. See Quitt, "Immigrant Origins of the Virginia Gentry: A Study of Cultural Transmissionand Innovation, " William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 45, no. 4 (October1988): 629-55.
98. For an overview of the housing revolution in England in the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries, see Anthony Quiney, The Traditional Buildings of England(London, 1990), 93-126.
99. A detailed study of how these plans developed in one particular regioncan be found in Raymond B. Wood-Jones, Traditional Domestic Architecture of the Banbury Region (Manchester, Eng., 1963), 139-62.
100. In New England these spaces were known as lean-tos and in Bermuda as"outlets." For the growth of service rooms, see M. W. Barley, The English Farmhouse and Cottage (London, 1961), 178-79;
101. Anthony Quiney, "The Lobby-Entry House: Its Origins and Distribution, " Architectural History 27 (1984): 456-65.
102. On the social significance of the separation of cooking from the hall, see Matthew Johnson, Housing Culture: Traditional Architecture in an English Landscape (Washington, D.C., 1993), 137.
103. Cary Carson has argued for a similar occurrence in New England houses inthe late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries with the advent of kitchenhearths in lean-tos and double-pile houses. See Carson, "Culture Transfer, Culture Shock: How the English Farmhouse Was Redesigned for British North America, " unpublished paper, 2006.
104. On the early-seventeenth-century origins and development of thedouble-pile plan among London merchants and landed gentry, see Cooper, Houses ofthe Gentry, 160-94.
105. On the use of the hall in smaller English houses, see Barley, English Farmhouse and Cottage, 239-40.
106. For the significance of the stair passage, see J. T. Smith, English Houses, 1200-1800: The Hertfordshire Evidence (London, 1992), 78-80;
107. Quiney, Architectural History 27: 464-65;
108. For a discussion of house planning in eighteenth-century Virginia, see Dell Upton, "Vernacular Domestic Architecture in Eighteenth-Century Virginia, " Winterthur Portfolio 17, nos. 2-3 (Summer-Autumn 1982): 95-119.
109. The phrase "workplaces to show-places" is used by Carson, "Culture Transfer, Culture Shock." For a study of how local conditionsin the Chesapeake influenced the development of plans, see Fraser D. Neiman, "Temporal Patterning in House Plans from the 17th-century Chesapeake, "in Reinhart and Pogue, Archaeology of 17th-Century Virginia, 251-83.
110. Susie M. Ames, ed., County Court Records of Accomack-Northampton, Virginia (Charlottesville, Va., 1973), 212.
111. On the position of service rooms in English homes, see examples in Wood-Jones, Traditional Domestic Architecture of Banbury Region, 139-82.
112. Hume, Martin's Hundred, 46, 170-71.
113. For an archaeological assessment of the Boldrup house, see Nicholas Luccketti, "The Boldrup Site, Newport News, Va., " draft report, James River Institute for Archaeology, 2005.
114. Deetz, Flowerdew Hundred, 35.
115. For an early site with porches, see Nicholas Luccketti, "Nansemond Fort, Suffolk, Va., " draft report, James River Institute for Archaeology, 2006.
116. Quiney, Traditional Buildings of England, 113-15;
117. R. Machin, The Houses of Yetminster (Bristol, Eng., 1978), 92-108;
118. Carl R. Lounsbury, ed., An Illustrated Glossary of Early Southern Architecture and Landscape (New York, 1994), 54, 228-29, 337.
119. [Durand de Dauphiné], A Huguenot Exile in Virginia; Or, Voyages ofa Frenchman Exiled for His Religion with a Description of Virginia and Maryland, trans. and ed. Gilbert Chinard (New York, 1934), 119-20.
120. Muraca, Levy, and McFaden, "Archaeology of Rich Neck Plantation, " 47-78.
121. Steve Archer, "Atkinson Site (Site CG-10): Excavation of a Late17th- Early 18th-Century Site at Carter's Grove, " Department of Archaeological Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2001. See alsohttp://research. history.org/archaeological_research/mhpage/whowasatkinson.htm.
122. Evidence of this practice raises an interesting and so far unaskedquestion: why is the evidence so scant for multiple pits beneath the floors ofhouses used by indentured servants and slaves earlier in the seventeenthcentury? Saint John's in Saint Marys City offers a good example. Here the earlyservant quarter behind the main house initially had no subfloor pit and lateracquired only one. A similar situation existed at Richard Kemp's Rich Neck inthe 1640s and 1650s. Again, there was only a single large subfloor pit under abuilding that was likely a kitchen and quarter, and there are no pits under thefloors of earthfast buildings that excavators infer were used to house slaves inthe third quarter of the seventeenth century. The earliest archaeologicaldescriptions of subfloor pits can be found in William M. Kelso, Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia(Orlando, Fla., 1984).
123. For a brief discussion of their functional significance, see Fraser D.Neiman, "Changing Landscapes: Slave Housing at Monticello" (2003), http://www.pbs.org/saf/1301/features/archeology.htm.
124. See also Lorena S. Walsh, "Work and Resistance in the New Republic:The Case of the Chesapeake, 1770-1820, " in From Chattel Slaves to Wage Slaves: The Dynamics of Labour Bargaining in the Americas, ed. Mary Turner(London, 1995), 97-122.
125. Maria Therese Fashing, "Recognizing Variability in Eighteenth-Century Plantation Diet through Pattern Analysis" (bachelor'sthesis, College of William and Mary, 2005).
126. On the preservation properties of pork and beef, see Joanne Vickie Bowen, "A Study of Seasonality and Subsistence: Eighteenth Century Suffield, Connecticut" (Ph.D. diss., Brown University, 1990), 108-44.
127. For a discussion of the rise of genteel behavior and the emergence of thepolite house, see Cary Carson, "The Consumer Revolution in Colonial British America: Why Demand?" in Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Lifein the Eighteenth Century, ed. Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert(Charlottesville, Va., 1994), 483-697.
128. Note that English framed buildings were built earlier in the century butremained a rarity until the early eighteenth century. On Pope's House at Clifts Plantation, see Neiman, Northern Neck of Virginia Historical Magazine 28:3099-3103. Frame houses later encased in brick are spread across the Chesapeake.Notable examples include Holly Hill and Cedar Park in Anne Arundel Co., Md., dated by dendrochronology to 1699 and 1702, respectively. The Matthew Jones House in Newport News, Va., was built about 1720. All three structures werebricked sometime in the second or third quarter of the eighteenth century.
129. Mark R. Wenger, "The Central Passage in Virginia: Evolution of an Eighteenth-Century Living Space, " in Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, II, ed. Camille Wells (Columbia, Mo., 1986), 137-49.
130. Mark R. Wenger, "The Dining Room in Early Virginia, " in Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, III, ed. Thomas Carter and Bernard L.Herman (Columbia, Mo., 1989), 149-59.
131. Cary Carson, "Seventeenth-Century Plantation Housing in the Chesapeake, " unpublished paper, August 2006, 35-36.
132. Nicholas M. Luccketti, Archaeology at Arlington: Excavations at the Ancestral Custis Plantation, Northampton County, Virginia (Richmond, Va., 1999), 15-17, 25-27.
133. A deposition noted that Gilbert Moore, a visitor who had come to see Custis on business, "came out of the Greate house into the Kitchen to lighthis pipe" (Northampton Co., Va., Order and Will Book, 1689-1698, 235 [May30, 1693], Virginia State Library, Richmond). Extensive archaeological samplingof the site has yet to reveal the location of the exterior kitchen. For thebuilding history, see Edward A. Chappell, "Arlington as Architectute, "in Luccketti, Archaeology at Arlington, 25-30;
134. Chappell, "Arlington, 1674-1676, " report for the Arlington Foundation, 2004.
135. J. Richard Rivoire, Homeplaces: Traditional Domestic Architecture of Charles County, Maryland (La Plata, Md., 1990), 6 (quotation).
136. On the assumption that one-room houses were predominant, see Upton, "Early Vernacular Architecture in Southeastern Virginia, " 1:153. Clearstatistical evidence for this assumption appears in the 1798 federal tax inwhich enumerators surveyed the housing stock of the new nation. Surviving taxrolls for a number of Maryland counties suggest that most people living alongthe northern fringe of the Chesapeake Bay inhabited modest dwellings, perhapswith only one ground-floor room. In 1798 the median size of dwellings in Baltimore Co. was 432 square feet (a median length and width of eighteen bytwenty-four). In Anne Arundel Co. the median size was 360 square feet (eighteenby twenty). The size of houses in Prince Georges Co. matched those in Baltimore Co. at 432 square feet (twenty-four by eighteen), and in Somerset Co. on thelower Eastern Shore the median was 400 square feet (twenty by twenty). Some ofthese small dwellings may have contained two rooms, but the data suggest apreponderance of one-room plans.
137. Carson et al., "New World, Real World."
138. As Fraser D. Neiman has pointed out, the documentary evidence isambiguous. The listing of room names does not necessarily imply that thosespaces were a part of the dwelling house as opposed to a detached servicebuilding. See Neiman, "Temporal Patterning in House Plans, " 270-72.
139. Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, 295-315;
140. Coombs, "Building 'The Machine, '" 73-96.