11

Industrial Transition and the Rise of a“Creole” Society in the Chesapeake, 1660-1725

John Metz

The first century of settlement in Vir-ginia is best characterized as a periodof great social, political, and economic

experimentation that ultimately resulted inthe development of a distinctive colonial so-ciety (Greene 1988; Horn 1994; McCusker andMenard 1991; Shammas 1979). Tobacco be-came the mainstay of Virginia’s economyearly in the seventeenth century virtually tothe exclusion of all other economic pursuits.The cultivation of tobacco for export, clear-ing land for more tobacco, and raising cornand livestock for subsistence dominated thelives of colonists in the Chesapeake (Carr andWalsh 1988; Main 1982). By the beginning ofthe eighteenth century, however, the patternhad changed dramatically. Corn and wheatwere grown for export, craft specializationand household manufacture were on the rise,and slaves had nearly replaced indenturedservants in the labor force (Galenson 1981;Morgan 1975). The society that developed inthe Chesapeake was so unique that Britishofficials often made explicit distinctions be-tween the English-born and the “natives” or“creoles” born in Virginia. A trend developedwhere native-born whites were increasinglysingled out by English writers as “natives,”“Virginians,” and “creoles” as they achieveddominance in a colonial government previ-ously controlled by English-born immigrants(Shammas 1979).

The term creole is a word born of the Eu-ropean colonial experience. It is derived fromthe Spanish word criollo, meaning native tothe locality. The first use of the word is in aSpanish chronicle written in 1604 which re-fers to those born in the colonies of Spanishparents as criollos (Oxford English Dictionary

1971(I):1163). Criollo was quickly incorpo-rated into the English language where it wasAnglicized to creole by the late seventeenthcentury. Like the Spanish, the English usedthe term to distinguish its colonial-born citi-zens from those born in the homeland. Theneed to differentiate between colonial andEnglish-born was based on the perceptionthat the exposure to new climates, cultures,and surroundings influenced socio-culturalmodifications within colonial society(Shammas 1979:284-286).

Just as the English began to identify thecitizens born in the colonies as “creoles,” theidentity of any group depends upon how oth-ers perceive that group and how the mem-bers of the group, in turn, see themselves.This affiliation becomes “ethnic” when “itclassifies a person in terms of his basic, mostgeneral identity, presumptively determinedby his origin or his background” (Barth1969:13). This identity often poses a threat todominant groups in society and results insome form of discrimination, whether it beprohibited access to resources or outrightexclusion from mainstream society. In the1980s, Randall McGuire explored group for-mation and boundary maintenance amongethnic groups. He argued that “competitionprovides motivation for group formation,ethnocentrism channels it along ethnic lines,and the differential distribution of power de-termines the nature of the relationship”(McGuire 1982:160). These three variables areusually focused in the political or economicarenas of society. This model is applicable tothe relationship between England and hercolony in Virginia, especially after the politi-cal and economic aims of the Crown and of

12

the colonists had begun to diverge from oneanother.

“Creole consciousness” developed in the1680s as native-born politicians began to re-place their English-born predecessors in thecolonial government. The English-born lead-ers were part of a second generation of colo-nists who arrived in the 1630s and 1640s.Many came with money, while others wereminor gentry who maintained their ties withEngland even as they pursued wealththrough the sale of tobacco and land specu-lation (Bailyn 1959:91). Although native-borncolonials lacked the English connections oftheir forebears, they worked to achieve theirgoals by developing vital social, political, andeconomic institutions within the colony. Asa result, the agendas of native leaders oftenran counter to homeland interests. In 1693,for example, Governor Nicholson com-plained to the Board of Trade that “the coun-try consists now mostly of Natives, few ofwhich either have read much or been abroadin the world, so that they cannot form tothemselves any Idea or Notion of thesethings.” However, in terms of trade andeconomy he added simply that “they areknowing” (Nicholson 1692/1693 inShammas 1979:286).

The tobacco culture that took hold of theeconomy beginning in the second quarter ofthe seventeenth century inspired colonists toamass land and focus all of their labor andcapital on the cultivation of tobacco for theexport market. At first, profits were highenough to discourage the development oflocal manufactures. Artisans who immi-grated to Virginia during this period oftenabandoned their trades to enter the more lu-crative tobacco market (Galenson 1981:127;Morgan 1975:140-141). As a result, a patternof dependency developed where plantersgrew tobacco for export in return for finishedgoods from England. Total reliance on anoutside market stagnated Virginia’s

economy. Anthony Langston painted a direpicture of the colony in 1657 when he wrote“wee suffer for want of Markets, Trades, andManufactures” (Langston 1921:103). Whilecolonial leaders continually worked to pro-mote economic diversification, their effortsmet with failure until prolonged slumps inthe tobacco market gave local industry thepush it needed to become a permanent ele-ment of the economy. A survey of seven-teenth-century industrial sites identified inYork County, James City County, and the Cityof Williamsburg in the Virginia Tidewaterdocuments the diversification of theeconomy, an increase in craft specialization,and the emergence of new patterns of localexchange between 1660 and 1725 (Figure 1).An archaeological consideration of these sitesreveals an increase in local manufactures as-sociated with the trend towards greater self-sufficiency.

Industrial Development inSeventeenth-Century Virginia

Virginia was initially settled by the VirginiaCompany of London as a speculative ven-ture designed to furnish England with staplecommodities and provide dividends for in-vestors. The Virginia Company envisioned amixed economy of commerce, manufactur-ing, and farming. Virginia offered a seem-ingly endless supply of resources like lum-ber and hides which the English were for-merly “enforced to buy, and receive at thecurtesie of other Princes” (Billings 1975:15).The first settlers also explored the commer-cial viability of a wide range of crops andindustries. Glass, silk, pitch, tar, and soap ashwere tried with mixed success (Billings1975:7-9; Middleton 1992:25). Likewise, manyvarieties of seeds were planted to test theirefficacy. In 1612, John Rolfe began testing anew variety of tobacco from the West Indiesin an effort to improve upon the bitter, North

13

Figure 1. James City County, York County, and the City of Williamsburg. Map by the author and HeatherHarvey.

American leaf that Sir Francis Drake had in-troduced to England in 1586 (Billings1975:175-176; Middleton 1992:28-29). Aftertwo years of experimentation, John Rolfeshipped four hogsheads of the West Indianstrain of tobacco to London, touching off acraze that would shape the direction of thecolony over the next century and a half.

Despite the insatiable demand for to-bacco after 1614, Virginia remained littlemore than a struggling military outpost. In1618, the Virginia Company attempted to re-organize the colony under the Charter of 1618which established four municipalities to

serve as “focal points” for the Virginia colony(Craven 1970:129). James City, Charles City,Henrico, and Kecoughtan (later ElizabethCity) were incorporated to promote trade andcommerce and provide settlers protectionfrom Indian attack. The municipalities eachconsisted of 3000 acres worked by thecompany’s tenants at half shares to pay sala-ries of colonial officers. An extra 3000 acreswere set aside in James City County for theGovernor’s salary (Craven 1970:130). Like-wise, 100 acres of glebe land were also setaside to provide the salary for a minister. Thecharter even included a provision offering

14

four acres of land in a town for a nominalrent of four pence per year to craftsmen asan inducement to immigrate (Craven1970:130). In 1619, colonial officials initiatedshipbuilding, glassmaking, and ironworkingventures, yet each failed within a few years(Horning 1995:135-136).

Efforts to promote the development ofother industries and commodities continuedafter the demise of the Virginia Company in1624. John Harvey, who served as governorbetween 1630 and 1635, and again between1637 and 1639, attempted to create a thriv-ing economic center in Virginia by promot-ing an act making Jamestown the sole portof entry for the colony (Horning 1995:146).The Crown bristled at this attempt to controltrade and promptly called on Virginia’s gov-ernment to revoke the legislation. Althoughthe colonial officials refused, the Crown’slack of support made it difficult to enforcethe Act, thereby rendering it ineffective(Horning 1995:147-149; Middleton 1992:43).

Harvey also worked to promote eco-nomic development by privately funding in-dustrial ventures in the 1630s. He establishedan industrial compound consisting of severaldifferent crafts on property he owned locatednear the middle of New Towne onJamestown Island (Horning 1995:169). Tworectangular kilns (Structures 111-A and 111-B) and a circular pit possibly used as an ironbloomery (Structure 111-C) represent the firstcrafts to be established in this area (Cotter1958:110-111). While the exact function of thekilns remains unclear, burned oyster shelldiscovered on the floors of both kilns sug-gests that they were used at least once to slakelime. The pit used for smelting iron was duginto one of the adjacent kilns (Structure 111-B). This bloomery consists of a circular pitmeasuring ten feet in diameter by one footin depth where bog iron was smelted to pro-duce bar iron (Cotter 1958:110). A large, brickstructure (Structure 110) discovered twenty

feet east of the kilns and the bloomery ap-pears to have been another component ofHarvey’s industrial enclave. Analysis of thisstructure and the recovered assemblage sug-gests it functioned as a brewhouse and anapothecary (Cotter 1958:102-109; Horning1995:169). Enthusiasm was not enough tospark industry at Jamestown, however. De-spite Harvey’s efforts, all of these venturesdisappeared by mid-century.

Efforts to diversify Virginia’s economycontinued to fail throughout the first half ofthe seventeenth century precisely becausetobacco was so profitable. The lucrative to-bacco market encouraged planters to concen-trate on a single commodity for the exportmarket while virtually all goods and serviceswere purchased from abroad. Planters evencontinued to turn a profit in the 1630s whentobacco prices tumbled nearly 90 percentfrom three shillings to three pence a pound(Middleton 1992:42). The conditions neces-sary to promote diversification were absentin the Chesapeake until after 1660. By thistime, declining profits and a limited marketnecessitated the development of a localeconomy and alternative economic venturesappeared more attractive relative to tobacco.

Virginia’s social and economic climatewas in the midst of change early in the 1660swhen William Berkeley returned to serve asgovernor of the colony for a second time fol-lowing the death of Oliver Cromwell and therestoration of the monarchy. By the time Ber-keley arrived in Virginia, England passed thefirst of the Navigation Acts declaring exclu-sive rights over Virginia’s market. Whilethese acts benefited English merchants, theydid so at the expense of the colonial economy.The acts, declared “mighty and destructive”by Governor Berkeley, constricted the slump-ing tobacco market and prohibited cheaperDutch goods and services (Middleton1992:113). The volatile cycle of boom and bustthat resulted made it impossible for planters

15

to rely solely on tobacco as they had in thepast. Continued instability in the tobaccomarket prompted farmers to diversify theiragricultural strategies to include corn andgrain and engage in animal husbandry on alarger scale (Carr and Walsh 1988:145-146).A more diverse planting regimen diminishedthe reliance on English markets by allowingplanters to exchange surplus produce andmeat for locally available goods and services.Moreover, increased exchange encouragedthe development of a host of crafts to meetthe demand for services and finished goods.Ultimately, alternative sources of income, or“import replacement activities,” resulted inthe growth of a “complex network of localinterdependence” that helped buffer Chesa-peake planters against fluctuations in cropprices (Carr and Walsh 1988:145-146).

Occupational data from York County, Vir-ginia (Table 1) reflects an increase in the num-ber and variety of trades corresponding toagricultural diversification during the secondhalf of the seventeenth century. The YorkCounty records are unique for their volumeand consistent coverage from the 1630sthrough the eighteenth century. Historianswith the Colonial Williamsburg Foundationcompiled a database representing a 10 per-cent sample of the York County records pro-viding scholars with a valuable research tool.A total of twenty-one trades are representedin the York County records database for theperiod between 1640 and 1740 (Table 1). Be-tween 1640 and 1669, sixteen individualsidentified were engaged in seven trades, in-cluding a sawyer, a builder, an ordinarykeeper, two planters, two coopers, two gun-powder makers, and seven carpenters (YorkCounty Records [hereafter YCR]). With theexception of the ordinary keeper and the gun-powder makers, all of the individuals repre-sented during this period were involved intrades associated with growing tobacco orpreparing it for export. Planters grew to-

bacco, sawyers cut the wood needed for bar-rels and buildings, coopers made the hogs-heads that would carry tobacco to England,while builders and carpenters constructedhouses and tobacco barns.

Ten trades are represented in the samplebetween 1670 and 1699 (YCR). While a ma-jority (75%) of the 43 York County residentscounted were involved in tobacco-relatedoccupations during this period, the numberof trades not associated with tobacco culti-vation increased from two to five. Ordinarykeepers (two) and gunpowder makers (three)continued to be represented between 1670and 1699, while new occupations included abrickmaker, a joiner, and a millwright (YCR).While carpenters, sawyers, coopers, and gun-powder makers were still present, the ap-pearance of a joiner suggests that finishedgoods that could only be obtained fromabroad earlier in the century were being pro-duced in York County after 1690. Likewise,the presence of brickmakers and millwrightsmay indicate that more services were avail-able locally. Moreover, the appearance of amillwright in 1698 suggests that planterswere growing enough corn and grain to sup-port a local mill.

The trend towards greater diversificationcontinues after 1700 when the number ofcraft-related trades represented in the YorkCounty record database outnumber thoseassociated with tobacco and agriculture forthe first time (YCR). Over half (57%) of the44 individuals identified in the records be-tween 1700 and 1729 were artisans as com-pared to only 11 artisans out of 43 (25%) re-corded between 1670 and 1699. Twelve tradeswere identified for the period between 1700and 1729, including six trades which are rep-resented for the first time in the York County.The occupations which appear in the recordsafter 1700 are all craft-related, including anarmorer, a brazier, ten bricklayers, three gla-ziers, a silversmith, a clock/watchmaker, and

16

a whitesmith (YCR). The increase in the num-ber of artisans and trades in York Countydemonstrates the increasing complexity inthe local exchange networks as Virginians be-came less dependent on English goods andservices. The appearance of bricklayers andglaziers or glassworkers suggests an increasein construction in York County while the ar-rival of a silversmith and clockmaker mayindicate that local residents had enough ex-pendable income by 1700 to support busi-nesses involved in the production and repairof luxury items. Likewise, braziers producedbrass items while whitesmiths provided fin-ished tin products for local residents. Thepresence of an armorer in addition to a gun-powder maker and a gunsmith may relate toWilliamsburg’s new role as the colonial capi-tal after 1699.

The Archaeology of Seventeenth-Century Industrial Sites

The growth of local Chesapeake industry isalso reflected in the archaeological record. InVirginia, nineteen industrial sites dating be-tween 1640 and 1725 have been identified inYork County, James City County, and the Cityof Williamsburg (Figure 2). Fourteen of thesites are located in James City County, reflect-ing the sustained research on Jamestown Is-land as well as archaeology conducted as partof development along the James River. Fourindustrial sites were identified in the City ofWilliamsburg while only one has been foundin York County. The sites include a glass fur-nace, the remains of a bloomery, three pot-teries, and fourteen brick-producing sites(Table 2). With the exception of a brick kiln

Table 1.Trades in York County, Virginia, listed by decade.

Trade 1640 1650 1660 1670 1680 1690 1700 1710 1720 1730 1740 Total

Armorer — — — — — — — 1 — — — 1Brazier — — — — — 1 — — — — — 1Brickmaker — — — — — 1 — — — — 2 3Bricklayer — — — — — — 3 3 4 — — 10Builder — 1 — — 1 — — — — — 1 3Carpenter 2 3 2 2 7 2 14 2 2 5 4 45Cooper — 1 1 4 1 1 — 1 — — — 9Cutler — — — — — — — — — — 1 1Founder — — — — — — — — — — 1 1Glazier — — — — — — 1 — 2 — — 3Gunpowder maker — 2 — 1 1 1 1 — — — — 6Gunsmith — — — — — — — 1 — — — 1Joiner — — — — — 1 1 1 3 2 2 10Millwright — — — — — 1 — — — — — 1Ordinary keeper — 1 — 2 — — — — — — — 3Painter — — — — — — — — — 1 — 1Planter — 1 1 3 1 1 — — — — — 7Sawyer — 1 — — — 2 — — — — — 3Silversmith — — — — — — — 1 — — 2 3Clock/watchmaker — — — — — — — — 1 2 — 3Whitesmith — — — — — — — — 1 — — 1

Total by Decade 2 10 4 12 11 10 21 10 13 10 13 116

17

Figure 2. Location of industrial sites in James City County, York County, and the City ofWilliamsburg. Map by the author and Heather Harvey.

(Structure 127) located on Jamestown Island,all of the industrial sites postdate 1660.

The excavation of the Drummond site inJames City County produced evidence of aprimitive bloomery operation dating to the1680s (Outlaw 1975a). The evidence is un-usual given the fact that large-scalebloomeries and foundries were not estab-

lished in Virginia until the 1720s (Harvey1988). William Drummond was a gentlemanplanter who leased land on the 2000-acreGovernor ’s Land tract. Although Drum-mond was executed in 1676 for joiningNathaniel Bacon in an attempt to overthrowthe colonial government under William Ber-keley, his family and servants remained on

18

the plantation until the early eighteenth cen-tury (Outlaw 1975a). Six large pits filled withcharcoal, slag, brick, oyster shell, and irondiscovered near the site of the Drummondhouse may represent the remains of a small-scale plantation forge or bloomery. Artifactsexcavated from the pits suggest the opera-tion was active between 1680 and 1720 (Out-law 1975a). Bloomeries were used to produceiron from locally available bog iron, a lowgrade iron ore. The bog iron was roasted inshallow pits with charcoal and lime. The limeacted as a flux to cause the iron to separate ata low temperature. James Deetz argues thatthis technology which was “small in scale,and simple in execution, is ideally suited formodest production to meet immediateneeds” (Deetz 1993:68). Evidence for the pro-duction of domestic tobacco pipes was alsofound. Although the pipe kiln was neveridentified, the substantial amount of waster

material recovered from the site suggests thepresence of a small cottage industry (Harvey1988; Outlaw 1975a).

Archaeological evidence indicates thatWilliam Berkeley established a glasshouseand a pottery on his Green Spring Plantationin James City County. Berkeley acquired theGreen Spring property in 1641 and lived thereuntil his death in 1677 (Caywood 1955:3).Always working to promote new industriesin the Virginia colony, he raised tobacco, rice,and flax, experimented with silk, made wine,and harvested timber for export. A smallglass furnace was identified east of Berkeley’sresidence on Powhatan Creek during the firstarchaeological investigation of the plantationin 1928. The furnace was reported to be ofbrick construction, and included a brickmarked “Aug., 1666” (Carson 1954:12). Al-though little is known about this site, it verywell may have been part of Berkeley’s efforts

Table 2.Industrial Sites Identified in James City County,

York County, and the City of Williamsburg

Site Site Type Date Location Reference

Jamestown Str. 127 Brick/tile kiln Ca.1650 JCC Cotter 1958Rich Neck Brick/tile kiln Ca.1660 Wmsbg Metz 1994Jamestown Str. 65 Brick/tile kiln Ca.1660-1675 JCC Cotter 1958Bruton Heights Brick/tile kiln Ca.1662 Wmsbg Metz et al. 1996Jamestown Str. 102 Brick/tile kiln Ca.1662 JCC Cotter 1958Green Spring Pottery Ca.1665-1680 JCC Caywood 1955; Smith 1980Glasshouse Glasshouse Ca. 1666 JCC Carson 1954Challis Site Pottery Ca.1680-1725 JCC Noël Hume 1963;

Pittman 1995Drummond Site Bloomery/tobacco Ca.1680-1730 JCC Outlaw 1975b

pipe manufactoryWren Building Clamp A Brick clamp 1695 Wmsbg Dearstyne 1951Wren Building Clamp B Brick clamp 1695 Wmsbg Dearstyne 1951Governor’s Land–44JC84 Brick clamp Ca.1700-1725 JCC Outlaw 1975aGovernor’s Land–44JC86 Brick clamp Ca.1700-1725 JCC Outlaw 1975aGovernor’s Land–44JC87 Brick clamp Ca.1700-1725 JCC Outlaw 1975aGovernor’s Land–44JC89 Brick clamp Ca.1700-1725 JCC Outlaw 1975aGovernor’s Land–44JC99 Brick clamp Ca.1700-1725 JCC Outlaw 1975aRogers Pottery Pottery Ca.1711-1740s York Co. Barka 1973; Barka et al. 1984Jamestown Clamp Brick clamp 1720s? JCC Horning and Edwards 1988Jamestown Clamp Brick clamp 1720s? JCC Horning and Edwards 1998

19

to encourage the development of colonial in-dustry.

The pottery at Green Spring Plantationwas identified near the house during ar-chaeological investigation of the site con-ducted in the early 1950s. Descriptions andphotographs indicate that the kiln was a rect-angular updraft-type kiln with a firebox be-neath a firing chamber (Caywood 1955:12-13). Excavation of the kiln produced utilitar-ian earthenwares in a variety of forms includ-ing lead-glazed and bisque vessels, flat roof-ing tiles, and pan tiles (Caywood 1955:13;Smith 1980:63). Datable artifacts excavatedfrom the kiln indicates that the site was ac-tive between 1665 and 1680. The paucity ofGreen Spring pottery on other sites in the re-gion suggests that either the manufactorywas short-lived or that it produced items foruse on Green Spring Plantation (Smith1980:96).

Other potteries in the region include theChallis site in James City County and theWilliam Rogers Pottery in Yorktown. IvorNoël Hume excavated the Challis site in the1960s. Although a kiln was never identified,the salvage excavation of a large pit erodingout of the bank into the Chickahominy Riverproduced enough waster material to suggesta ceramic production site that began some-time around 1680 and remained in operationuntil 1730 (William Pittman, personal com-munication, 1995). Products from the siteconsist primarily of lead-glazed and bisqueutilitarian earthenwares. Like the ceramicsproduced on Green Spring Plantation, pot-tery from the Challis site does not appear onmany sites, suggesting that it was for use ona single plantation or for very limited distri-bution.

The William Rogers pottery, on the otherhand, was a far more ambitious undertak-ing. Although the name of William Rogers ishistorically linked to the site, he appears tohave been an entrepreneur who funded the

pottery and may not have been involved inthe actual production of ceramics (Barka1973, 1984). The pottery might have been inoperation as early as 1711 when Rogers pur-chased the property, although a dated cupburied ceremoniously behind the kiln indi-cates that it was started in 1720. An archaeo-logical investigation of the site conducted inthe early 1970s revealed a sophisticated kilnas well as the remains of an associated fac-tory building. The distribution of materialacross the site suggests that this productionsite may have included additional structuresand possibly another kiln located on pri-vately-owned property adjacent to the kilnsite (Barka et al. 1984). Production continuedinto the 1740s and included a range of distri-bution that spanned the Chesapeake (Barka1984; Pittman, personal communication,1995). Despite the archaeological evidence fora successful pottery, Governor WilliamGooch referred to the artisan as the “poorpotter” of Yorktown in a report on manufac-tures to the English Board of Trade in 1730(Gooch in Barka 1973:292). Norman Barkasuggests that this dismissive reference re-flected the royal governor ’s sympathy forlocal industrial development at a time whenEnglish officials were trying to keep colonialtrades from competing with homeland in-dustries (Barka 1973:292).

While an increase in the number and va-riety of industrial sites in the Virginia Tide-water indicates growing economic diversity,the archaeological record suggests that thetechnology employed in some crafts mayhave changed within the context of a planta-tion economy. The development of Chesa-peake brickmaking in particular reflects boththe technological shifts that appear to corre-late with the trend towards greater economicdiversification and increased self-sufficiencyon farms, as well as the transition from in-dentured servitude to slave labor. Brick kilnsare often the most common type of indus-

20

trial feature found on seventeenth and earlyeighteenth-century sites. To date, fourteenbrick kilns dating between 1650 and 1729have been identified in James City County,York County, and the City of Williamsburg.

The archaeological remains ofbrickmaking appear to be so common be-cause of their role in the building industry.Indeed, after the Great Fire of London in 1666,contractor and land speculator NicholasBarbon declared building to be the “chiefestpromoter of trade [because] it employs agreater number of trades and people thanfeeding and clothing, [including] those thatmake materials for building, such as brick,lime, tile, etc.” (Barbon in Sella 1977:372).Despite the prevalence of earthfast or post-in-ground construction in Virginia during theseventeenth century, bricks were commonlyused to construct hearths and foundations,as well as to line cellars. As demand for bricksincreased over the seventeenth century, itwas more cost effective to burn the bricksneeded for the project on the constructionsite. In Bedfordshire, England, during theearly nineteenth century, for example, theprice of 1000 bricks increased two percent forevery mile they were shipped, while the costincreased 45% for every mile beyond a fivemile radius of the brickyard (Cox 1979:11).The cost of transporting brick in colonial Vir-ginia must have been prohibitive given thesprawling nature of settlement.

Bricks were fired in “clamps” and “kilns”throughout the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies. The construction and preparationof clamps and kilns for firing varied little overtime. The brickmaker and his crew stackedgreen bricks in rows called benches two orthree bricks wide. A space measuring afinger’s width was left between each brickto allow for the circulation of heat through-out the kiln. Benches alternated with chan-nels or flues which held the wood fuel.

Benches were stacked five or six courses highbefore bricks were staggered in towards thechannels to create corbelled arches. Kilnswere typically stacked to a height of 14 or 15feet (Barka 1984:271). An average-sized kilncould hold between 3000 and 5000 bricks perchannel, or a total of 20,000 to 30,000 bricksper kiln (Dobson 1971(I):141; Goldthwaite1980:179). The structure of green bricks wasencased in a shell of fired bricks and plas-tered over with mud to insulate the kiln. Aplug of green brick called a shinlog wasplaced at the openings of the flues and al-lowed the brickmaker to control the inten-sity and distribution of the heat within thekiln by raising or lowering the shinlogs overthe eyes of the channels.

The difference between clamps and kilnslies in the permanence of the structures. Ed-ward Dobson, an expert on the industry inthe early nineteenth century, defined a clampas “a pile of bricks arranged for burning inthe ordinary way, and covered with a tem-porary casing of burnt brick to retain heat”(Dobson 1971(I):38). Quite simply, “clamps”were temporary kilns constructed of the ma-terial they were producing. Once firing wascomplete, the clamp was dismantled, leav-ing only a footprint of burned soil and per-haps a few brick wasters. Clamps were gen-erally built on a construction site to providebrick for a single project. Itinerantbrickmakers often fired brick in clamps be-cause they required less labor and expenseto construct and burn than larger, more per-manent kilns (Cox 1979:11). The major draw-back of this kiln type was the inability to con-trol the firing process. Unlike the more per-manent structures, the heat could not be re-distributed to other areas of the kiln. Conse-quently, clamp-fired material included agreater percentage of under- and over-burned wasters. Analysis of the brick mak-ing industry in Europe has shown that

21

clamps remained popular in areas where fuelwas cheap despite their inefficiency(Goldthwaite 1980:186-187).

Kilns, on the other hand, were permanentor semi-permanent structures built of brickor stone and consisted of a distinct fireboxand stoking pit (Figure 3). Dobson defined akiln as “a chamber in which the bricks areloosely stacked, with spaces between themfor the passage of heat” (Dobson 1971(I):38).A common kiln type consisted of a walledchamber above vaulted firing chambers,similar to the “Roman pit-type kiln”(Goldthwaite 1980:178). Kilns were oftenlined with highly refractable material suchas under-fired brick for use on brickyards orfor extremely large projects involving manyfirings. Unlined pit-type kilns considered tobe semi-permanent were built to providebrick and tile for large projects or specialtyitems (Eams 1961:167). Burning times werealso shorter with the permanent and semi-permanent updraft kilns due to heavier con-struction and increased insulation which re-sulted from burying the firebox (Barka1984:192). Better insulation also allowed kilnsto achieve higher firing temperatures thanclamps.

Five substantially constructed rectangu-lar updraft kilns have been identified withina five-mile radius of Williamsburg. Three ofthese have been excavated, including one atBruton Heights and two at Jamestown. An-other exposed on Jamestown Island was par-tially excavated in the 1950s (Cotter 1958:80-81). The remains of a fifth kiln recently iden-tified at the Rich Neck Plantation site in Will-iamsburg appears to match this configura-tion as well (Metz 1994). All of the local kilnsdate to a period between 1640 and 1675.

The brickyard on the Bruton Heightsschool property represents the most intactbrick manufactory of the period (Metz 1995;Metz et al. 1997:51-67). John Page acquiredthe Bruton Heights property in 1655, five

years after he arrived in the colony. Likemany immigrants who arrived in Virginiaduring the 1640s and 1650s, Page was an edu-cated man from a prosperous English family(Metz et al. 1997:43). These qualities allowedhim to move freely in the upper strata of Vir-ginia society and politics. Page was electedto the House of Burgesses by 1655, and be-came Sheriff of York County and the head ofthe county militia in the 1670s. His politicalcareer culminated in 1680 with an appoint-ment to Virginia’s Council of State. John Pageswore out patents to over 7000 acres of landin southeastern Virginia and owned severalplantations (Bruce 1935:253). His MiddlePlantation holdings included much of whatwas to become the City of Williamsburg in1699.

The archaeological evidence from the siteincludes an irrigation ditch, three clay tem-pering areas, several pugmills and water bar-rel stations for mixing, and an earthfast struc-ture, probably used as a molding or dryingshed, all symmetrically organized around asingle kiln (Figure 4). The symmetrical place-ment of the activity areas reflects the differ-ent stations involved in the brick andtilemaking process. A carved brick cartouchebearing Page’s initials and the date 1662(when the construction of his manor housewas likely completed) indicates that thebrickyard was active during the early 1660s.Judging from the elaborate kiln and complexbrickyard, Page commissioned an English-trained brickmaker for the construction of amanor house, a large brick dependency and,perhaps, several other brick structures atMiddle Plantation. The Bruton Heights kilnmeasured 12 x 11.5 feet and was excavatedto a depth of three feet (Metz et al. 1997:57-59). Three channels extended to the rear wallof the kiln. Although a kiln with three “eyes,”or openings, would have had four benches,only portions of the two outermost benchessurvived in the Bruton Heights kiln. The

22

Figure 3. Plan of the Page kiln at Bruton Heights. Drawing by Kimberly Wagnerand Heather Harvey.

23

walls and the floor were unlined, indicatingthat the kiln was of the semi-permanent typewith an estimated life-span of three to fouryears (Cherry 1991:192; Eams 1961:167). Thefirebox is unlined, suggesting it was semi-permanent, while artifacts recovered fromthe site indicate that flat roofing tile, moldedand carved brick, and pavers were producedat the site (Metz et al. 1997:63-67).

The other rectangular updraft kilns aresimilar to the example at Bruton Heights inboth form and product. Structure 127 atJamestown consisted of a subterranean fire-box measuring 11 x 9 feet, and excavated to adepth of five and a half feet (Cotter 1958:145).Three benches measuring two bricks wideand two channels were identified within the

firebox. The firebox was unlined, indicatingthat it was for a short-term project. AlthoughJohn Cotter describes Structure 127 as a“probable first-quarter 17th-century enter-prise,” based on the domestic tobacco pipestem fragments found in the kiln fill, it ismore likely that this kiln operated some timearound the 1650s based on its location in“New Towne,” as well as from our currentunderstanding of domestic pipes and theirtemporal affiliation (Cotter 1958:145-147;Emerson 1994; Mouer 1993:124-146).

Structure 102 is a massive, brick-linedkiln which measures 19 x 25 feet (Cotter1958:96-98; Harrington 1950:23). Excavationrevealed a large, brick-lined firebox with theremains of five channels and six benches.

Figure 4. Plan of Page brickyard at Bruton Heights (map by Kimberly Wagner and Heather Harvey).

24

Benches were three bricks wide and stackedin a herringbone pattern to facilitate heat dis-tribution throughout the kiln. Presence of areplaceable brick lining indicates that Struc-ture 102 was a permanent kiln. Artifacts re-covered from Structure 102 suggest that thekiln was built to produce brick and roofingtile for several structures or a public build-ing project. J.C. Harrington speculates thatStructure 102 must pre-date 1683 because aland patent signed by Nathaniel Bacon inthat year makes no mention of a kiln(Harrington 1950:28). Likewise, subsequentproperty deeds for the area surrounding thekiln are silent on the matter. The size of thiskiln suggests it may have been built in re-sponse to the Cohabitation Act of 1662 whichcalled for the construction of thirty brickbuildings at Jamestown (Cotter 1958:96-98;Harrington 1950:23).

Although Structure 65 on Jamestown Is-land was identified as a brick kiln by archae-ologist H. Summerfield Day in 1935, it wasnever completely excavated (Cotter 1958:74-77,80-81). Judging from the limited data thatexists, this kiln consists of a subterranean fire-box and stoking pit. Archaeologists deter-mined that Structure 65 produced brick androofing tile for Structure 31, “a substantialfoundation of a brick house” (Cotter 1958:77).Given the location of Structures 31 and 65 onthe “Sherwood Tract,” Cotter speculates thatthe structure and the kiln may have belongedto William Sherwood, whose house was re-corded on the Ambler Plat dated 1680 (Cot-ter 1958:74-77). As such, Structure 65 appearsto date to the third quarter of the seventeenthcentury.

Very little data exists for the kiln identi-fied at Rich Neck Plantation located in Will-iamsburg. The Rich Neck property was origi-nally patented by George Minifie in 1635, andpassed to Richard Kemp upon Minifie’sdeath in 1644 (Muraca 1993:7). ThomasLudwell, a colonial aristocrat who began

serving as Secretary of State of Virginia in1660, acquired the property sometime aroundthe mid-seventeenth century. The Rich Neckproperty remained in the Ludwell familyuntil the early nineteenth century (Muraca1993:7-9). The Rich Neck kiln was identifiedby ground penetrating radar in 1994 (Metz1994). A single test unit measuring onesquare-meter revealed the southwest cornerof a subterranean firebox revealing scorchedclay, charcoal, and brick fragments. A layerof burned oyster shell covering the floor sug-gests that lime was also prepared in this kiln.Based on this limited evidence, the Rich Neckkiln appears to be a semi-permanent kiln thatprobably dates to the construction of addi-tions made to the manor house by ThomasLudwell after he acquired the property atmid-century (Metz 1994; Muraca 1995).

The remains of brick clamps typically areephemeral because they were completely dis-mantled after firing. While dating these fea-tures is difficult, most clamps were burnednear the building under construction mak-ing a temporal attribution possible (Metz andRuss 1991). Nine clamps pre-dating 1725have been identified in York County, JamesCity County, and the City of Williamsburg.The remains of two clamps were identifiedon the campus of the College of William &Mary. Both appear to relate to the construc-tion of the Wren building in 1695. Althoughthe Wren building was constructed on top ofthe clamps, portions of both clamps were ex-posed during renovations in the early 1950s(Dearstyne 1951). Evidence of clamp technol-ogy has also been identified on JamestownIsland. Although few diagnostic artifactswere found in association with the scorchedfootprints of two kilns identified in 1993, bothappear to relate to the construction of theAmbler House in the 1720s (Horning andEdwards 1998). Five early eighteenth-centurykilns (sites 44JC84, 44JC86, 44JC87, 44JC89,and 44JC99) have also been identified at the

25

Governor’s Land at Two Rivers developmentin James City County (Brown 1986:152; Out-law 1975b).

All five of the rectangular updraft kilnsidentified in Williamsburg and James CityCounty date between 1640 and 1680, whilethe nine clamps considered in the surveypostdate 1690. This pattern may reflect a tran-sition in brickmaking from a trade practicedby craftsmen and indentured servants whowere formally trained in the English man-ner of brickmaking to a by-employmentwhere plantation owners with little or notraining in brickmaking augmented their ag-ricultural income by firing brick using theeasiest technology available. Lois Green Carrand Lorena Walsh observe that prior to 1700,“white male servants or free laborers per-formed almost all artisanal work” (Carr andWalsh 1988:163). Indeed, brickmakers beganto arrive in increasing numbers beginning inthe mid-seventeenth century when their ser-vices came into demand. For example, EdwinMalin acquired a respectable estate firingbricks in York County in the 1680s, as didJohn Kingston, who was active in the samearea in the 1690s (Bruce 1935:140). Likewise,many of the brickmakers trained in Englandcame over as indentured servants. In the1640s, Tidewater resident John Townesbrought William Eale over from England be-cause of his ability to make bricks (Bruce1935:141). Furthermore, the English trainingof these artisans may account for the medi-eval style of the rectangular updraft kilns.Carl Bridenbaugh notes that “skilled artisanstook with them the medieval English crafttradition as part of their cultural baggage”(Bridenbaugh 1950:3).

Based on this survey, it appears thatclamps supplant the more substantial rect-angular-updraft kilns in the Virginia Tidewa-ter as early as the 1690s. Several possible ex-planations exist for this transition. Clampswere often considered to be cheaper to build

and easier to burn than the more permanenttypes of kilns despite greater waste. In theHudson Valley, for example, RichardO’Conner, argues that “brickmakers selectedonly those portions of English technologywhich required the least amount of labor andCapital” (O’Conner 1987:52). Likewise,clamps appear to have been more attractivefor the small-scale, localized production ofbrick for foundations and chimneys (Cox1979:10). Clamps may also have been bettersuited to bi-employment in agricultural re-gions such as the Chesapeake. Clamps be-came the prevalent means of firing brick inthe British countryside beginning in the fif-teenth century since this technology fit wellinto the agricultural schedule, and becausemost of the preparation for brick manufac-ture was conducted during the winter lull ofthe growing year (Cox 1979:19; Smith1985:41). Likewise, the Vanderhorst familybegan a large-scale brickmaking enterpriseon Lexington Plantation near Charleston,South Carolina, in the nineteenth centurybecause it provided employment for slavesat a time of the year when agricultural de-mands were low (Wayne and Dickinson1990).

Perhaps the most compelling explanationfor the shift in brickmaking technology liesin the transformation of the labor force in Vir-ginia at the end of the seventeenth century.In the early days of the tobacco boom duringthe 1630s and 1640s, the demand for un-skilled field labor was met by free whites andindentured servants (Galenson 1982:126). Astobacco became more profitable toward themid-seventeenth century and production in-creased, waves of English immigrants, usu-ally indentured, arrived to maintain the sup-ply of ready labor. Many of these immigrantssaw indentured servitude as a way of im-proving their lot in life despite the loss of afew years of freedom. Before long, skilledlabor was needed to build houses and per-

26

form a wide variety of crafts associated withtobacco cultivation (Galenson 1982:126). Ini-tially, indentured servants filled this need aswell. However, the demand for skilled laborcontinued to grow, and the cost of whiteworkers increased to the point that enslavedAfricans became a cheaper alternative(Galenson 1982:126). At first, slaves filled theneed for unskilled field labor while inden-tured servants or a free craftsmen would behired to complete tasks requiring skill. Skilledlabor became hard to come by after 1700 asmany skilled artisans abandoned their tradeswhen they received their freedom, choosinginstead to plant tobacco or return to England.A planter living in Virginia during the eigh-teenth century expressed this sentimentwhen he wrote that, “we have no merchants,tradesman, or artificers here but what be-come planters in a short time” (Galenson1982:126). Given this, the increased prefer-ence for the clamps by the early eighteenthcentury may reflect a greater reliance on slavelabor as planters burned brick for their ownuse.

A survey of the nineteen industrial sitesidentified in James City County, York County,and the City of Williamsburg suggests thatVirginians became more self-sufficient be-tween 1650 and 1725. Virginians activelysought to replace imported goods with lo-cally available alternatives. A planter livingin 1650 probably purchased most of what heneeded from English merchants, while YorkCounty boasted a wide variety of services by1725, including a tinsmith, a watchmaker,joiners, glaziers and an armorer (YCR). Like-wise, the archaeological evidence suggeststhat the Tidewater region developed localsources for brick, glass, and iron. Analysis of

the fourteen brick-producing sites in the re-gion reflects dramatic change over time.Early on, wealthy planters like John Page andThomas Ludwell established brickyards withsubstantial permanent and semi-permanentkilns on their properties to produce brick andtile for their homes and dependencies. Thehistorical data indicates that these menbrought indentured servants with the skillsthey needed from England. By the eighteenthcentury, brickmaking was practiced by plant-ers who used impermanent, single-useclamps to produce the brick they needed. Ineffect, clamps allowed farmers to becomemore self-sufficient by providing a cheaperalternative to hiring skilled artisans trainedto make brick and tile. The massive impor-tation of enslaved Africans beginning in thelate seventeenth century undoubtedlyplayed a crucial role in this transition by pro-viding planters the necessary labor for to-bacco cultivation, and the trades associatedwith it.

The transition reflected in brickmakingbetween 1650 and 1725 reveals how coloniststransformed the production of their materialworld within the Chesapeake’s unique so-cial, economic, and environmental condi-tions. As posited earlier, competition and the“differential distribution of power”(McGuire 1982) served as the impetus forethnic group formation in Virginia, andserved to temper the colony’s path to even-tual independence. Through this one, par-ticular shift in technology, colonists were inessence actively negotiating their socioeco-nomic relationship to Mother England, andasserting their newly realized ethnic iden-tity as Virginia’s emergent and influentialCreole population.

27

Bailyn, B.1959 Politics and Social Structure in

Virginia. In Seventeenth-CenturyAmerica: Essays in Colonial History,edited by J. M. Smith, pp. 90-115.Greenwood Press, Westport,Connecticut.

Barka, N.F.1973 The Kiln and Ceramics of the

“Poor Potter” of Yorktown: APreliminary Report. In Ceramics inAmerica, edited by I. M.G. Quimby,pp. 291-318. Wintherthur Confer-ence Report 1972. University ofVirginia, Charlottesville.

Barka, N.F., E. Ayres, and C. Sheridan1984 The Poor Potter of Yorktown: A Study

of a Colonial Pottery Factory. 3 vols.Prepared under U.S. National ParkService Contract No. CK-2000-0-0005. U.S. Department of theInterior. National Park Service,Denver Service Center, Denver.

Barth, F.1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The

Social Organization of CultureDifference. Allen and Unwin,London

Billings, W.M.1975 The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth

Century: A Documentary History ofVirginia, 1606-1689. University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Bridenbaugh, C.1950 The Colonial Craftsman. New York

University Press, New York.

Brown, M.R., III1986 Toward a Resource Protection Process:

James City County, York County, Cityof Poquoson, and City of Williams-burg. Second edition. Office ofArchaeological Excavation, De-

partment of Archaeology, TheColonial Williamsburg, Founda-tion, Williamsburg.

Bruce, P.A.1935 Economic History of Virginia in the

Seventeenth Century: An Inquiry intothe Material Condition of the People,Based Upon Original and Contempo-raneous Records. Two volumes.Peter Smith, New York.

Carr, L.G., and L.S. Walsh1988 Economic Diversification and

Labor Organization in the Chesa-peake, 1650-1820. In Work andLabor in Early America, edited by S.Innes, pp.144-188. University ofNorth Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Carson, J.1954 Green Spring Plantation in the 17th

Century. House report on file at theColonial Williamsburg FoundationLibrary, Williamsburg.

Caywood, L.1955 Green Spring Plantation Archaeologi-

cal Report. United States Depart-ment of the Interior, National ParkService, Colonial National Histori-cal Park, Yorktown.

Cherry, John1991 Pottery and Tile. In English Medi-

eval Industries, edited by John Blairand Nigel Ramsay, pp. 189-210.The Hambledon Press, London.

Cotter, J.L.1958 Archaeological Excavations at

Jamestown, Virginia. National ParkService, U.S. Department of theInterior, Washington, D.C.

Cox, A.1979 Brickmaking: A History and Gazet-

teer. Bedfordshire County Council,Bedfordshire.

References Cited

28

Craven, W.F.1970 The Southern Colonies in the Seven-

teenth Century, 1607-1689. Louisi-ana State University Press, BatonRouge.

Dearstyne, H.1951 Architectural History of the Wren

Building of the College of William andMary, Vol. 1. Research report onfile, Colonial Williamsburg Foun-dation Library, Williamsburg.

Deetz, J.1993 Flowerdew Hundred: The Archaeol-

ogy of a Virginia Plantation, 1619-1864. University of Virginia,Charlottesville.

Dobson, E.1971 A Rudimentary Treatise on the

Manufacture of Bricks and Tiles.Reprint of 1850 edition, Journal ofCeramic History No. 5, edited byF. Celoria. George Street Press,Stafford.

Eams, E.1961 A Thirteenth-Century tile kiln site

at North Grange Meaux, Beverley,Yorkshire. Medieval Archaeology5:137-168.

Emerson, M. C.1994 Decorated Clay Tobacco Pipes

from the Chesapeake: An AfricanConnection. In Historical Archaeol-ogy of the Chesapeake, edited by P.A.Shackel and B.J. Little, pp. 35-50.Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, D.C.

Galenson, D.1981 White Servitude in Colonial America:

An Economic Analysis. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Goldthwaite, R.1980 The Building of Renaissance Florence:

An Economic and Social History.

Johns Hopkins University, Balti-more.

Greene, J.P.1988 Pursuits of Happiness: The Social

Development of Early Modern BritishColonies and the Formation of Ameri-can Culture. University of NorthCarolina, Chapel Hill.

Harrington, J.C.1950 Seventeenth Century Brickmaking

and Tilemaking at Jamestown,Virginia. The Virginia Magazine ofHistory and Biography 58(1):16-39.

Harvey, D.1988 Reconstructing the American

Bloomery Process. In The ColonialWilliamsburg Historic Trades An-nual, Volume 1, edited by E. L.Soles, Jr., pp. 19-38. ColonialWilliamsburg Foundation, Will-iamsburg.

Horn, J.1994 Adapting to a New World: English

Society in the Seventeenth-CenturyChesapeake. University of NorthCarolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Horning, A. J.1995 “A Verie Fit Place to Erect a Cittie”:

Comparative Contextual Analysis ofArchaeological Jamestown. Ph.D.dissertation. University of Penn-sylvania, Philadelphia.

Horning, A.J., and A.C. Edwards1998 The Jamestown Archaeological

Assessment: Archaeology in NewTowne, 1993-1995. Draft report onfile, Department of ArchaeologicalResearch, Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg.

Langston, A.1658 Anthony Langston on Towns, and

Corporations; and on the Manu-facture of Iron. William and MaryQuarterly 2(2nd s.):100-106.

29

Main, G L.1982 Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Mary-

land, 1650-1720. Princeton Univer-sity Press, Princeton.

Markell, A.B.1994 Solid Statements: Architecture,

Manufacturing, and Social Changein Seventeenth-Century Virginia.In Historical Archaeology of theChesapeake, edited by P. A. Shackeland B. J. Little, pp. 51-64.Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, D.C.

McCusker, J.J., and R.R. Menard1991 The Economy of British America,

1607-1789. University of NorthCarolina, Chapel Hill.

McGuire, R.H.1982 The Study of Ethnicity in Historical

Archaeology. Journal of Anthropo-logical Archaeology 1:159-178.

Metz, J.D.1994 Memo to David Muraca and

Marley R. Brown explaining thesignificance of kiln remains identi-fied at the Rich Neck Site in theHolly Hills development, Will-iamsburg, Virginia. Memo on file,Department of ArchaeologicalResearch, Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg.

1995 “All other my houses at MiddlePlantacon”: The ArchaeologicalEvidence for Permanence at BrutonHeights. Paper presented at the1995 annual conference of theSociety for Historical Archaeology,Washington, D.C., January 4-8,1995.

Metz, J., J. Jones, D. Pickett, and D. Muraca1997 “Upon the Palisado” and Other

Stories of Place from Bruton Heights.Colonial Williamsburg ResearchPublications, Williamsburg.

Metz, J.D., and K.C. Russ1991 Understanding Traditional

Brickmaking in Virginia. TheQuarterly Bulletin of the Archaeologi-cal Society of Virginia 46(2):86-95.

Middleton, R.1992 Colonial America: A History, 1607-

1760. Blackwell, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Morgan, Edmund S.1975 American Slavery—American Free-

dom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia.W.W. Norton & Company, NewYork.

Mouer, L.D.1993 Chesapeake Creoles: The Creation

of Folk Culture in Colonial Vir-ginia. In The Archaeology of 17th-Century Virginia, edited by T.R.Reinhart and D.J. Pogue, pp. 105-166. Dietz Press, Richmond.

Muraca, D.1993 Archaeological Testing at Rich Neck.

Department of ArchaeologicalResearch, Colonial WilliamsburgFoundation, Williamsburg.

O’Conner, R.P.1987 A History of Brickmaking in the

Hudson Valley. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of American Civiliza-tion, University of Pennsylvania.University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Outlaw, A.C.1975a Governor’s Land Survey Field Notes.

Manuscript on file, Virginia De-partment of Historic Resources,Richmond.

1975b The 1975 Survey of the Governor’sLand Archaeological District, 1975.Report on file, Virginia Depart-ment of Historic Resources, Rich-mond.

30

Oxford English Dictionary1971 Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford

University Press, Oxford.

Sella, D.1977 European Industries, 1500-1700. In

The Sixteenth and SeventeenthCenturies, edited by C.M. Cipolla,pp. 354-426. Barnes and Noble,New York.

Shammas, C.1979 Creole-Born and English Elites in

Turn-of-the-Century Virginia. InThe Chesapeake in the SeventeenthCentury: Essays on Anglo-AmericanSociety, edited by T.W. Tate andD.L. Ammerman, pp. 274-296.Norton, New York.

Smith, J.M.1980 The Pottery and Kiln of Green Spring:

A Study in Material Culture. Manu-

script on file, Virginia Departmentof Historic Resources, Richmond.

Smith, T.P.1985 The Medieval Brickmaking industry

in England, 1400-1450. B.A.R.British Series 138, B.A.R., Oxford.

Wayne, L.B., and M.F. Dickinson1990 Four Men’s Ramble: Archaeology in

the Wando Neck, Charleston County,South Carolina. Southarc, Inc.,Gainesville.

York County Records—— Deeds, Orders, and Wills, Invento-

ries, Petitions, Land Tax Lists,Claims for Losses and Plats.Originals at the York CountyCourthouse, Yorktown.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the following individualsfor their assistance with this paper. Jennifer Jonesprovided the historical background on John Pageand patiently guided me through the York CountyRecords database. Andy Edwards and AudreyHorning generously offered their data from therecent excavations in New Towne on JamestownIsland. I would especially like to thank Don V.

(otherwise known as David) Muraca, who wasalways available to discuss Rich Neck and otherseventeenth-century sites in the region, as well ascommenting on the multiple copies of this paper.Finally, I owe a debt of gratitude to Marley Brownwho gave me the opportunity to oversee the ex-cavations at Bruton Heights.

Historical Archaeology,Identity Formation, and theInterpretation of Ethnicity

Edited byMaria Franklin and Garrett Fesler

COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS