January 28, 2013

Readers’ Questions Update.

Left to right: The north storage building (here, not yet painted), main Armoury building, and kitchen. The storage building is painted with a (simulated) whitewash, the Armoury with white oil paint, and the kitchen with tar paint, reflecting differences in their periods of construction and status.

At the end of November, as the north storage building was receiving its final touches in view of the webcam, Kerry commented:  “Nice to see the paint on the new storage building. My question is:  did smaller structures not use beaded siding like those of larger ones?  Also there was much activity about the paint on the kitchen. Is the white correct for these small buildings? And what color will the tin shop be?”

Edward Chappell, the Shirley H. and Richard D. Roberts Director of Architectural History, supplies the following answer:

The varied finishes on the outside of buildings in the Armoury and Tinsmith shop complex reflect the varied dates and functions of the original buildings.  Hand-manufacture and importation of materials made oil paints expensive in the 18^th century.  Pine tar and limewashes were more economical choices.

Pine tar strengthened with iron-oxide red pigment was a common choice for riven (split) clapboards and shingles.  We have found it microscopically on the earliest frame parts of the Thomas Everard kitchen, applied before the walls were rebuilt with brick in Everard’s tenure.  The only painting contract to survive from early Williamsburg calls for tarring the roof of St. George Tucker’s kitchen with pine tar and iron-oxide pigment.  Applying this information to the Armoury property, we know that the tinsmith shop and the [Anderson] kitchen were built before the Revolutionary War and the rest of the Armoury complex.  They are the kind of ancillary buildings most likely to have been tarred.

The main Armoury building and workshop (not yet reconstructed) are perceived as being better-built during the Revolution than the smaller contemporary buildings like the storehouses.  Here there is a distinction is between higher and lower status, with oil paint on the principal buildings (the main Armoury building) and whitewash on the smaller and more cheaply built ones (the storehouse).

You may read more about the use and study of early paint in Williamsburg in the three first chapters of Architectural Finishes in the Built Environment, edited by Mary Jablonski and Catherine Matsen (London:  Archetype Publications, 2009).  The story of Williamsburg paint will be given more attention and broader context in The Chesapeake House, a book by Colonial Williamsburg architectural historians on early building in the region, to be published by University of North Carolina Press in March.

                                                                                     -Contributed by Edward Chappell, Director, Architectural and Archaeological Research

December 14, 2012

Tinsmith Shop Frame-Raising: December 21st.

Sills placed on the Tinsmith Shop foundation.

Webcam watchers will notice that they have a freshened perspective on the Armoury project.   The roving camera is now trained on the Tinsmith Shop where Historic Trades Carpenters, this morning, capped the foundation with sills and floor joists.  Frame-raising is scheduled for next Friday, December 21^st.  Beginning around 11 a.m., and wrapping up at around 4, Garland and crew will raise the west, south, and north walls, set the plates, and place the rafters…a full day’s work. 

If you happen to tune in between now and then, you may catch the carpenters building the east wall.  To accommodate the very tight fit between the Armoury and Tinsmith Shop, and to avoid damage to the chimney, this east wall will be built in place, before the rest of the frame is raised.   

So as you find breaks in your busy holiday schedules, please  join us either in-person or via the roving webcam to admire the progress being made at the Tinsmith Shop!

November 20, 2012

Wrapping Up for Winter

Early in November archaeologists began wrapping up work at the back of the Armoury lot.  It has been a long and challenging field season, culminating in a heavy soaking by hurricane Sandy (and earlier, by some of her lesser-known cousins).  The image below, a final photo taken on November 2^nd, after the final clean-up, shows some of the fruits of our labors.  It should also help you to visualize the site’s layout. 

Armoury Fenceline.

Curiosity about fences was the primary motivation for this summer’s project…not just where they stood and how to rebuild them accurately, but how the margins of the Armoury were treated.  Were they well-maintained or left untended?  Did workers cram activity onto every inch of available space, or did the Armoury’s busy core peter out toward the edges?  And with 40 Armoury workers employed on half an acre, how seriously was the property boundary regarded, anyway?  Is a fence really important during wartime?  And what was happening on the other side of the fence?  Was the grass really greener?

The archaeologists in the image (at left) are acting as props.  They are standing in postholes that once supported a fence at the western edge of the Armoury property.   To the right of this human “fence” is the Armoury lot.  To the left is Lot 17, the mid-18^th century ownership of which is still unclear.   You’ll notice, as well, that there are lots of “unmanned” holes. Over the course of the summer we encountered, excavated, and recorded many, many, (many) postholes representing numerous incarnations of a fence that marked the same boundary over hundreds of years.  Only one of those fences was standing between 1778 and 1780, when the Armoury was in operation.  Sorting out which is the “right” fence..the one that James Anderson might have claimed… has been a considerable puzzle, and one that we think we are close to solving.    

Perhaps the most curious aspect of this dutifully maintained fence is that it was virtually disregarded by those who worked at the Armoury.  This summer’s excavation showed that both sides of the fence were used for Armoury activities.  On the west side of the boundary, on land whose ownership in 1778 has not been clearly established, we discovered a large pit, now half-excavated, but tentatively identified as a sawpit.  We hypothesize that it was used by teams of sawyers to prepare plank for the Armoury’s construction…one sawyer above the pit on a platform, and another below, with a pit saw in play between them.  Once construction of the Armoury was complete, the pit was no longer needed and was filled.  Indeed, we found that the pit was filled soon after its abandonment with an assortment of the Armoury’s waste… clinker from the forges, French gunflints from the repair of weapons, and partially completed iron objects.  

Next summer we will return to complete the excavation of this feature, and to determine whether our working hypothesis about its function holds up to any additional information we might uncover.  In the meantime, we have filled the sawpit with sand to stave off any mid-winter collapse…and to provide us with a healthy warm-up activity for next spring!

Another “Armoury related” feature is a privy that was discussed in a recent blog post (as you may recall, it was the raspberry seeds in the fill that gave its function away!).  Like the pit feature, the privy, was located on the adjacent property.  And like the pit feature, it contained Armoury garbage.  So it seems clear that the Armoury was making use of space beyond what James Anderson owned. 

One final discovery that bears mentioning: the southern end of the Armoury lot was notable for the number of 18^th century dog burials it revealed.  The remains of seven dogs were uncovered along the Armoury fenceline…on both sides of the fence.  Three of these (and likely a 4^th that was not completely excavated) were found in discrete, purposely dug graves.  The remains of three other dogs were found in a single pit.  They ranged in age from less than a year, to mature, to “older-mature” (with evidence of arthritis, and significant tooth wear).  In our experience, it is uncommon to bury dogs in the 18^th century, so this unusual treatment.  The dogs have been removed from the site, and are now being studied in the Zooarchaeology Lab. 

Like many archaeological endeavors, the Armoury project has answered some questions, and raised others.  The end of the excavation hardly signals the end of the research, however.  Over the winter, artifacts recovered from the site will be washed, numbered, counted, measured, and evaluated.  We will use them to help us to affix dates to soil layers and to postholes, and to help us to identify the function of certain features.  Iron artifacts encrusted in rust (and there are many, given the nature of work on this site) will be x-rayed and conserved in an effort to better understand the nature and variety of work taking place at the Armoury.  Soil removed from pits of all sorts will be tested for plant remains and for chemical signatures that provide information about landscape and land use.  Individual field maps will be digitized and transferred to site maps where larger patterns may become evident.  And the dogs…all of those dogs….will be studied some more. 

In closing, and in the spirit of Thanksgiving, it seems appropriate to express our gratitude for the dedicated and determined archaeologists and interns who helped to excavate the Armoury site this year, often under adverse conditions: Lucie, Matt, Wes, Jeff, Andy, Meredith, Sarah, Loretta, Walt, Mike, Ron, and Dessa.  We are grateful for the opportunity to conduct this research, and for all of you whose interest and investment in Colonial Williamsburg allows us to move forward.  Most significantly, we are grateful to Mr. Forrest Mars for his commitment to the Armoury project.  Thank you….and Happy Thanksgiving!

Meredith Poole, Staff Archaeologist