Kingsmill Tenement (44JC39) is one of a number of sites on the larger Kingsmill tract, which is located on the James River, roughly across from Hog Island. The Kingsmill Tenement site and a later site occupying the same ground (Kingsmill Quarter) were about one-half mile west of the Kingsmill Plantation mansion ruin. The VDHR (Kelso, Hazzard, et al.) excavated both sites in 1974. The information for this 1998 exercise was gathered from the 1976 report "Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: the 1974 Season," and the book "Kingsmill Plantations 1619-1800," both by William Kelso, AND from the field notes, finds lists, and site collections, all housed at the VDHR.

Kingsmill Tenement was likely the settlement of a tenant or indentured servant. The property was owned by Richard Kingsmill, but he is known to have resided elsewhere, while the 1625 muster listed 16 persons and several houses at "Archer's Hope," (the earlier name for this portion of Kingsmill.) Based on documentary and artifactual evidence, the site is thought to have a date of c. 1625-1650, although some now believe that the dates might prove to be a bit earlier, based on current knowledge of artifacts.

The site consisted of five earthfast structures, a number of storage pits, and several ditches. The architectural evidence is perhaps the most notable component of the Kingsmill Tenement site. Although the site had been plowed, one building, (Structure1) maintained the impressions of squared "studs" on intervals between the main structural postholes, an early construction method that also indicates a dirt floor. The same structure had a shed at one end and shortened bays at both ends, suggesting the possibility of end-hooded fireplaces, which would not require chimney foundations.

Structure 2 stood at about a 75 degree angle to Structure 1. It may be the second stage of construction, and consisted of a large "core" postbuilding and unusual trench-laid additions to the front and rear, forming a cross-plan. Center gable end posts may have supported simple interior chimney hoods. The building stood long enough to warrant the replacement or repair of most of the main posts. Structure 3 was aligned exactly with the SW end of Str. 2, and was interpreted as an unheated utilitarian building. It was almost certainly contemporary with Str. 2 and may, at some point, have been attached.

The posthole pattern of structure 4 outlined a 10' central passage between two equal halves. It also appears to have been unheated and may have served as a barn or granary. The smallest building, structure 5, had the only evidence of a hearth that survived plowing. It was inside one gable end, confirming the idea that the gable-end posts supported chimneys. Structure 5 also had a shallow root-cellar complex. These pits were noted to be the latest deposit on the site, although they contained the only real datable artifact from any of the buildings, a pipe bowl from the second half of the seventeenth century. The building is aligned with Structure 1, and like Str. 1 it had the "driven" studs between structural posts and dirt floor, so it is worth considering that the interior pits could have been a later addition to Structure 5. Kelso speculated that the building may have been "recycled" into a kitchen or even a slave quarter as the Kingsmill Tenement site evolved.

Although the postbuildings at Kingsmill Tenement did not contain sufficient artifactual evidence to assign construction dates, their layout and the associated ditches can suggest which buildings are contemporary or how long they may have stood. Most of the artifacts from the site came from outside pits or "stores," used, presumably, during the site occupation. The pits were primarily circular and about 4'deep. The artifacts, in general, dated to the second quarter of the seventeenth century, with an abundance of Virginia-made coarseware, and both locally made and English pipes.

The dates of the pipes and ceramic types, presence of Martin's Hundred pottery, and the additions of particular artifacts like an early seal-top spoon and a section of chain-mail armor, put the site solidly in the second quarter of the 17th century. The lack of wine bottle glass indicates that the main occupation ended by c.1650. Kingsmill Quarter dated to the second half of the 18th century. It has a different alignment and cut through the Tenement site in a number of places. For these reasons it is easy to discern which features are from which time period, although the sites were excavated simultaneously and share a site number.

Background research and the artifact analysis for this site were completed for the Kingsmill book, (the latter may be seen on the accompanying charts.) It will be worthwhile to reexamine some of the collections and information based on new classifications and interpretations of a number of artifact types, etc. HOWEVER, there are a number of problems with the available records as they stand. No master context list means that each Kingsmill Quarter feature must show itself by having creamware or some such later artifacts in order to be eliminated from consideration, or one must go back to the original handwritten field notes. The computerized VDHR finds lists are vague, with such classifications as "Earthenware, coarseware" that shed no light on the actual type or origin of the ceramic. They have also dropped off other pertinent information like pipe bore diameters, glazes, etc., that are most likely on the original handwritten lists. If the handwritten finds lists are still accessible, (and I assume they probably are), they should be examined to see whether or not they may be entered in a more useful catalog, along with the context records. If they do contain most of the "missing" information about these artifacts, then perhaps only certain artifacts need to be reexamined. For example, several of the finds lists from the Tenement list "Buckley, Butter Pots" which might actually be Midlands Purple or some such, and a lot of the generic classified coarse earthenware is probably Martin's Hundred. But I suppose that the worst-case scenario is more realistic, that that the entire site will need completely new finds lists, directly from the collections. On the whole, I would think (hope) that the information is accessible and the site probably "do-able" for the Jamestown 2007 conference.


Back to list of sites