Transcription
Archaeological Testing of the Dumfries Courthouse Site (44PW231),
Prince William County, Virginia
William Hampton Adams
Carl R. Lounsbury
Department of Archaeology
Department of Architectural Research
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
P.O. Box C
Williamsburg, VA 23187
Report submitted to:
Prince William County Historical Commission
9258 Lee Avenue
Manassas, VA 22110
August 1, 1984
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding for this project was provided by the Prince William County Historical Commission. We would like to thank the Commission for the opportunity to undertake this research on the historic courthouse at Dumfries. We especially thank Mrs. Lorraine Dow, Chair of the Commission for her assistance and hospitality. Mr. John Schofield of the Prince William County Planning Commission administered the contract and provided valuable logistical support. Mr. Lee Lansing, Dumfries Town Historian, assisted our efforts throughout the project by arranging for the colonial baseline to be surveyed nearby and seeing that the courthouse area was mowed just prior to our arrival. In addition, his knowledge of the history of Dumfries proved very useful to us. Mayor Olney A. Brawner provided assistance and enthusiasm throughout the project. We would also like to thank the many citizens of Dumfries who visited the site and brought us water during the heat wave experienced that week.
We would especially like to thank the landowners, James A. Bishop and Emma H. Bishop, for their kind permission to excavate this site. Such public spirit and awareness of our heritage is commendable.
The field personnel consisted of Dr. William H. Adams (Project Director), Dr. Carl R. Lounsbury (Architectural Historian), Mr. Stephen Alexandrowicz (Field Supervisor), and Mrs. Presha Merritt (Excavator). Alexandrowicz did an excellent job of seeing that the site was recorded, while Adams and Lounsbury were debating the many potential interpretations the architecture presented. Merritt proved to be an excellent fieldworker. Both are to be commended for their perseverance over long, hard hours of work.
At Colonial Williamsburg, William Pittman supervised the cleaning and processing of the artifacts, and wrote Appendix 1. Virginia Caldwell undertook the drafting of the maps. We would like to thank them and the rest of the staff of the Office of Excavation and Conservation in the Department of Archaeology and the staff of the Department of Architectural Research for their assistance.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments 2
List of Figures 3
List of Tables 3
Section
1. Introduction 4
2. Project History 4
3. Historical Background 4
4. Courthouse Plans in Colonial Virginia 10
5. Research Design 14
6. Field Methods 18
7. Results 24
8. Possible Interpretations 25
9. Test Excavations on Lot 47 26
10. Recommendations for Future Work 26
References 28
Appendix 1: Artifact List 29
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Location of Dumfries and Prince William County 5
2. Plan of Dumfries Showing Courthouse Lots 6
3. Plan of King William Courthouse 13
4. Plan of Amelia Courthouse 14
5. Plan of Richmond County Courthouse 15
6. The Gunston Courthouse Sketches 16
7. Plate from Robert Morris’ Architectural Remembrancer 17
8. Site Plan showing all Excavation Units 19
9. Contour Map of the Courthouse Lots 20
10. Details of the Courthouse Excavations 21
11. Test Units 3 and 5, the Courthouse’s Southeastern Corner 22
12. Test Unit 6, Paving Stones and Walls 22
LIST OF TABLES
1. Chronology of the Prince William County Courthouse Complex 7
2. Fence Posthole Dimensions 26
1. Introduction
The Dumfries Courthouse is located in the Town of Dumfries, Virginia, along the once navigable Quantico Creek (Figure 1). Built between 1759 and 1762, the courthouse served Prince William County until 1822, and the structure stood until perhaps the 1890s. Archaeological fieldwork was conducted by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in May, 1984, to determine if any significant archaeological materials remained. This work revealed a well preserved courthouse foundation and floor paving, as well as some indications of spatial plans for the courthouse complex. This preliminary report details the results of that research and suggests plans for future research.
The Prince William County Historical Commission has long held an interest in the Dumfries Courthouse, recognizing its potential historical and architectural significance. They awaited the opportunity to include professional archaeologists in a study of the courthouse. That opportunity came because the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation over the past year has devoted considerable research towards understanding the landscape and structures of the colonial courthouse in Virginia. The ultimate goal of that research is the restoration and interpretation of the Courthouse in 1770 in Williamsburg, and an architectural monograph on early courthouses.
2. Project History
In the summer of 1983, sketches of a courthouse were found at Gunston Hall (see discussion below). Thought to be initial plans for the Dumfries Courthouse, these stirred considerable local and scholarly interest. During November correspondence increased interest in conducting archaeological research on the site to determine architectural details and potential for a fuller study. On January 30, 1984, a letter proposal and budget were submitted to the Historical Commission outlining the proposed research. On February 21, 1984, permission was obtained from the landowners, James A. and Emma H. Bishop, to conduct archaeological research on their property. On May 9, 1984 a contract was entered between Colonial Williamsburg and the Historical Commission. Fieldwork was conducted from May 21-26, 1984 and analysis was conducted during June and July.
3. Historical Background
Acting upon a petition of sundry inhabitants, Governor Francis Fauquier and the Virginia Council ordered in June 1759 that the Prince William County Courthouse be moved to the town of Dumfries (Hillman 1966). The partition of a new county from Prince William forced the relocation of the courthouse but Fauquier’s decision to establish the court in Dumfries left a bitter feeling among many citizens in the county who felt the courthouse should have been placed in a more central position. A later petition, seeking to undo the Governor’s order, stressed “Fauquier for reasons best known to himself. . . fixed the courthouse at the town of Dumfries inconvenient to at least three quarters of the inhabitants” of the county (Burton 1978). Fauquier’s decision was supported, however, by influential men such as George Mason, a trustee of the town, and Scottish merchants who had settled in Dumfries in the decade following its establishment in 1749.
Figure 1. Location of Dumfries and Prince William County
Figure 2. Plan of Dumfries showing Courthouse Lots
Table 1
Chronology of the Prince William County Courthouse Complex at Dumfries
Date Source Subject
6/13/1759 1 Ordered that the Prince William Courthouse be established in Dumfries
11/24/1760 2 Benjamin Tomkins paid £191.13.4 in part for building the Courthouse
11/23/1761 2 Benjamin Tomkins paid £191.13.4 in part for building the Courthouse
10,000 lb tobacco levied for building Courthouse
5/3/1762 2 Courthouse received by court from Benjamin Tomkins
11/2/1762 2 Hubbard Prince paid £64.10.0 in part for building the prison
9/4/1766 2 Clerk’s table to be altered and new bar for the lawyers to be made in the Courthouse
9/5/1766 2 Lock and key for closet under Judge’s seat to be procured; books and papers kept there until court time
11/4/1766 2 Prison to be repaired
6/4/1767 2 Bell to be procured for the courthouse; roof of the courthouse, prison, and gaol to be painted red
7/11/1767 2 Benches for the jury room to be made
3/11/1768 2 Courthouse roof to be repaired because of leaks
5/2/1768 2 2 square benches and 4 benches to be made for the use of the Courthouse
6/13/1769 3 papers and deeds in the county court of Prince William
5/24/1777 4 Courthouse is small, but neat tasty Brick Building, rusticated with Stone.
2/7/1805 2 Gully near clerk’s office to be filled
4/2/1805 2 An order was to be posted at the front door of the Courthouse
6/10/1824 5 County Commissioners conveyed ownership to William Fitzhugh
10/22/1869 6 William Fitzhugh conveys to John Clarke
4/5/1881 7 John Clarke conveys to J.M. McInteer
10/9/1895 8 J.M. McInteer conveys to Martha McInteer
4/10/1939 9 Heirs of Martha McInteer conveys to James A. Bishop
Sources: 1 Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia
2 Prince William County Order Books
3 Virginia Gazette
4 Hazard Journal
5 Deed Book 10, page 73-74
6 Deed Book 27, page 466
7 Deed Book 32, page 620
8 Deed Book 44, page 126
9 Deed Book 102, page 255
Within a year of Fauquier’s order, the justice of Prince William had contracted builder Benjamin Tomkins of neighboring Caroline County to build a brick courthouse on town Lot 48 (Figure 2). The site, set on a slope rising northward above Quantico Creek, may have been set aside for public buildings when the town was laid out in 1749 or purchased by the county when the court was moved to town. If the town had made no provision for public lots originally, then the courthouse site may have been occupied prior to Tomkins undertaking construction of the courthouse. Progress on the courthouse must have proceeded with few delays for the justices received the building from Tomkins in May 1762 (P.W.O.B 1762). Later that year a prison was probably under construction nearby since Hubbard Prince received 64 pounds sterling for undertaking the work (P.W.O.B 1762). Within a few years of the completion of this prison, it appears that yet another one was erected on the site. This second prison may have been built to house debtors. A 1767 order mentions both a prison and a gaol (P.W.O.B. 1767). Two such structures would not have been unusual as it was common to separate criminals from debtors by putting them in two different buildings.
Other structures probably appeared on the two courthouse lots during the second half of the 18th century (Table 1). Since stocks and a pillory were required by statute, it seems reasonable that such instruments of punishment were situated near the courthouse. Because of the fragmentary nature of the early Prince William records, it is difficult to determine whether lawyers’ offices, stables, and privies—buildings invariably found surrounding other county courthouses—were erected in Dumfries during this period. Also unclear is the date of construction of a detached clerk’s office. In the early years the court record books and papers were kept in a closet beneath the judge’s seat (P.W.O.B. 1766). Many other Virginia counties did not provide for a separate clerk’s office but kept their records either within the courthouse or at the home of the clerk. Only in the last decade of the 18th century was a law passed requiring every county to build a brick clerk’s office. Prince William may have complied at this time if it had not already erected an office previously. The county may have bee spurred to erect one in 1788 when the newly established District Court began to meet at the courthouse. What is certain is that by 1805 a clerk’s office had been constructed on the site, probably just south of the courthouse (P.W.O.B. 1805).
The pressure to move the Prince William Courthouse to a more central location had never subsided through the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The decline of Dumfries in the last quarter of the 18th century hastened the withdrawal of the courthouse to a new location. In 1822 the county seat was moved from Dumfries to Brentsville (Harrison 1924). Two years later the town commissioners sold the courthouse lots and the buildings thereon to a private owner (Merritt 1984) (Table 1). The fate of the courthouse, clerk’s office, prisons, and other buildings through the rest of the century is uncertain. They may have briefly served some other functions before being allowed to fall into ruin. Local informants suggested the courthouse may have been used as a church during the middle and late decades of the century. A Civil War photograph of some frame buildings has tentatively been identified as an old prison and other buildings on the southern part of the courthouse lots but cannot but substantiated (Lansing 1974). Other buildings may have been erected on the courthouse lots in the more than 160 years since the court was moved. What and where these buildings were remains unknown. It is almost certain that the courthouse and its ancillary buildings had totally collapsed or been pulled down by the end of the 19th century. Antiquarians in the 1920s made no reference to a brick courthouse on the site and, in fact, confused this structure with the then surviving Tebbs House (Berkley 1924). Older residents of Dumfries recall playing in the ruins of the courthouse and the sunken basements of one of the prisons at the turn of the century. Since that time no other structures, except the brief placement of a mobile home astride the courthouse foundations and a frame house on the northeast corner of Lot 48, have occupied the courthouse lots in Dumfries.
4. Courthouse Plans in Colonial Virginia
Although courthouses, buildings specifically to house county courts, had appeared in colonial Virginia as early as the 1660s, it was not until the second quarter of the 18th century that the two fully mature plan types began to dominate courthouse construction. In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, the planning arrangement of courthouses showed significant variations among the various counties. Some buildings were no more than post-in-the-ground, earthfast, structures enclosing a courtroom. Others consisted of a courtroom with detached jury and magistrates’ buildings. A few had ancillary rooms upstairs.
In the first quarter of the 18th century, in counties where a planter elite had emerged to dominate the judiciary, attempts were made by them to reinforce this new social hierarchy in courthouse architecture through placement and treatment of the courtroom furnishings. Whereas in earlier years justices had been content to spend as little money on public buildings as possible, they now began to spend larger sums for wainscoting, Royal Coats of Arms, carved chairs and cushions, and finely turned balusters. In earlier years justices had been obliged to sit on benches around a table at the same elevation as the rest of the court participants. They now sought to give presence to their role as magistrates by having their seats of judicature raised three or four steps above the rest of the courtroom. By the elaborate display of panelling, armchairs or armed benches, cushions, and turned baluster railing, they literally tried to set themselves apart from the rest of the court participants. It was an age where higher authority had a direct and literal meaning. These county justices, no doubt, tried to emulate in their courthouses the courtroom fittings that they saw in the General Court in the Capitol in Williamsburg.
This move to elevate the justices was part of a series of architectural changes inaugurated in early 18th century courthouses. The increasing professionalization of the law—stressing the elaboration of proper court procedure—enhanced the status of clerks and lawyers. As procedural rules and points of law became essential elements in prosecuting cases or filing petitions, the public had to turn more and more to men knowledgeable in the practice of law. Architectural recognition was given to this growing influence of lawyers by construction of a lawyers bench, which often included shelves on which they could place their papers. Prior to this time no special provision had been made for their presence in the court.
By the beginning of the second quarter of the 18th century the roles of the main court participants (magistrates, clark, sheriff, cryer, jury, litigants, and lawyers) had taken on a pattern that was to be followed through the Revolution. At the head of an 18 to 24 foot wide courtroom sat the half dozen or more justices, elevated on a semi or quarter circle platform that was panelled and railed. Immediately below them and facing the public in the same curvilinear arrangement sat the jury. At a space in the center of the jury was the clerk who sat at a railed table. Along the side walls just in front of the jury were two raised boxes reserved for the sheriff and his assistant or the court cryer. In the center of the room sat the lawyers, litigants, and prisoner at one or two benches. Behind these benches stood the outer bar which separated court participants from the public. Often at this point the pavement in the courtroom would change. The inner courtroom might be floored with planks while the public space and outside arcade might be paved with a more durable material like brick or stone.
If there were little variation in the arrangement of the courtroom, other elements of the courthouse showed some range of differences. The placement of the one or two jury rooms offered builders with two principal alternatives. As in the King William County Courthouse the jury room are placed to the side of the courtroom with doors opening into the lower public end (Figure 3). This allowed the main entrance to be placed axially on the center of the shorter courtroom wall. Upon entering the front door, the public would have immediately seen the ranged magistrates platform. This T-shaped plan was used in other mid-18th century courthouses at Charles City, Hanover, King and Queen, and York.
An alternative to placing the jury rooms to the side of the courtroom was to build them at the end of the courtroom behind the public space. With the courthouse shaped as an elongated rectangle, entrance into the building would be through doors placed near the center of either one or both the longer walls, as can be seen in the 1767 plan for the Amelia County Courthouse (Figure 4). Surviving but altered rectilinear courthouses include ones in Essex and Middlesex Counties.
In addition to the placement of the jury rooms, colonial builders faced another alternative in planning county courthouses. Some chose to add an arcade onto the front of the building such as the one at King William Courthouse. Others simply erected enclosed porches in front of the main entrance. Such spaces provided a convenient place to sit and talk before entering court or an area to gather during inclement weather. Landon Carter, the undertaker of the Richmond County Courthouse in 1750, devised a plan which allowed two arcades within a rectilinear plan (Figure 5). Such a plan, however, created an awkward courtroom space.
If the T-shaped plan of King William Courthouse and the rectilinear plan of Amelia Courthouse represent the most widely used plan types in mid-18th century Virginia and the double arcaded Richmond County Courthouse an interesting variant, evidence exists illustrating that builders sometimes sought to experiment with new planning arrangements. In 1983 a series of design sketches for a courtroom were discovered on the back of an interior frieze board at Gunston Hall. These sketches reveal a significant departure from standard courthouse design (Figure 6). Possibly these illustrations may represent the first stages of the design of the Prince William County Courthouse in Dumfries. The sketches probably date from 1759, the time when English-trained architect William Buckland was finishing supervising installation of the interior woodwork at Gunston Hall for George Mason. As a trustee of the town in Dumfries, Mason must have had a keen interest in promoting the development of the neighboring port. He may have even influenced Governor Fauquier in his decision to locate the courthouse in Dumfries. As a leading figure in northern Virginia, Mason must surely have been aware of the need for a design for the new courthouse. The sketches found at Gunston Hall possibly represent the results of an initial conversation between Mason and his skilled builder Buckland. If Mason had decided to supply the justices of Prince William with the design for the new courthouse, Buckland could certainly help devise one that would be suitable for the growing port town.
A careful study of these seemingly random pencil sketches clearly reveals a thought pattern. The plan right of center probably represents the initial scheme of conversation. It closely resembles Landon Carter’s 1750 plan of the Richmond County Courthouse. Two side arcades are in the sketch with a pair of jury rooms at the opposite end of the semi-circular magistrates’ bench. Mason may have liked the idea of a double arcade but saw that the Richmond County Courthouse suffered from the lack of one dominant entrance. Buckland tried to rectify this deficiency in the design in the sketch immediately below. In order to create a visually satisfying entrance façade, Buckland shifted the jury rooms to the side of the courtroom but kept their outer walls parallel to the arcade walls. At the end opposite the curved magistrates bench, he created a polygonal entrance. The plan above the Richmond County one slightly varies this attempt to integrate a T-shaped plan with a double side arcade. Here, the jury rooms have been rotated at a 45 degree angle to the principal arcaded façade. The elevations above and to the left of this plan are attempts by the architect to work out the façade and roof configuration of such a scheme. This effort to develop a symmetrical and pleasing elevation for a polygonal plan can also be seen in the lower right hand corner. This last elevation with its continuous cornice and roof lines is perhaps the best resolved design of the group of sketches. Buckland’s penchant for polygonal forms, evident in his design for the back porch at Gunston Hall and much later in the dependencies at the Hammond-Harwood House in Annapolis, can clearly be seen in these sketches. The use of polygonal shapes was coming into widespread use in English architecture by mid century and was being popularized in pattern books such as Robert Morris’ Architectural Remembrancer. At some point in his career in America, perhaps as early as 1759, Buckland owned a copy of Morris’ book which was filled with designs of polygonal-shaped pavilions, follies, and other smaller buildings. The lower right hand elevation of the Gunston sketches may have derived or at least have been inspired by Plate 10 in Morris’ book (Figure 7).
It is tempting to associate William Buckland with the design of the Prince William County Courthouse, however, no direct link between the Gunston sketches and the final courthouse plan has yet been established. Although Benjamin Tomkins was paid for constructing the courthouse, this does not mean that he was the source of the design. More often than not, county magistrates settled upon the plan for a courthouse themselves before they let it out to undertakers. This does not preclude the fact that the design for the courthouse could have come from some other source such as George Mason or even Tomkins. The court order book for the period 1757-1759, the critical time when any description of the proposed plan may have appeared in the minutes of the court proceedings, is lost. Only the complete excavation of the courthouse will reveal if the link between William Buckland, Geroge Mason, the Gunston sketches, and the courthouse in Dumfries is an acceptable hypothesis. Even then if the plan of the courthouse turns out to be significantly different from the Gunston sketches, it would still be impossible to rule out the hand of Buckland. It could be argued that these hasty designs were either not acceptable or were further refined in drawings now lost.
Figure 3. Plan of King William Courthouse
Figure 4. Plan of Amelia Courthouse
Figure 5. Plan of Richmond County Courthouse
Figure 6. The Gunston Courthouse Sketches
Figure 7. Plate from Robert Morris’ Architectural Remembrancer
5. Research Design
Based upon the historical documentation and previous architectural research on courthouses in the region, we expected that the Dumfries Courthouse would have the following features. It would probably be a T-shaped structure facing east to Duke Street, the main road at the time, or, less likely, downhill toward Main Street and Quantico Creek. The front of the building would have an arcaded porch. Inside would be a large courtroom with a raised area for the judge and either one or possibly two jury rooms. The May 24, 1777 entry in the Hazard Journal mentioned a “neat tasty Brick Building, rusticated with Stone.” While we expected the more common T-shaped plan, the amount of money spent on the structure, the other plans used in the region, and the Gunston Hall sketches suggested that we should not assume anything about the plan while designing our field strategy. In addition to the courthouse itself, the following structures and landscape features would or might be present:
--clerk’s office
--jail/prison
--fence or brick wall
--privies
--stocks and pillory
--well
--stables
--law offices
The clerk’s office was mentioned in 1805 as needing a nearby gully filled in (Table 1); however, no remains have been located yet. The jail and prison were mentioned in 1762 and 1767. The remains of cellar depression (locally identified as being the jail) were located just south of the courthouse, but this was not tested. A photograph in the Weems-Botts Museum in Dumfries has been identified by some as being the jail; however, the structure at the time of the photograph was obviously a house having no architectural features normally associated with a jail. Possibly the structure incorporated portions of the jail or was built on the same foundations later.
The field research undertaken had very limited objectives and should be considered only a preliminary testing. While some attention was paid to the area south of the courthouse, the prime focus was the courthouse itself, rather than the entire courthouse complex. The available funds were not sufficient at the time for a full study of this complex of buildings. We thought that if the courthouse was not sufficiently well preserved than little interest or funding could be generated for studying the ancillary buildings. But for those other structures we wanted to know the potential for preservation and to do this used a single carefully excavated backhoe trench across much of the lot. For the courthouse itself we had the following questions:
1. How has the site been disturbed since the structure was abandoned? How extensive are disturbances to the site?
2. Are sufficient architectural remains left so we may determine the plan, size, and other details about the way it looked?
3. If further work is warranted, how can this best be accomplished?
Figure 8. Site Plan showing all Excavation Units
Figure 9. Contour Map of the Courthouse Lots
Figure 10. Details of the Courthouse Excavations
Figure 11. Test Unit 6, Paving Stones and Walls
Figure 12. Test Units 3 and 5, the Courthouse’s Southeastern Corner
6. Field Methods
Since the field season was budgeted for one week with a crew of four people, we chose to maximize our efforts through selective use of hand and machine assisted excavation. Given the established construction date of 1759-1762 and the supposed abandonment and demolition in the 1880s and 1890s, we saw little point during the testing phase in excavating beneath the courthouse remains or removing any in situ architectural material. One small section of a builder’s trench was examined, but within the courthouse area we simply removed the soil and rubble associated with the demolition and the soil accumulating during this century. The result was that in each excavation unit and backhoe trench the walls and floors were exposed, mapped, and photographed, but the deposits dating prior to ca. 1890 were left in place for further work. Archaeology is a destructive process, for as we dig, we remove the relationships between objects left in the ground for so long. This is why it is so necessary to photograph and draw the research in progress, so that we can later “reconstruct” the way the site looked.
A cartesian grid using the English system of measurement (i.e. feet, tenths of feet) was established along a baseline surveyed by the Town of Dumfries. This baseline represents the best approximation of the centerline for Fairfax Street on the colonial town plat. So our grid orientation was established as close as possible to the way the courthouse would have been layed out (Figures 8, 9, 10). The grid north is 16 degrees west of magnetic north. Various temporary grid locations were staked where needed and a topographic map prepared using different transit stations and vector readings. An iron bar serves as a temporary benchmark at N305/E140, and this point was tied into the western corners of the Henderson House nearby. The southwestern corner is 9- feet from this point at a bearing of 21° 11’ 20”, while the northwestern corner is 114 feet at 11° 53’ 40”.
Using shovels, trowels, dustpans, and buckets, the soil was removed stratigraphically, layer by layer, and then screened through ¼” hardware cloth, keeping all material for later identification. The stratigraphy varied somewhat from unit to unit, but generally can be characterized as follows.
The topsoil, Stratum A, consisted of a dark humus, with much organic remains like roots, as well as some 20th century material. At Units 3/5, this accumulation was deeper and contained hundreds of ... [truncated due to length]
