History of a Landscape: Shirley Plantation by Penelope Cottrell-Crawford

SHIRLEY PLANTATION a history within the landscape

P e ne lope Cot t r e ll- Cr awfor d for t he Gar de n Club of V ir ginia

ORIGINAL ENTRANCE, NOW PRIVATE

SHIR

HISTORIC WILLOW OAK

root cellar

pump house

“SUN” GARDEN

N A

laundry+ gift shop

covered patio

TATI

ROA

VISITOR PARKING LOT

QUEEN ANNE FORECOURT

dependency footprint

a an

dovecote

WILDFLOWER FIELD rest rooms

smoke house

C H IC KE N RU N

corn crib

BOXWOOD GARDEN

M U L E

P E N

YOUNG FRU IT ORCHARD

gra pe arb or

P2 TO SHIRLEY CEMETERY + SHIRLEY COVE

A G R I C U L T U R A L

U S E

barn

R I P A R

I A

PLAN

U S E

ice house

kitchen + office

great house

C O M M U N I T I E S

J a m e s

TO TER PO RA GR CE AP D HY

LEY

sta ble s

R i v e r

A G R I C U L T U R A L

TO UPPER SHIRLEY VINEYARDS

TREES

SHIRLEY PLANTATION HISTORIC QUARTERS & LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS

SYMBOL

BOTANICAL NAME

COMMON NAME

Acer rubrum

Red Maple

Acer saccharinum

Silver Maple

Carya illinoinensis

Pecan

Catalpa bignoniodes Southern Catalpa

Yellow outline signifies trees which were existent in 1928 aerial imagery

VISITOR ENTRAN CE

Common Hackberry

Ginkgo biloba

Maidenhair Tree

Ilex aquifolium

English Holly (tree)

Juglans nigra

Black Walnut

Juglans regia

English Walnut

Juniperus communis

Juniper Eastern Red Cedar

Thin black lines signify present-day fences

Celtis occidentalis

SHRUBS SYMBOL

E P P E VISITOR

EXIT

A G R I C U L T U R A L

BOTANICAL NAME

COMMON NAME

Juniperus virginiana

Ailanthus altissima

Tree of Heaven

Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle

Buxus sempervirens

Boxwood

Liriodendrion tulipifera Tulip Tree

Carissa macrocarpa

Natal Plum

Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia

Ilex aquifolium

English Holly (shrub)

Malus domestica

Common Apple

Rosa spp

Ornamental Rose

Melia azedarach

Chinaberry

Morus alba

White Mulberry

Pyrus communis

Common Pear

Quercus palustris

Pin Oak

Quercus phellos

Willow Oak

Quercus velutina

Black Oak

Tamarix aphylla

Tamarisk

Taxodium distichum

Bald Cypress

PIN OAK, BLACK WALNUT & LOCUST GROVE

U S E

0.5mi

Reproduction: All material contained herein is the intellectual property of the Garden Club of Virginia except where noted. Permission for reproduction, except for personal use, must be obtained from: The Fellowship Committee Chair The Garden Club of Virginia The Kent-Valentine House 12 East Franklin Street Richmond, VA 23219 www.gcvirginia.org All photographs are by the author unless stated otherwise.

In gratitude to the Carter family for their hospitality and enthusiasm; to William D. Rieley and Connie Liou for all the input and support; to the kind and knowledgeable people at the Garden Club of Virginia; to the wonderful staff at the John D. Rockefeller Library, the Department of Historic Resources, and the Library of Virginia. & for Brian and Gigi

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 8 II. CURRENT CONDITIONS

........................................ 12

III. EVOLUTIONS OF SHAPE ....................................... 18

17th century .................................................... 20

18th century .................................................... 22

19th century .................................................... 26

Turn of the 20th century

................................ 32

IV. RESIDENTIAL SPACES ........................................... 34

John Carter ..................................................... 38

Charles Carter I

Hill and Mary Carter ........................................ 41

Turn of the 20th century .................................. 43

Other Residential Landscape Elements .......... 44

.............................................. 40

V. REMAINING QUESTIONS ....................................... 54 VI. FUTURE RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

........... 70

APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY

ORIGINAL ENTRANCE, NOW PRIVATE

SHIR

TO TER PO RA GR CE AP D HY

root cellar

pump house

LEY

PLAN

TATI

ROA

dependency footprint

TO SHIRLEY CEMETERY + SHIRLEY COVE

laundry+ gift shop

covered patio

r na

WILDFLOWER FIELD

dovecote

rest rooms smoke house

CHICKEN RUN

corn crib

BOXWOOD GARDEN

M U L E

P E N

gra pe arb or

YOUNG FRU IT ORCHARD

VISITOR PARKING LOT

QUEEN ANNE FORECOURT

great house

U S E

ice house

kitchen + office

sta ble s

HISTORIC WILLOW OAK

“SUN” GARDEN

J a m e s

R i v e r

A G R I C U L T U R A L

U S E

0.5mi

PART I

INTRODUCTION

My research of Shirley Plantation’s landscape involved archival studies, interviewing members of the Carter family, and site analysis. The research took place over the course of three months in the summer of 2018. Due to the abbreviated nature of the program and the breadth of previous research, this report does not contain a host of new conclusions. However it is my hope that the new details presented in this report provide a basis and motivation for further investigations and restorations. The scope of this report is split among two areas of study: a broad look at the evolution of Shirley Plantation’s agricultural landscape and site boundaries, and a closer examination of the transformation of Shirley’s residential spaces. The “Historic Quarters” to the west encompass all of the remaining architectural elements relevant to Shirley’s pre-modern story and has seen the least amount of change. The Historic Quarters represent the point from which Shirley Plantation maintains its relationship with the public as a historic landmark and is therefore where the majority of my scholarship will be focused.

The story of Shirley Plantation is intimately connected with the Hill-Carter family (Figure 1). Edward Hill Charles Hill Carter III

Sr. first patented land in the county in 1638, and his successors would take the land all the way into the 21st

b. 1962

century. Edward Hill IV, the only male heir to Col. Edward Hill III, died in 1706 at a young age of 16. By the

Charles Hill Carter II

time of the Colonel’s death, his only child to remain alive and in the colonies was Elizabeth. In 1723, she married John Carter, son of Robert “King” Carter of Corotoman, and so began the legacy of the Shirley we know today. According to family history, “Shirley saw two building phases under John & Elizabeth Carter with the first at the time of their marriage in 1723 and then later in 1738 as documented by the crew of masons “loaned” by one of John’s brothers for a long construction project at Shirley” (personal communication, Jan 27 2019). John Carter oversaw

1919 - 2009

Alice Carter 1852 - 1926

Marion Carter 1859 - 1955

Robert Randolph Carter 1825 - 1888

the construction of the Great House and its two original dependencies (neither of which are standing today).

Charles Hill Carter 1827 - 1906

Hill Carter

John and Elizabeth’s eldest son, Charles, assumed management of Shirley after Elizabeth’s death in 1771. He

1796 - 1875

renovated the Great House, and it is hypothesized that either John Carter or his son Charles could be the creator of Shirley’s riverfront terrace. Charles passed his estate to his son, Hill Carter, who managed Shirley from 1816-1866. His effect on Shirley’s landscape over his 5-decade tenure was substantial. His experiments in agricultural reforms brought the greater landscape much closer to what we know today. Hill’s story is also interesting because his actions at Shirley mirror similar philosophical reactions among his contemporaries to the changing circumstances of Virginia in the antebellum 19th century. After the Civil War, Shirley was divided between Hill Carter’s two sons. The southern division has the same site boundaries we know today, and this land was inherited by Robert Randolph Carter. After Robert’s death, his widow Louise kept managing the house and garden, his elder daughter Alice took over the farm, and his younger daughter Marion and her husband moving to Shirley after Alice’s retirement to help. These three women brought Shirley Plantation into the 20th century. At the time of Marion’s retirement, neither she nor Alice had heirs so cousin Charles Hill Carter II was next in line. He and his wife Helle helped build Shirley into the historic institution we know today, including the establishment Shirley Plantation on the National Register as a National Historic Landmark. His son Charles Hill Carter III is the current owner of the plantation, and he and his wife Lauren share a passion for telling Shirley’s history which certainly rivals that of his father.

Robert Carter 1771 - 1804

Charles Carter 1732 - 1806

m.1

John Carter 1696 - 1742

Elizabeth Hill d.1771

m.2 Bowler d.1771

Cocke

Edward Hill IV

d. at age 16

Edward Hill III

d.1726

Edward Hill II 1637 - 1700

Edward Hill I

d.1663

Figure 1 Lineage of ownership of Shirley Plantation within the Hill-Carter family

PHYSICAL CONTEXT Shirley Plantation comprises 700 acres and is located about 20 miles southeast of Richmond and 35 miles northwest of Williamsburg. It is seated on a peninsula between the York River to the north and James River to the south. The Algonquin name for the James River was Powhatan, and the English settlers briefly called it Fluvanna before finally naming it after King James V of England. The rivers are two of many that make up a larger fluvial region which is known as the Tidewater. The soil of this region is characterized by alluvial deposits of clay, with sand, silt, and calcareous shell deposits known as marl. The topography of Shirley is typical of this region- low lying and fairly flat, elevations range between 10 to 40 feet above sea level. The hydrology around the plantation has shifted substantially over the centuries. There is a creek, Eppes (pronounced “EHP-SS”), that runs directly south of Shirley (Figure 2). Until the 19th century this creek was deep and fast flowing, enough so that it functioned as a canal and was often used to circumvent the landmass to the south, Eppes Island, and the large bend in the river below Eppes Island. Starting in the 19th century it gradually diminished in size due to a continual addition of agricultural and transportation infrastructure. A majority of the greater landscape is still devoted to agriculture, with tobacco now replaced by fruit trees, soybeans, corn, wheat, and cotton. Other modern land uses include a created wetland habitat upon Shirley’s former gravel mine tract; a 26 acre area used as a polo field and for other large events. To the south, “Shirley Cove” (see Figure 2) was once a swamp, then farmland, then a mine, and now it is used as an industrial wharf.

VIRGINIA Joh

rle Shi

n Pla

 J a m e s

Sh Co irley ve

n atio

Westbu

ry Farm

yle

oria

l Hw

CHARLES COUNTY

Weaneck Haul Rd

b Rox

nd Rd

Eppes Isla

ury Rd

R i v e r

Eppe s Cree k

EPPES ISLAND



hi s t or i c q uar t e r s site b oundar y

0.5mi

1 mi

F i g ure 2 C ur r e nt s i t e b oun d a rie s [base photo: GoogleEarth 2007]

PART II CURRENT CONDITIONS The Historic Quarters on the northwest edge of the plantation is where the majority of this report will be focused. The Carter Family (Charles III, Lauren, and their young twins) inhabit the upper and lower floors of the Great House, leaving the middle, ground floor as an exhibition space for daily tours. The historic residential complex is also open daily to tourists and the garden is rented out as a seasonal wedding venue. The Kitchen contains offices and historical exhibits and the Laundry now contains a gift shop, offices, and an intimate Bridal Suite for wedding celebrations. The roads are based on pre-20th century footprints with the exception of the lower farm road and the axial pathway which bisects the forecourt. This axial road was added in the 1950’s when the family started to invest in making the plantation accessible to heritage tourism. Additionally, the lower farm road may follow a previous pathway to the barns. According to Charles Carter, the road “shifted around a bit as barns came and went over the generations, with the barns in the same general area for at least 150 years” (personal communication, Jan 27 2019) .

P 12

THE GREAT HOUSE

Figure 3 West facade with river front yard

Figure 4 E ast facade as seen through boxwood hedge

Figure 5 North facade with root cellar in foreground

5 3

P 13

THE QUEEN ANNE FORECOURT AND GARDEN

Figure 6 Looking west, in order from left to right: Laundry, Great House, Kitchen

Figure 7 B oxwood garden, view from Laundry window

Figure 8 Middle of garden, south of Laundry

6 7

P 14

THE QUEEN ANNE FORECOURT

Figure 9 Looking east to visitor parking lot

Figure 10 Looking west, in order from left to right: Smokehouse, Granary, Great House, Ice House

P 15

OTHER ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS

Wine/Root Cellar

Brick Stables bordering Boxwood Garden

Dovecote

Corn Crib

P 16

OTHER LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS

South family cemetery

Willow Oak, maybe 18th century

East road, current main entrance

Southern yard with boxwood garden hedge

Mulberry, maybe 19th century

North road, former main entrance

House yard

North wharf, 18th-20th centuries

P 17

PART III

EVOLUTION OF SHAPE

The dates given in these images (Figure 11) pertain to the date of land survey or aerial photography from which each rendering was derived. In 1742 the property boundaries were much the same as they had been after Edward Hill’s initial land grants in 1638-1660, totaling 865 acres. In the 19th century, the acreage fluctuated under the management of Hill Carter. Carter bought and sold small parcels of adjacent land and experimented with converting large tracts of the southern swamp into arable land. At one point, due to these activities, Hill Carter’s land acreage totaled 1,080 acres (Ley, 1995) 1. At the time of his retirement, he divided Shirley and the southern 550 acres (700 acres by modern survey) are the Shirley Plantation that we know today. Another noteworthy element visible here is the transformation of the southern strip of water between Shirley and Eppes Island, the landmass below it. Until the 19th century this body of water, known today as Eppes Creek, had a much deeper channel which could accommodate lighters, barges and local commercial vessels. At the outset of the European colonies, Eppes Creek provided a shortcut for local commerce to navigate the James while avoiding the silty, shallow areas to the south of Eppes Island and a much longer trip around the bend in the river. Charles Carter was able to provide more clarity towards the use of this shortcut. According to him, “tobacco hogsheads were most likely carried out on wooden barges or ‘lighters’ to ships anchored in the main river channel. The number of landings along the creek listed in old property records indicates a vibrant commercial waterway in the 18th and early 19th centuries, and likely before” (personal communication, Jan 27 2019) .

P 18

Residential quarters

R i v e r Ep

pes

Cree

e s J a m

Shirley boundary

Eppes Cre

e k

J a m e s

THE C H A N G I N G BO R D ER S O F S HIR L EY P L A N T A T I O N

R i v e r

Figure 11

Adjacent land

1820-58

s Cree

1870

R i v e r Eppe

J a m e s

Eppe

R i v e r

HIRLEY, NORTH S ERITANCE AN INH SPLIT AS

J a m e s

R i v e r

1742

s C r e ek

1937

E p p e s C r e ek

2007 P 19

THE WEYANOKE + WEST AND SHIRLEY HUNDRED At the time of European contact in the 1600’s, the Weyanoke under jurisdiction of Chief Powhatan, had permanent settlements on both sides of the James River to the east and west of the Shirley Hundred (Charles City County, 2006). According to a series of archaeological digs in 1979 and 1989 led by Theodore Reinhart, Shirley’s land contains evidence of intermittent aboriginal occupation, the earliest of which dates back to 6300 BC. Excavation also yielded evidence of the palisaded headquarters of a 1600’s era Weyanoke settlement on a site 1,000 feet north of Shirley’s Great House, shown as symbol SP9 in Figure 12 (Archaeology, 1985, p.215).1 West and Shirley Hundred was obtained in 1613 by royal land grant to Sir Thomas West, an Englishman who named the land after himself and his wife Cessily Shirley. According to Charles Carter, Lady Cessily stayed in England, but Sir Thomas did come to the colony in 1610 and may well have visited here during that time before returning to England months later. The West and Shirley “Hundred” was descriptive of the scope of authoritative power over those who settled upon it; a “Hundred” operated much like a satellite colony. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, a hundred was a unit of English local government and taxation, intermediate between village and shire, which survived into the 19th century. ”Originally, the term probably referred to a group of 100 hides. The hide, from the Anglo-Saxon word meaning family, was in the early medieval period defined as a land-holding that was considered sufficient to support a family. This was equivalent to 60 to 120 old acres (approximately 30 modern acres (120,000 m 2)) depending on the quality of the land” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1998, 2012) . On Eppes Island to the south (SP3 in Figure 12), archaeologists found compelling evidence of an early English settlement and tobacco farm, circa 1613. In a letter to the King of England from John Rolfe, we have evidence that by 1616 the West and Shirley Hundred was occupied by 25 men under supervision of a Captain Isaac Maddeson. All men were planting and curing tobacco and living in “palisaded daub and wattle huts”(Virginia Historical Register Vol. 1, 1848, p.110).2 This is generally believed to be one of the first tobacco plantations in Virginia (Herndon, 1957, p.6) , where an estimated 1,150 out of 4,410 acres were planted (Charles City County, 2006). According to a General Assembly bill, two acres of corn were required to be cultivated for every man who was employed in planting tobacco. “This bill was to insure there was enough food to feed the colony and not all the land was devoted to the booming tobacco production” (personal communication, Jan 27 2019) . For the 25 men of 1616, this means at least 50 acres were cultivated for corn and the remaining ~1,100 acres were devoted to tobacco. Not even a decade later, by 1623, a census records the presence of 45 men women and children at the “West and Sherlow Hundred” (Lynn, 1967, p.14) . In an effort to curb a flooded tobacco market and stop the circulation of bad tobacco the British General Assembly of 1633 placed a number of tobacco inspection houses throughout the colonies. Shirley Hundred Island (now known as Eppes Island) was the location of one of these inspection checkpoints. (Herndon, 1957, p.28)

According to the Carter family, archaeology conducted in 2000-2001 uncovered multiple living sites within a context of 1620-1640, and shoreline archaeology with East Carolina University

indicates multiple 17th century sites along the river bank near the manor. Further evidence has been found of a meat storage house dating to 1670 and a partial palisade of even earlier construction. (personal communication, Jan 27 2019) .

Edward Hill patented a total of 865 acres under the name of Shirley Plantation between 1638 and 1666. By this period in the 17th century, Virginia colonists were intensively farming tobacco to supply growing markets in the United Kingdom and other European countries. We can be sure that Edward Hill and his 17th century descendants cultivated tobacco and corn. From the diaries of nearby neighbor William Byrd, we also know that Edward Hill III grew apricots, cherries, and strawberries. 3 According to the Virginia Department of Historical Resources (2005) , archaeological evidence has been found at Shirley which signals a shift in labor from indentured servitude to slavery around the year 1680, which would be during Col. Edward Hill II’s tenure. Most other details about the landscape of the Hill family in the 17th century, including the lay-out of the manor complex where the Hills lived at Shirley, are limited at this point in time. P 20

A TIME LINE OF SHIRLEY IN THE 17TH CENTURY Figure 12 Excavation sites 1979- 1980, from “Archaeology of Shirley Plantation” by Theodore Reinhart

pre-colonial

Previous to and during the time of European contact, a palisaded Weyanoke settlement was likely located 0.2 miles south of present-day Shirley Plantation

1611

Sir Thomas Dale founded a cluster of settlements called “The New Bermudas” which included 4,410 acres of West and Shirley Hundred.

1616

West and Shirley Hundred was occupied by 25 men under supervision of a Captain Isaac Maddeson; planting and curing 1,000+ acres of tobacco; living in “palisaded daub and wattle huts”

1623

A census records the presence of 45 men women and children at the “West and Sherlow Hundred”

1633

Tobacco inspection house placed by the British General Assembly upon Shirley Hundred Island, now known as Eppes (Herndon, 1957, p.28)

1638

450 acres of the “West and Sherley Hundred” patented to Edward Hill

1655

Colonel Edward Hill II is referred to in the first known records as being “of the Shirley Hundred” (Young, 1981, p.1)

1660

415 additional acres are patented to Edward Hill

1663

Edward Hill Sr. dies, leaves Shirley land to son Col. Edward Hill II

1676

Nathaniel Bacon rebels against the colonial loyalists including prominent government members like Edward Hill II. Wife and daughter are kidnapped and supplies looted, crops destroyed but no architectural damage recorded.

1680

Archaeological evidence of a transition of labor at Shirley from indentured servitude to slavery

1700

Col. Edward Hill II dies and passes 865 acres of Shirley to his son Edward Hill III P 21

THE BEGINNINGS | SHAPED BY AGRICULTURE The production of tobacco in the early 1700’s had a substantial influence on land development in the Tidewater region. A continuous tobacco culture without regenerative practices like rotating crops, fertilizing with manure, or allowing a fallow period can deplete soil: the lack of such practices in this time period necessitated tobacco growers to cultivate relatively large tracts of land (personal communication, Jan 27 2019). At this time there was also an influx of imported slavery and an increased use of the plow, both of which allowed for growers to intensify operations. The combination of large land needs and new intensities of cultivation meant the Tidewater saw its booming population move inland along the rivers, with ample space between neighbors. High-intensity, non-regenerative tobacco production therefore created a dispersed landscape with little emphasis on urban concentration and town centers (Breen, 1985, p.43) The 1760’s and 1770’s was a time of increasing stresses imposed by the British government in the form of taxes and a new, strict set of regulations for tobacco. These new regulations tell a compelling narrative of a British government experiencing increasing financial crises and a financially stressed Virginia gentry which was forced to re-evaluate its relationship with the British government and merchant class (Breen, 1985, p.39) . At the end of the 18th century tobacco was no longer a lucrative cash crop for many Tidewater planters. This market shift was due to the crop’s chronic overproduction, a consequently flooded market, heightened financial regulations, soil loss from centuries of degenerative growing practices and the Tobacco Mosaic soil virus (personal communication, Jan 27 2019) . Edward Hill III had a son, also named Edward Hill, who died at the young age of 16. After this loss, his daughter Elizabeth Hill was the only remaining child who was suitable to inherit the estate as her surviving siblings, both women, had married into English families and moved back to the Mother country. Elizabeth Hill married John Carter, who then inherited the estate after Edward’s death in 1726. After John died in 1742, Elizabeth married Bowler Cocke in 1752, who produced tobacco at Shirley until their deaths in 1771, at which time their son Charles Carter returned to Shirley and produced tobacco, among other crops. At the time of Cocke’s death, records show that he had shifted away from tobacco and on to wheat as a main crop. (Lynn, 1967, p.118) Charles Carter’s son, Robert, maintained minor tobacco cultivation during his tenure; his son Hill (see time line on opposite page) started the management of Shirley in 1816 and soon afterwards ended the production of tobacco. Therefore, despite the descending economic viability of tobacco within the 18th century, a total of three generations continued to produce the crop at Shirley after John Carter’s most prominent tobacco era. (personal communication, Jan 2019) Bowler and Elizabeth passed away within the same year, 1771, after which their son Charles assumed control of the estate. Tobacco barns were still being used until they were burned down in the early 19th century. Tobacco, no longer the dominant crop, was now rotated with wheat, corn, peas, oats, clover, pasture, and fallow/forest phases.

P 22

BAKE HOUSE, SMITH HOUSE, & WHARF

TOB

US HO

TIAL DEN RESI ARTERS QU

CO C BA TO ARF WH

SHIRLEY SWAMP

ek Cre

OVERSEER QUARTERS

EPPES ISLAND 0

0.5mi

A TIME LINE OF SHIRLEY IN THE 18TH CENTURY

R i v e r J a m e s

SLAVE QUARTERS

1696

John Carter is born, eldest son of Robert “King” Carter of Corotoman

1723

Elizabeth Hill (birth year unknown), daughter of Edward Hill III (son of Col. Edward Hill II) marries John Carter. Her brother (Edward Hill IV) died at the age of 16 leaving no male heirs.

1726

Edward Hill III dies (birth year unknown), estate passes to Elizabeth and her husband; John Carter assumes management of Shirley.

1732

Charles Carter is born, son of John and Elizabeth.

c.1738

Stable burns down 1; Shirley Mansion and two flanking dependencies are constructed. (Archaeology, 1985)

1742

John Carter dies; acreage of Shirley at this time was 640 high land acres; 77 island acres; 146 swamp acres (Lynn, 1967)

c.1752

Elizabeth marries Bowler Cocke

1771

Bowler Cocke dies, and Elizabeth Carter follows shortly after. Charles Carter assumes management of Shirley. Dr. Robert Carter is born, son of Charles Carter and Anne Butler Moore.

1771-75

Queen Anne forecourt is constructed; renovations made to facade and interior of main house.

1786

A portion of swamp land is purchased by Charles Carter, south of Shirley

1796

Hill Carter is born, son of Robert Carter and Mary Nelson of Yorktown

Figure 13 Illustrative plan of Shirley’s lands based on a 1742 survey.

P 23

JOHN CARTER’S LANDSCAPE In the early part of the 18th century, Edward Hill III and his eventual heir John Carter would both cultivate tobacco as Shirley’s main crop. Under John Carter’s management, Shirley’s land included 640 high land acres; 77 island acres; 146 swamp acres. As the son of Robert “King” Carter (hailed as the richest man in the colonies), John Carter was already the owner of several substantial estates. It is therefore noteworthy that John chose to use Shirley as a primary seat for importing and exporting goods due to the plantation’s location on the James River. The River provided crucial access to markets at City Point, Richmond, even those markets which were farther away like New York. He sold tobacco, wheat, and corn grown at Shirley as well as crops purchased from neighboring plantations (Lynn, 1967) . Tobacco, as mentioned before, was a crop that governed much of Shirley’s landscape in its earlier days. For instance, the southern creek resembled a canal at this time- not terribly wide but deep and fast enough to accommodate heavy tobacco ships who were traversing the James. In this time period, as we see in a survey from 1742 (Figure 14), there were three tobacco houses (o o o) placed centrally in the area defined as “the best land in the whole Track”. Tobacco leaves were cured in these houses during mid-winter, after which the dried leaves would be moved to coopers and rolled down a road which likely followed the “spring branch” down to the creek. It is likely that a small wharf existed at the point where the road met the creek, where tobacco ships would load the cash crop into their hulls. The people who John Carter enslaved in this era resided in “the great Quarter” (N) which was located in proximity to the tobacco houses and the Eppes Creek wharf. The overseer’s house, most likely identified as “Taylor’s House” on the survey, was built in a strategic location between the slave quarters and the residential quarters. Unfortunately not much is known about the day-to-day realities of the slaves at Shirley in this part of Shirley Plantation history. Due to the shift away from tobacco over the later century, most of the tobacco-oriented elements have disappeared from the land including these 18th century slave quarters. New slave quarters would be built throughout the 19th century that were central in relation to the fields and the commercial wharf, and as such the old slave quarters were most likely abandoned early in the century. The Bake House and Smithe Shoppe (H) are buildings which serviced the non-tobacco commercial ships that would dock at the wharf north of the residential quarter. This northern commercial wharf and the Bake and Smith houses would survive in some form (having been rebuilt and repaired time and time again) into the mid 19th century. The wharf itself would continue to be used until the early 20th century. A note is written in the survey above the residential area that states “This part contains the Orchards, Gardens, Park, and all quarters except those called the Great Quarter.” Unfortunately this is the extent of available archival evidence of the existence of an orchard or garden in this time period, but it is a good start to know that they were there in some form.

P 24

TRANSCRIPTIONS FROM 1742 SURVEY “A plan of Shirley containing 640 acres of high land” A a S m a ll Ceeder on th e R i ver B anki ng part i ng thi s f rom t he l an d of C ol . L ille b u r y E pp es a cr oss th e Di vi di ng l and . H T h e B ake H ou se an d Smit he Shopp I T h e g r eat Hou se K. T h e Boat house L a S m a l l Br a n ch r u n n in g u p by the S.E. corner of t he park M t h e S p r in g Br an ch N t h e g r eat Qu a r ter o o o T h r ee T ob a cco H ou ses B a b la c k O a k on th e Cr eek si d e j ust bel ow a Di tch part i ng thi s l and fr om H a r d y m an C a C o r ner with in th e D itch D a S m all Gu m on a Slash D-E a S lash Div idin g th is fr om Hardym an F a Bu r n ed Sasa fr as stu mp by t he m ai n Road G a la r ge Cor n er Oa k P T h e T ay lor ’ s H ou se --- wr i t t en d escri p t i on s on m ap --“ T h is D iv ision con ta in s 2 6 2 acres and i s the best l and i n t he w hol e t r ac k ” “ T h is D iv ision con ta in s 1 5 3 acres and i s the second best” “ T h is D iv ision con ta in s 2 2 5 acres and i s the m eanest i n t he Track ” “ T h is p a rt con tain s th e Or chards, Gardeni ngs, Park, and al l the hous e s e s c e p t t h o se c alled th e g r ea t Qu art ers” Figure 14 Survey of Shirley’s lands completed in 1742. Collection on deposit at Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter Family

P 25

FACING THE TIDEWATER’S DECLINE Charles Carter died in 1806 when his son and heir, Hill Carter, was a young boy of 10 years. For the next decade two of Hill’s uncles assumed guardianship of the boy and the plantation. Hill enlisted in the War of 1812 and returned to manage Shirley at the war’s end in 1814 to find “parts of the mansion’s lead roof had been removed and sold to be melted into bullets during the war” and that “his fields were barren” (Charity, 2012, p.8). Two years later, in 1816, he was finally of age to assume control of the estate and started at once in efforts to improve his lands: as mentioned previously, one of Hill’s first steps towards this goal was to cease tobacco production. The turn of the 19th century was also a time of agricultural decline for the region at large- Tidewater soils that had seen centuries of degenerative cultivation were reaching a point of exhaustion. Landowners, the majority of whom were planters, were admitting defeat and moving to “virgin lands in the lower South, taking their slaves and capital with them… and lowering property values in the regions they abandoned” (Teagle, 1998, p.11). The resulting mass exodus saw the region quickly losing prominence and power. For the planters who stayed, Hill Carter included, agricultural regeneration was the key to regenerating capital value and regional status. Any hope of re-instating the hegemony of the Tidewater region was pinned on improving the land. Consequently, a dialogue started to form between local planters about new techniques for improving exhausted soils. A leader and major facilitator of this discussion was “fire-eater” and enthusiastic soil scientist Edmund Ruffin whose lifetime of experiments earned him his lesser known title, “Father of American Agronomy.” Ruffin found that the acidity in Tidewater soil was prohibitive to the success of fertilizers, and that adding marl (calcareous deposits of crushed shells which naturally occur in the region) acts to neutralize the soil’s pH and enable absorption of nutritive amendments. To expand a dialogue on agricultural reformation, Ruffin started the publication Farmer’s Register which ran from 1833 - 1842. 1 In it, Tidewater planters submitted essays, remarks, or questions about their agricultural exploits and others would respond with insights or critiques. Hill contributed many writings to this publication, and through it Ruffin and Hill would develop a relationship based on professional agricultural experimentation. Ruffin’s experiments and discussions were integral in shaping Hill’s agricultural philosophies and decisions- Ruffin even visited Shirley occasionally to examine Hill’s experiments and published his reactions in the Register, bound volumes of which are available in the University of Virginia archives. From the very beginning of Hill Carter’s tenure, 1816, Hill fastidiously recorded farm activities in the Plantation journal. Happily, most of his journals and farm records survive today; from them we can piece together a detailed picture of the shape and evolution of his farmlands. 2

P 26

BAKE HOUSE FIELD

SLAVE QUARTERS

FAMILY CEMETERY BAY FIELD

SWAMP FIELD

OVERSEER QUARTERS

BOAT HOUSE FIELD

A TIME LINE OF SHIRLEY IN THE 19TH CENTURY

WHARF

N EI G ID BR

UN CU T

Jam es Ri ve r BAKE HOUSE

“DEMOVILLE’S LAND”

EPPES ISLAND EPPES DIKE

0.5 mi

Figure 15 Illustrated plan of Shirl ey’s lands taken from a survey made by Hill Carter in 1820 and updated until 1858

1806

Charles Carter dies, leaving estate to 10 year old Hill Carter in the guardianship of his two uncles.

1816

Hill Carter assumes management of Shirley

1817

Hill Carter marries Mary B. Randolph

1818

Total cultivated land goes from 650 acres to 400 acres, Carter adopts Four-Shift System (Teagle, 1998, p.29-30)

1820

Northern flanking dependency destroyed by lightning fire

1825

Robert Randolph Carter is born, son of Hill and Mary

1833

First attempts in converting swamp to arable land

1840

Edmund Ruffin publishes first edition of Farmer’s Register

1852

“River tract” converted to arable land in the adoption of a “Five-Shift System” (see Figures 19 + 20 on page 31)

1859

Robert marries Louise Humphreys; Alice Carter (Bransford) is born

1860

Ice house and Storehouse built; Marion Carter (Oliver) is born

1861

Return to the Four-Shift System

1865

p p e s C r e of Virginia secedes from the Union; Lincoln ordersEblockade ek Southern ports

1866

Civil War ends. Shirley comes out unscathed but with all crops destroyed and no existing labor force. Hill Carter retires and bestows 970 of upper Shirley William Fitzhugh; 455 acres of lower Shirley to Robert Randolph Carter

1868

Deconstruction of southern flanking dependency to build house on Upper Shirley

1875

Hill Carter dies

1879

Newly widowed Alice moves back to Shirley

1888

Robert R. Carter dies, Alice Carter Bransford assumes management

1906

Louise Humphreys Carter dies P 27

THE L ANDSCAPE OF SHIRLEY’S SLAVES

Hill Carter was certainly not the first slave-owner at Shirley: each of his predecessors back to early settlement had varying numbers of slaves at the plantation, to an apex

of 160 slaves owned by John Carter. Due to the non-person status of African slaves at the time, there remains scant archival materials which give insight to the experience of the people who were the backbone of Shirley Plantation. Hill Carter’s detailed farm journals and account logs have survived to provide at least some clues, and Jennifer Ley (1967) and Genevieve Leavitt (1981) have contributed invaluable scholarship to this topic. As Leavitt (1981) states, “the construction, repair, and whitewashing of slave cabins is mentioned throughout the family journals yet no information as to their size, form, number of occupants, or specific location is given” (p.23). However, there is a mention of nine double slave cabins being built after 1843 and one extant map (1867-74, see Figure 16) indicates the location of seven of those structures approximately one mile east of the Shirley mansion. In this map, the seven quarters are visible as well as the overseer’s house, the likely area that the enslaved people kept their gardens, and the potential location of a cemetery. None of Hill Carter’s journals speak of slave cemeteries, but an entry from his descendant Robert Randolph Carter in 1875 mentions a “graveyard for colored people” with no mention of location (Shirley Plantation Journals, 1875, p.208)

Lik ely location of slave cemetery Slave quarters Lik ely location of slave gardens Hog pen

Overseer’s quarters

Figure 16 Survey of Shirley 1867-74; Collection on deposit at Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter Family

P 28

The footprints of seven of these post-1843 structures continued to exist until industrial activity in the form of a gravel mine destroyed much of the site in the 1990’s. Before the mining operations commenced, however, a number of archaeological excavations had been performed around Shirley Plantation. It is from one of these studies, led by Leavitt (1981) , that we know the dimensions and materials of the buildings in the Great Quarter: “Features found include a complete freestanding, double-hearthed chimney, 24 ft in height, with a roof line shadow... Twelve brick piers, ranging from complete (three stretchers by a stretcher and a half) to a light scattering of bricks, were located at 10-foot intervals... Finally, a brick concentration on the eastern side of the chimney is possibly remnants of a hearth. However, it may also be the result of a chimney fall. Based on the archaeological work conducted, it appears that the cabin was of sill and pier frame construction. The brick piers located at 10 ft intervals outline a 20x40ft structure, with central double-hearth chimney dividing the interior into two 20ft-square living units. The roofline on the chimney reveals the height of the cabin to be a story and a half (loft)” (p.47). Some of the cabins were deconstructed shortly after the Civil War, a remaining few were converted to tenement housing for paid laborers, and more recently all the footprints were destroyed during the creation of a pit mine in the late 1990’s. From Ley’s 1997 excavations, we know that the typical slave cabin would have been built by slave carpenters out of local wood. In accordance with local convention, Shirley’s slaves lived in duplex-style buildings with wood floors, an attic space and a central, shared chimney (Figure 17). There was substantial evidence from account books that Hill Carter’s slaves were encouraged to keep vegetable gardens, fruit trees, and chickens. Typical vegetables in the slave garden tended to include peas, beans, potatoes, turnips. There was also evidence that the slave community would supplement their meager rations by hunting for possum and squirrel, and fishing in the James or Eppes (Leavitt, 1981 p.140) . A journal entry from 1835 mentions a garden next to the overseer’s house, but exactly where it was in relation to the building and what was grown remains unanswered.

Figure 17 Measured floor plan and architectural drawing. G. Leavitt, E. Chapell (1981 p.29. courtesy Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

P 29

SHIFTING FROM CONVENTION

Soon after Hill Carter started managing Shirley, he dismissed the previous overseer for lack of agricultural knowledge. At this point it seems that he got to be self conscious

about his farming expertise and began to read agricultural literature and implore his neighbors about their knowledge on the subject. Two years later, in 1818 Hill Carter made his first massive changes from the methods of his forefathers. In the name of self-sufficiency, he abandoned 250 acres of depleted soil, using the land instead for pasture, and sold 50 of his slaves (Teagle, 1998, p.30). The remaining 400 acres of fields (“shifts”) were divided, resulting in four fields at 100 acres (see Figure 18). Most significantly, in the name of efficiency he began his first attempts at crop rotation.

An ideological element of his blooming agricultural philosophy was a growing conviction that these systems of reform would improve the quality of life for his slaves. In his

rationale, less mouths to feed and less land to cultivate meant greater distribution of available resources. He was adamant in his journals and writings about strategies concerning the most efficient use of labor at hand, instead of stretching resources in order to farm as much land as possible. As Teagle notes, self-sufficiency and new, more complicated systems meant that higher demands were placed upon enslaved workers throughout the year. Even though there was less cultivated land during his tenure, crop rotation and all the amendments involved resulted in more plentiful production throughout most of the year. It is arguable that the enslaved community’s way of life was in fact more arduous and taxing during Hill’s tenure than under the less complicated, more seasonal systems of his predecessors (Teagle, 1998, p.19).

Figure 18 Hill Carter’s evolving land use Residential quarters Cultivated land Non-arable or pasture land

c.1742-1818

1818-1826

1826-1866

HIll Carter inherited 650 acres of cultivated land and conventional methods of management

In the spirit of reform, Hill Carter abandoned 250 acres. New techniques on remaining acreage involved deep plowing, crop rotation, and marl amendments

A patch of forest and a larger tract of swamp to the south were cleared to create the final shape of Hill Carter’s lands

P 30

A LIFETIME OF EXPERIMENT

In the first iteration of Hill’s rotation experiment, the four fields of 100 acres each (Figure 20) were rotated each year between corn, wheat,

clover, fallow wheat. 1 After the introduction of the previously mentioned Swamp Field in 1826, the swamp became the primary producer of corn, and oats were substituted into the rotation system. After a few decades of this four-shift system, Hill found that the regular improvement of the soil with a lack of regular animal grazing resulted in rapid growth of everything, including unwanted crops. By the late 1830’s much of his slaves’ labor was devoted to arduous weeding and other unplanned activities that resulted from intensely fertile fields. On many occasions, his journals mention weeding 100 acres because the grass grew too high to thresh the wheat, or replanting corn multiple times because the crop kept being devoured by pests. As Edmund Ruffin argued, the accumulation of organic matter in the soil needed the presence of livestock to keep the weeds and bugs in check on a regular basis. Hill decided to introduce a fifth shift from converting a northeastern tract of land (Teagle, 1998, p.69). This fifth field included a “Pasture Clover” shift, which would be rotated in clover and used as pasture in that same season. First, Hill used consecutive years to let fields lie in clover and pasture, but soon found that the land was so trampled and hard after two consecutive years without a plow that it became stiff and almost unworkable (Teagle, 1998, p.70). Following more advice from Farmer’s Register correspondences, this issue was resolved by placing a wheat crop between clovered shifts. The final five-shift rotation (Figure 19) became corn, wheat, clover, fallow wheat, pasture clover, and it was successful enough to see Hill through to the rest of his tenure.

COMMON WEEDS + INSECTS IN UNCOMMON QUANTITIES* Partridge pea Cheat grass St Johns wort Blue grasses Wire grasses Wild onion Wire Worm a.k.a. Bud Worm Cut Worm Corn Flea Cinch Bug *From Hill Carter’s journals in the 1830’s

Clover Pasture Clover Fallow Wheat

Wheat

Corn Oat

Figure 19 Illustrated Five-Shift System, 1818-1840; 1860-1866

Figure 20 Illustrated Four-Shift System, 1840-1860

P 31

SHIRLEY’S ENTRANCE TO THE MODERN ERA Shirley Plantation’s architecture came through the Civil War relatively unscathed. The lands, however, had been completely ruined, the poultry and livestock killed, and most significantly the slaves had run off to Union Ships that had occupied the James River for much of the conflict. Hill Carter decided to retire and divided his lands in 1866 (see Figure 21). The southern portion (455 acres, 700 modern acres) was willed to Robert Randolph, and the northern “upper” portion (970 acres) to William Fitzhugh. Robert’s parcel is the land we know today as Shirley Plantation. Robert Randolph’s daughter, Alice Bransford Carter, was widowed at a young age and moved back home in the 1870’s. After her return, Robert kept her involved with the plantation and taught her how to manage the farm. When Robert R. passed away in 1887, Alice was well prepared for the job of running the plantation. Her newly widowed mother, Louise Humphreys Carter, would continue her role tending the household and garden, and Alice’s sister Marion Oliver Carter would help out during her frequent visits. These women formed a trifecta that would bring Shirley into the 20th century. The first decades of the 20th century saw times of economic hardship for Shirley not least because of a shift in labor availability. The increase of higher paying industrial jobs around Charles City meant that it was hard to find workers to the extent that Alice was relatively solitary on the farm until her sister moved back in 1921. Neither Marion nor Alice had children, so when Marion retired the estate passed to their cousin, Charles Hill Carter II of nearby High Hills. Charles Carter II truly brought Shirley Plantation into the modern era: the start of his tenure marks the time when Shirley started to make a name for itself as a tourist destination. From 1927 onwards there are almost daily accounts in Marion’s journal of visitors, both friends and strangers, coming to walk around and do “sight seeing.” In the 1950’s, the Carter-Hill family’s commitment to tourism saw the construction of the axial pathway that now defines the visitor’s promenade through the forecourt. This same era saw the residential fences removed and the outbuildings stripped of their 20th century accoutrements. The later decades saw big changes to the greater landscape in the form of mining, modern industrial agriculture, a new residential building (constructed for an aging family member and placed away from the historical quarters) and, of course, modern roads. This is the era that saw the current diminished stage of Eppes Creek and the disappearance of the branches of the creek which drained into south Shirley (see Figure 23).

P 32

HIRLEY, SOUTH S ARTER D BY R. C INHERITE

m e s R iv e r Figure 21 Illustrated plan of Shirley’s boundaries, after Hill Carter spli t land between William Fitzhugh (gray) and Robert R. carter (green). Drawn from 1870 survey (see Figure 16)

Figure 22 Illustrated plan of Shirley’s boundaries taken from a 1937 aerial photograph

Figure 23 Illustrated plan of Shirley’s boundaries taken from a 2007 aerial photograph

A TIME LINE OF SHIRLEY AT THE TURN OF THE 20TH CENTURY

HIRLEY, NORTH S GH W. FITZHU Y B D E IT INHER

1875

Hill Carter dies, Robert R. Carter has already assumed management by this time

1879

Newly widowed Alice moves back to Shirley

1888

Robert R. Carter dies, Alice Carter Bransford assumes management of Shirley

1906

Louise Humphreys Carter dies

1918

Alice C. Bransford retires; Charles Hill Carter (a cousin from neighboring High Hills) takes over the farm

1921

Marion Carter Oliver and her newly retired husband move to Shirley

1926

Alice Carter Bransford dies; Marion and Charles are the heads of Shirley.

1927

Shirley Plantation begins its foray with heritage tourism

1929

Arthur Shurcliff, landscape architect for Colonial Williamsburg, makes a visit to Shirley to document its historic landscape

1931

Arthur Shurcliff and staff create illustrated plan of Shirley Plantation’s historic residential quarters and garden

P 33

PART IV

RESIDENTIAL SPACES

The early 1900’s was a time when archaeology and heritage conservation were becoming modern practices. In Virginia as in the rest of the country, critical and public appreciation was growing for aesthetic qualities of historic architecture. Historical events were no longer the driving associative characteristic that defined a building as a heritage site. This was a broadened definition of historic value and led to state-wide movements of preservation and documentation in Virginia. During this era, Williamsburg made a new name for itself as the state’s apex of heritage conservation and was restored as “Colonial Williamsburg” by 1927. Arthur Shurcliff was the landscape architect for Colonial Williamsburg during its nascence and in that time he produced an incredible array of measured drawings and documents of historic Virginia buildings. His documentary photographs and measured drawings of Shirley (1928-1931) provide fascinating insight into the physical realities of the residential spaces.

P 34

ORIGINAL ENTRANCE, NOW PRIVATE

SHIR

HISTORIC WILLOW OAK

root cellar

pump house

“SUN” GARDEN

N A

laundry+ gift shop

covered patio

TATI

ROA

VISITOR PARKING LOT

QUEEN ANNE FORECOURT

dependency footprint

r na

dovecote

WILDFLOWER FIELD rest rooms

smoke house

CHICKEN RUN

corn crib

BOXWOOD GARDEN

M U L E

P E N

YOUNG FRU IT ORCHARD

gra pe arb or

R I P A R

I A

PLAN

U S E

ice house

kitchen + office

great house

C O M M U N I T I E S

J a m e s

TO TER PO RA GR CE AP D HY

LEY

sta ble s

R i v e r

A G R I C U L T U R A L

TO SHIRLEY CEMETERY + SHIRLEY COVE

A G R I C U L T U R A L

U S E

0.5mi

P 35

JOHN CARTER’S RESIDENTIAL SPACES In 1738, after the death of his father-in-law Edward Hill III, John Carter oversaw the construction of Shirley's main house and two flanking dependencies to the north and south. Shirley's original trio of stately buildings, whose main facades faced uniformly east to the river and west to the forecourt, certainly would have made an impression on travelers and visitors arriving from the shore of the James River. The Main House that John Carter had constructed still stands today (see Figures 25 and 26); in the 1820’s a fire destroyed most of the northern dependency except a portion of its cellar; and the southern dependency was dismantled in 1868. Unfortunately,there are not many extant documents by which we can trace the more detailed aspects of Shirley’s residential landscape. One tantalizing piece of evidence is a 1742 survey which describes orchards, gardens, park, and all houses except the great quarters (Figure 24). As such, the only way to determine what these dependencies and other elements might have looked like is through physical examination of the site. Two archaeological digs have provided plenty of insight into the characteristics of the built environment. The soft-scape elements, however, like the orchards and gardens, are still shrouded in mystery and shall require further research.

“This part contains the Orchards, Gardenings, Park, and all the houses escept those called the great Quarters”

Figure 24 Survey of Shirley’s lands completed in 1742 (detail) from collection on deposit at Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter Family

P 36

NORTH DEPENDENCY

SOUTH DEPENDENCY

Figure 25 View of main house as approaching from the river

SOUTH DEPENDENCY

NORTH DEPENDENCY

Figure 26 View of main house as approaching from the Queen Anne forecourt

P 37

JOHN CARTER’S RESIDENTIAL SPACES For many decades in the 20th century, the story of the flanking dependencies had been largely forgotten and their footprints consequently misinterpreted. During Arthur Shurcliff’s visits in 1928, the northern cellar remnant was presumed to have been built for the purpose of exterior storage and was known as “the Root Cellar”. The southern footprint was assumed to be the footprint of a “Hill House,” dating back to the 17th century occupation of the Edward Hill lineage. Because there was no knowledge that the root cellar was in fact a footprint of a building as well, it stood to reason at the time that the “Hill House” was constructed first, and then the Great House and Forecourt were erected as one fluid thought, compositionally detached from the southern “Hill House.” Architectural excavations of the main house in 1967 (led by Catherine Lynn) and of the building footprints in 1979-80 (led by Theodore Reinhart) unearthed a host of clues to the true origins of Shirley’s architecture. In Reinhart’s excavations an initial mapping of the footprints revealed a planned symmetry between the main house and dependencies (Figure 27) and this substantially debunked the idea that one of these three buildings was a separate, earlier “Hill House.” Lynn’s excavations found an earlier facade underneath the main house’s contemporary facade and porch. Lynn concluded that the original entranceway to the main house involved a vaulted brick base capped by molded Portland sandstone steps. These original steps were straight with "ends flaring to form terminal swirls” (see Figure 28). The door treatment was "highly elaborate.. with possibly a carved brick pediment, cornices, architrave, and flanking pilasters. Elaborate doorways of this type once existed at Rosewell and one is still extant at Christ Church in Lacaster City [sic]." The original columns were "probably Doric on the bottom and Ionic on top, which would have been more in keeping with the classical principles of Andrea Palladio,” which was the Jeffersonian style (Archaeology, 1985, p.39). Reinhart’s excavation found evidence of a paired symmetry between the two dependencies. The opposite ends of the two flanking dependencies had "bulkhead entrances with brick steps descended into the cellars between the brick chimney supports." The location of the bulkhead entrances gives substance to the concept that the flanking buildings exhibited a symmetry, with the central main house as a focal point. The arrangements of the footprints further reveals this focal symmetry. Reinhart's team also excavated "molded sandstone steps [which] suggest that the flanking dependencies had these at least on their front or river façade. The remains of less elaborate limestone steps, similar to those on the present kitchen, were found… and might have been used on the rear or land façade" (Archaeology, 1985, p.41). Figure 29 is a sketch that shows the main house and the southern dependency in a dilapidated state, about a decade before its recorded deconstruction. Reinhart used this sketch to inform his hypothetical illustration of dependencies that were two-and-a-half stories tall (Figure 28).

P 38

Figure 28 Reconstruction drawing of Shirley mansion and flanking dependencies, west river facade, c. 1740 from “Archaeology” (1985)

Figure 27 Reconstruction of Shirley mansion and flanking dependencies, west river facade, c. 1740 from “Archaeology” (1985)

Figure 29 Visitor’s sketch of main house dependency, and laundry c.1851 from collection on deposit at Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter Family

P 39

CHARLES CARTER’S RESIDENTIAL SPACES

Figure 30 Renovated main house

Charles’s individual legacy would be left at Shirley in the form of architectural exploits. It is now accepted that from c. 1771-1775 Charles renovated the facade and interior of the main house (Figure 30), including the pedimented porticoes which stand today ( Archaeology, 1985, p.39). He also built the Dovecote and the Queen Anne forecourt buildings (kitchen, laundry, granary, and ice house, Figure 31). The forecourt is generally regarded as the only Queen Anne forecourt in Virginia. It is speculated that the flanking dependencies functioned as the original kitchen (north) and office (south) in John Carter’s era and were later converted to offices and chambers when Charles Carter built the forecourt ( Archaeology, 1985, p.42). According to Reinhart, there is a lack of precise integration with the mathematical alignment

Main House west façade c.1740 (detail) From Reinhart “Archaeology”

Main House west façade c. 1770

of the central three buildings, and this discrepancy “gives weight to the argument that the forecourt was a later addition, most probably constructed under the direction of Charles Carter.

Figure 31 Queen Anne Forecourt

The forecourt, although well balanced and symmetrically arranged, does not follow through with the precise plan established for the mansion and its flanking dependencies. This suggests that these three buildings formed the original core of the plantation, with the forecourt being a later addition. If this was the case, the flanking dependencies probably functioned as the original kitchen and office, later being converted to chambers when the forecourt was built ( Archaeology, 1985, p.45). The British Queen Anne style is named after Queen Anne Stuart who reigned from 1702 to 1714. It has little in common with the ornate American Queen Anne style of the late 19th century.

GREAT HOUSE

North Kitchen

South Laundry

The architectural style is exemplified by: DOVE C OT E Q UE E N A N N E FO R E CO UR T

• Construction of two or three stories with multiple windows along the front • Inclusion of a pediment over the entrance (see original façade in Figure 30) • Hip roof construction, defined as all sides of the roof sloping downward to meet exterior walls (see forecourt buildings, Figure 31) (quoted from Taylor, 2018)

Granary

Ice House

P 40

HILL AND MARY CARTERâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S RESIDENTIAL SPACES

Hill Carter's architectural contributions came in the form of agricultural outbuildings and slave quarters. The buildings in the main residential complex remained essentially

unchanged from Charles Carter's time, with the exception of the two flanking dependencies built by John Carter. The north dependency was mostly destroyed by a lightning fire around 1820, yet a portion of its basement was kept intact and survives to the present day (Ossman, L, McClane, D. 2016, p.14). Utilized as a root and wine cellar into the 20th century, the cellar is complete with a barrel vaulted ceiling and steps leading downwards. The southern dependency kept standing until 1868, at which point it was dismantled and its bricks recycled to construct a house on Upper Shirley for Hill's son William Fitzhugh (Figure 32).

Dismantled in 1868

Destroyed in 1820

Figure 32 Reconstructed rendering of the Forecourt and Dependencies before 1820, using my photograph and Reinhartâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s drawings

P 41

HILL AND MARY CARTER’S RESIDENTIAL SPACES A collection of maps provides additional clues to the greater organization of Hill Carter’s residential spaces. A survey of Shirley which Hill created in 1820 (Figure 33) provides a bit of clarity of residential areas but shows no signs of an orchard. In this map, the residential spaces are divided into four measured sections: the Garden which bears the same 1.6 acre footprint as today; a 2 acre Boat House lot directly west of the Garden; a 2.25 acre Yard that encompassed the Great House, Laundry, and Kitchen; and the 1.75 acre backlot which encompassed the remaining outbuildings (Granary, Ice House, Dovecote and Smokehouse). The absence of a label for “orchard” does not, of course, mean that an orchard did not exist- more than likely fruit trees were incorporated into either the Yard or the Garden areas. In 1824 Hill writes about constructing a “yard fence between the kitchen and laundry,” and in 1833 tells that “carpenters put up new gate near the kitchen where there were draw bars before.” He recorded the dimension of the plantation gates

Figure 33 1820-1858 Survey of Shirley Plantation (detail) From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

including rails, slats, braces and posts, all of which add up to a gate which was 10.5 feet long and 5.5 feet high, typically constructed of locust from the plantation (Figure 34). From aerial imagery and contemporary surveys we know that up until the mid-twentieth century the forecourt had still been bisected by a boxwood hedge which separated the Yard and backlot in much the same manner as in the 1820 survey. We do not know when such a hedge was first planted, but that 1824 journal entry is early evidence that there was a distinctive, physical separation of these spaces. The history of non-commercial agriculture at Shirley remains nebulous. Concerning fruit trees, for example, the plat from 1742 (see Figure 23) mentions an orchard, but the question remains whether that 18th century orchard remained in the same area by the 19th century. Unfortunately, no archival evidence has been found pertaining to Charles Carter’s residential landscape decisions during his tenure. While Hill Carter’s journals kept a detailed account of agricultural affairs, he also wrote little pertaining to residential spaces. Sparse information has been derived from survey maps and the rare mention from the Shirley Plantation Journal, which he began writing when he assumed management in 1816.

Figure 34 “Dementions of the Shirley gates” [sic] entry by Hill Carter in the Shirley Plantation Journal 1838, courtesy of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

P 42

RESIDENTIAL SPACES AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURY Shirley’s residential spaces went fairly unchanged between Hill Carter’s era and that of his son Robert- the Forecourt remained bisected by a hedge, visible in Figures 33 (from 1820) and 36 (from 1867-1874); the garden footprint and entrance roads also remained the same. The later survey has a noticeably larger amount of detail- the trees and buildings are fastidiously drawn to give the impression of literal representation. In this more detailed plan, a curved path is visible that circumnavigates the central residential buildings, making a loop around the laundry and kitchen as shown in Figure 35. The earlier survey does not show any such pathways but it is also more symbolically drawn so there is a chance that this pathway existed at this time as well. The forecourt buildings had modern additions like the Granary awning in Figure 35, which were removed for historic accuracy in the 1950’s.

Figure 35 Granary with previous road and built amendments, since removed. Early 20th century. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

Figure 36 1 8 6 7 -7 4 Survey of Shirley Plantation (detail), from collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

P 43

OTHER RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS N O RT H E R N E NT R ANC E Until the modern era (about the 1950’s), the main entrance to Shirley’s residential quarters was a northern road, outlined below. Figures 38 and 39 provide a fascinating view of this entry. Today the fence has been replaced by a vegetated buffer (Figure 37), which now acts to separate the public tour area from the family’s private picnic area. The English Oak on the right is visible in all three photographs; noticeably absent in the contemporary photograph is the tree just in front of the porch. The north road once served to connect through the adjacent northern property, and now ends just north of the old commercial wharf (Figure 40).

n o rt h e rn

ro a d

Figure 38 North entrance, circa 1900. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

Figure 37 North entrance with plantings, 2018

Figure 39 North entrance, date unknown. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

P 44

NORTHERN COMMERCIAL WHARF The James River provided crucial access from Shirley to markets at City Point, Petersburg, Richmond and beyond including New York. Shirleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s position on the river was so beneficial that even John Carter, a man with impressive wealth and resources, used the plantation as his main business hub. Due to the abrasive relationship between wood and water, the physical dock has been replaced countless times. The footprint of the commercial dock (visible in Figure 41) has remained in approximately the same place. Shoreline archaeology with East Carolina University has been conducting deposit research to determine historical contents of the riverbed.

FOOTPRIN

Figure 40 Commercial dock c. 1923-1925 (detail). From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

T OF LAN DING

Figure 41 Commercial dock pilings, 2007 aerial view. Courtesy of the Carter family

P 45

RES ID ENT I AL B O A T L A N DI NG Like most plantations in the area, Shirleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s main entrance for the majority of its lifespan was by boat. There was a commercial wharf to the north for industrial imports and exports and to the south a residential dock which abutted the yard (Figure 42). This dock was much less substantial in size and material, and as such, not much physical evidence of its footprint remains. On the land, however, there are some topographic particularities that are likely remnants of an earlier landing and ramp. Figure 43 shows the steep change in elevation between the river and the yard, and the snow highlights the ramp-like flattened areas that could have served as a transition between the two planes. The yard in itself is an unresolved question, and it will get more attention in the following chapter.

Figure 42 Residential dock with boat, view looking west from House Yard, M.J. Powers matted diptych (detail), undated. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

Figure 43 Residential dock in winter, seen from the James River, c. 1920 . From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

P 46

RES I D EN T I A L F E NC E S As previously mentioned, Shirleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residential quarters were once defined by fences. Figures 44, 45, and 46 exemplify the strong presence of the fence. Figure 44 shows the dovecote in its previous context, when the northern road was still used as a main entrance. Today the entrance circles around the dovecote and the fence is no longer present. The fence and cedar screen in Figure 45 which enclosed the turkeys and poultry have been exchanged for an open layout that encourages a visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s free navigation throughout the Forecourt. Figure 46 (on the following page) illustrates just how abrupt the division within the Forecourt used to be: a tall boxwood hedge functioned to separate the agricultural buildings (ice house and granary) and the residential buildings (kitchen, laundry, great house and yard). Today the hedge and gates have been removed and replaced by an axial pathway which guides the visitor from the main eastern entrance straight to the main house.

Figure 44 Dovecote with residential fence in background, undated. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

Figure 45 Kitchen yard with fence and cedar screen, undated. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

P 47

Figure 46 Boxwood hedge in Forecourt, photograph by Arthur Shurcliff, 1929. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

Figure 47 (Left): laundry with fence, undated. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family. (Right): laundry with new cedar screen and no fence, 2018.

P 48

Figure 48 Stables and smokehouse with modern boxwood hedge, 2018

Figure 49 Stables with post-and-rail and snake and rail fences, in place of boxwood hedge. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

Figure 50 Stable and smokehouse with stable fence and boxwood hedge. Many of the farm buildings had additional built elements which have since been removed for historic accuracy. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

P 49

Figure 51 Corn crib and house with gable roof, circa 1950. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

Figure 52 Corn crib in current location by dovecote, 2018

P 50

Figure 53 View across the James c. 1930. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

Figure 54 Same view across the James river, 2018. Visible is the Altria tobacco products factory, previously named Philip Morris, in place since the mid-20th century.

P 51

Figure 55 Western edge of boxwood garden, as seen from the Yard, c. 1930. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

Figure 56 Yard willow, destroyed in 1930â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

P 52

[intentionally left blank]

P 53

PART V REMAINING QUESTIONS SIFTING THROUGH DEPICITIONS OF SHIRLEY Shirley’s boxwood gardens and the residential yard are the heart of the plantation’s historic landscape. From the early 20th century when heritage sites were being recognized for their historic and aesthetic value, the garden was the landscape element that garnered the most attention at Shirley Plantation. Figure 55 in the following section is an undated rendering of the boxwood garden by Lila S. Williams whose origins and supportive information remain obscure. Williams’ engraving accompanies an entry about Shirley in a well respected publication of historic Virginia gardens, and as such has functioned as an informally authoritative document. A more reliable authority can be found in the notes and measured plans of Aurthur Shurcliff from 1929-1931. Finally, the earliest rendering which is valuable simply for its time stamp was completed by G. Davis in 1915. The garden and yard are also depicted in photographs from the 1920’s and -30’s, as well as in written details from early Shirley Plantation surveys and journals. Despite the wealth of information, it has come to my attention that primary source evidence is rather circumstantial regarding some details in Davis’, Williams’ and Shurcliff’s measured plans. The research presented here has attempted to identify archival and physical evidence which supports elements within these measured plans; to call into question those details which do not have strong evidence to support them; and to recommend steps for further inquiry about unresolved details within Shirley’s landscape.

P 54

P 55

G. DAVIS 1915 MEASURED DRAWING Historical interest started to accrue in the 20th century about the historic plantations of the James River, and the earliest known effort to document Shirley Plantation is a measured plan (Figure 57) drawn in 1915 by E. Gorton Davis. Davis was likely working for famed Virginia landscape architect Charles Gillette at the time, and later went on to be a historian of landscape architecture at Cornell University. A copy of his plan can be found in the architectural drawings archive in the Special Collections of the Library of Virginia. The plan shows a dotted line around the forecourt, with an accompanying note which states that the “original scheme was enclosed with wall (shown dotted, from building to building.” The dotted line also extends towards the river and on this portion is written “supposed location of original defense wall extending to river.” The differentiation of this latter dotted line as being “supposed” may give the impression that it was drawn based off ephemeral evidence, perhaps a story from family tradition. To that end, it is likely that Alice Bransford or Charles Carter of High Hills were the family members present at the time of Davis’ visit, and may likely have been interviewed by Davis. According to a consultation with current architectural historian at Colonial Williamsburg, Jeff Klee, the plan’s verbiage implies that the enclosure wall line might have been drawn based off of some kind of harder, physical evidence. However, based on conversations with the Shirley grounds-crew and superficial physical probing I was able to execute, no evidence has been found to support this claim.

Figure 57 Measured plan of Shirley Plantation by Gordon Davis, 1915. Courtesy of Colonial Williamsburg

P 56

Davis wrote “supposed location of original defense wall” next to the riverside portions. This wording points to the likelihood that this section of wall might have been surmised by colloquial evidence, and Klee supposes that the other section of enclosure wall might have been drawn from visual evidence. A question arose: if the “original enclosure wall” was brick instead of wood, could there be some physical evidence on the buildings where the wall would have connected? The enclosure would have touched the north facade of the Ice House and the south facade of the Granary. After a visual investigation of the parts of the buildings that would have touched the supposed enclosure wall, I found no evidence of previous connections within the brickwork. Figure 58 shows the brick piling that remains, originally acting as a gate in the boxwood hedge that used to divide the forecourt. A series of surface probes following the line of Davis’s wall yielded no positive results. The maintenance crew and Carter family also reported that the ground has been dug up extensively enough for utility installation and repairs, and no one has ever found evidence of old wall foundations. If the wall was made of wood and constructed in the early part of Shirley’s existence, there is no way that remnants would survive. Ultimately, because there is no physical or primary source evidence for this “original enclosure,” it is not a subject that warrants further investigation. Secondly, the Davis drawing shows the boxwood garden borders in the same way as subsequent renderings, with a central pathway that alludes to fourfold symmetry. As is visible in renderings and aerial views, the central pathway has an obvious axis in relation to the kitchen and laundry buildings. This spatial relationship prompted the question: is there anything in the field beyond that could be an extension of a fourfold garden footprint? There was no archival evidence to support this, an investigation of historical aerials revealed that the area immediately to the south contained a barn in the 1980’s that has since been demolished, and aerial photographs before then do not yield enough visual information. Furthermore, the field is now devoted to agricultural cultivation, meaning the soil in the area has been worked countless times: as such any physical evidence of a larger footprint would have been obliterated. That being said, the footprints of the boxwood garden from the 1870 survey has the same square footage and shape as the current physical garden. If there were once a different footprint, it could have existed in the era of Mary Carter or even before. There are no primary sources that contain hints towards an alteration of the garden footprint. Finally, the Davis plan incorrectly identifies some of the other major historic elements on site, identifying the famed ancient willow oak as a maple and identifying the corn crib as a slave quarter. These last discrepancies finally negate the reliability of Davis’s drawing. Nevertheless, it is included it in this report because it comprises a significant component in the history of the documentation of Shirley Plantation. Figure 58 Northwest corner of Ice House and remnant of hedge gate, 2018

P 57

LILA S. WILLIAMS’ BOX GARDEN Williams’ rendering of the box garden (Figure 59) provides a very detailed hypothesis of how the garden might have been organized. However its historical validity remains quite nebulous due to a lack of details about Williams and what facts informed her depiction. We do know that as early as the 1820’s (and probably earlier) vegetables were cultivated in the garden and planted in “squares”. It is also generally accepted that the term “square” did not signify the geometric shape so much as a generally rectangular plot of land. Journals from Robert R. and Louise also mention roses, grapes, as well as ornamental plants which served as borders to vegetable beds. Whether these floral elements were a part of earlier iterations of the garden is still a matter of speculation.

Figure 59 Rendered plan of the “Original Box Garden at Shirley”, by Lila S. Williams, undated, with added north arrow. From collection on deposit at Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family.

P 58

THE BOXWOOD GARDEN a gr

CURRENT CONDITIONS na

l a und r y

smoke house

stables

C grape arbor

Figure 60 Aerial photograph of Shirleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Boxwood Garden, 2017 Google Earth; site photographs taken in 2018

P 59

ARTHUR SHURCLIFF’S MEASURED PLANS Arthur Shurcliff’s measured plans are generally regarded as the most accurate and well researched representations of historic Virginia landscapes. By the time of his visit, Marion Oliver and cousin Hill Carter were managing Shirley, and it was already transitioning to an era of tourism. The elderly Oliver had the most intimate knowledge of anyone living at Shirley at the time, but the information she gave in interviews with Shurcliff has proven to be unreliable. For example, after a close scrutiny of journals and other primary sources nothing was found to support Oliver’s reference to the 1816 boxwood garden and its supposed destruction in 1826. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, the flanking dependencies were presumed to be a “wine cellar” and a much earlier constructed “Hill house.” The prominent theory was that they were not connected architecturally to the main mansion, but we know today that they were. As such, some speculation remains as to the accuracy of the finer details within Shurcliff’s drawings of this historic landscape.

In contrast to the Davis plan, there is a wealth of background information available about Shurcliff’s

visits- because of his position at Colonial Williamsburg, his notes and sketches are available in Williamsburg’s John D. Rockefeller library. Figures 61 and 62 are sketches that Shurcliff used to inform his finalized plan, Figure 63. Additionally, he and his team took a series of documentary photographs as a form of site analysis. These photographs and other contemporaneous photos from the family collection at the Library of Virginia are informative in identifying turn-of-the-century elements within the garden. They do not, however, provide much definitive evidence of earlier plantings and organization within the garden.

Figure 61 1929 Sketched plan of Shirley Plantation, Arthur Shurcliff 1929. Courtesy of Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

P 60

Figure 62 Sketches of Shirley Plantation landscape elements, Arthur Shurcliff, 1929. Courtesy of Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Figure 63 Measured plan of Shirley Plantation, Arthur Shurcliff 1931. Courtesy of Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

P 61

Figure 65 View north of laundry building from within contemporary boxwood garden, 2018

Figure 64 View of central pathway and pump in boxwood garden; laundry building is just visible behind floral arbor. c. 1930s. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family.

Figure 66 View north of laundry from within boxwood garden, Arthur Shurcliff, 1929. Courtesy of Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

P 62

C B

A Figure 67 East plot, now called â&#x20AC;&#x153;Sun Gardenâ&#x20AC;?

B Figure 69 Northeast garden corner

C Figure 71 Central entrance looking south

Figure 68 East plots with pathway, Arthur Shurcliff, 1929. Courtesy of Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

Figure 70 Northeast garden with view of willow, boxwoods and trellises, c. 1930s. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family.

Figure 72 Central entrance, c. 1930s. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family.

P 63

ARCHIVAL CLUES ABOUT THE GARDEN AND FRUIT TREES The domestic areas in the mid-19th century were likely under the domain of Hill Carter’s wife and the lady of the house, Mary Braxton Carter. Letters from her mother talk about how Mary’s eyes caused her a great deal of pain. Eye-straining activities like reading and writing were consequently to be avoided unless necessary, which is the likely reason that no journals or writings from her are to be found. The early 19th residential landscape at Shirley is therefore shrouded in mystery. A few tantalizing hints remain of Mary’s potential proclivity for gardens: Shirley’s archival book list includes one entitled “Botany for Beginners” which bears Mary’s signature in the front page; and an undated letter to Mary from her sister which hints at some level of involvement with propagation and interest in plants: “Some summer ago.. you had an exotick that I took a slip from with the hope of rearing it, though you had said it was not propogated in that way, I was anxious to try my hand and took two small buds; the name of it I do not recollect… it was not the dusty miller I know.” [sic]

Though few and far between, Hill’s journals contain enough information to form an impressionistic picture of the evolution of the garden and residential spaces in the 19th century (see appendix X.I for a chronology of pertinent journal entries). Post and rail fences made of locust wood delineated each residential space from one another; there was a well in the yard at a different location than the pump house; a stone wall provided structural support to the converted swampland; and there was a kiln (for burning marl into lime) which may have been located by the granary and ice house. The first archival evidence of residential gardening during this time period comes in 1821, when Hill states “all the fruit killed owing to warm weather in February and then cold in April” and that 25 bushels of potatoes were gathered from the garden . 2 From the 1820 survey (Figure 73) we can assume that the potatoes were planted in the 1 3/5 acre plot that is the same location as the boxwood garden. In 1822 and 1823 there is a relative flurry of description: peas, potatoes, strawberries, currants, and carrots were planted in “squares” in the garden. In 1843 Hill wrote for the first time about the “carpenter getting timber and preparing to make the frames for the grape vines” 3 It is assumed that grape frames might have been built within the same area as the contemporary grape arbor but I have not found substantial evidence to support this theory. Hill’s descendants were quite active in cultivating grapes and making wine, and we can trace the beginnings of Shirley’s grape cultivation back to this entry in 1843. We can also deduce that viticulture was not a regular activity at Shirley for at least another decade because receipts exist for externally purchased wine until as late as the 1850’s. Hill Carter also wrote in 1823 that Gloucester Hickory and Almond trees were planted in the “yard”, and his journals in general have a noticeable absence of the word “orchard”. 4 The Shirley archive also contains a receipt for 44 fruit trees purchased in 1826 (see Appendix X.I) Whether these new specimens were part of a separate orchard, or planted within the garden or in the yard is still unknown.

Figure 73 1820-1858 Survey of Shirley Plantation (detail) From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtes y of the Carter family

P 64

Louise Humphreys kept a fastidious journal which included many details of her garden activities (see Appendix X.II). Her journals span the time from when Robert Carter inherited the plantation in 1866 to her death in 1906. The final years of her life saw frequent battles with health, and her journals from that time reflect a shift to living indoors and not being as active in the garden. Her daughter Alice assumed management in the late 1880’s but her work was focused on the larger plantation activities and do not relay much information about Shirley’s residential spaces. A most intriguing element of the 1870 survey is the portrayal of the trees- the north entry road is lined with an allee of sorts; the house yard has a well-planted cluster, and there are noticeably no trees represented within the boxwood garden. During and before this era it was fashionable to plant favorite fruit trees within and amongst one’s garden in addition to using a separate orchard. After Robert R. passed away, his widow Louise continued to oversee garden and household duties and his daughter Alice kept up the agricultural operations. Louise’s journals consequently provide a fair amount of information regarding the planted spaces around Shirley’s main house. Unfortunately, even through Louise’s journals are the most informative, they do not provide specific clues to the whereabouts of fruit trees or orchards. Furthermore, in Arthur Shurcliff’s measured plan (Figure 74) he details an orchard to the northeast of the Great House, but we have not found any evidence that suggests this 1929 orchard placement derives from any older plantings. As such fruit trees at Shirley remain a mystery.

Figure 74 1870 Survey (detail) Trees are concentrated on the river bank and in the Yard. Courtesy of the Carter Family.

P 65

PROBING THE GARDEN GROUNDS A s e r i e s of probes y ielded evi d enc e of a s quar e br i c k f ound ati on ( Fi g u r e 75) t h at was l i k e l y t h e base o f a h o t h o u se wh i c h was u se d at t h e t u r n o f t he c e nt ur y , und e r L o u i s e H u mph rey sâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; cu ltiv a ti on. Fur ther p r obi ng usi ng the Wi l l i am s r e n de r i n g as a h y po t h e t i c al g u i de t o se e i f t h e r e i s di sc e r n i bl e e v i de n c e o f g r a v e l p a t hw a y s i n th e g a rden rev ea led a ser i es of l i near al ter ati ons i n the top og r aph y an d so i l ( Fi g u r e s 76- 78) Wi t h t h e t e c h n o l o g y av ai l abl e i t was n o t po s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i ne w h e th e r th ese altera tion s wer e d ue to a d i f f er ent mater i al whi c h w as bu r i e d be n e at h t h e so i l , bu t t h e l i n e ar sh ape do e s pr o v i de f o dde r f o r f u t u re r e s e a r c h. G r o und pe n e tr a t in g radar an d L ida r mi ght r eveal a number of d etai l s p ert ai n i n g t o al t e r n at i v e m at e r i al s t h at f o r m e d o l d pat h way s, o r r e v e al r o o t sy s t e m s t o d e t e r m i ne w h e r e l arg er pla n ts lik e trees and ol d gr ap e vi nes mi ght have bee n pl an t e d.

STABLES

a gr

laundry smoke house

Figure 75 Hothouse footprint probe

Figure 76 Garden pathway or plot footprint probe

stables GRAPE ARBOR

GRAPE ARBOR

Plan view showing location of flags shown photographs

Figure 77 Garden pathway footprint probe

Figure 78 Garden pathway or plot footprint probe

P 66

THE HILL-CARTER FAMILY CEMETERY

T h e f a mily cemetery is repre s ented on f ami l y map s as ear l y as 1820. To day t h e ph y si c al si t e ( 1 / 4 mi l e sou th of th e g rea t hous e) i s wel l mai ntai ned yet i t i s evi d e n t t h at t h e r e ar e bu r i al s i te s w h ich h av e b een ov er gr own and f or gotten over the year s. Th e S h i r l e y Pl an t at i o n jo u r n a l s men tion a few bur i al s but many d etai l s r emai n unc l e ar . Th e c e m e t e r y h as 8 g r a v e s to n es a n d an u n k n own number of gr aves. The gr ave stones i n c l u de A dm i r al Jam e s O l i v e r USN (first g ov ern or of U S Vi r gi n Is l and s ) , H i l l Car ter J r ( de c e ase d af t e r bat t l e o f A n ti eta m), E dwa rd Hill 1st ( d ec eas ed 1700) , and Loui s e H um ph r e y s ( de c e ase d 1906) ( f r o m th e Departmen t of H i stor i c Resour c es ) . It i s wi d el y s us p ec t e d t h at t h e r e ar e m o r e b u r i a l s ites th an tombston es, and a basi c te c h n o l og y lik e g rou n d penetr ati ng r ad ar w o u l d b e a h u g e step towa r d s i d enti f yi ng unknown

b u rial

sites.

F utur e

s c hol ar s

c o u l d f i nd addition al bu rial i nf or mati on i n th e jo u r nals of Hill an d R ober t Car ter , both o f w h i c h a re cu rren tly h eld at the Li br ar y o f V i r g i n ia.

Figure 79 Gravestone of Louise Humphreys located in family cemetery, 2018

Figure 80 1870 Survey (detail) showing residential areas and cemetery. From collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

P 67

THE YARD TERRACE

There is a rectilinear topographical cut that runs in front of the main house, the origins of which are

unknown. It is supposed by family tradition to have been constructed at the time of either John Carter or Charles, whose improvements will be elucidated upon shortly. There is a dearth of archival information pertaining to building this terrace, if it is in fact one. The shape of the cut is too rectilinear and the difference in elevation too great to be an accidental or organically formed earthwork. The ancient oak tree stands directly on the edge of

great

one of the terrace corners, and the lower rectangular landing that is defined by the terrace sits directly between

house

the house and the James River. Standing on this landing, one is afforded a view of the river in one direction and the house in the other; and to the south of the landing is a deep furrow that, according to family tradition, was once a sloped path for visitors approaching from the small boat landing. It is unknown when this terrace was cut, but there is reason to believe that it was formed sometime during or before the 18th century when visitors were more likely to arrive by river than by land. The concept of the terrace is worth noting because the terrace forms a final connection between Shirley's buildings and the river and renders the architectural design a more complete thought. I have probed this area and have not found

100ft

evidence of different soil materials that could have lined the terrace. This area could also benefit from ground penetrating radar in order to identify alternative materials or evidence of old root systems.

0.2 ft contour lines

terraced formation

Figure 82 Topographical analysis of Shirley ar ound the great house and riverbank, 2007. Courtesy of the Carter family NOTE: Text in this image is inconsequential. This map is presented to show the area in orange as an identifiable terrace formation.

Figure 81 Measured plan (detail of terrace-like topography), Arthur Shurcliff 1931 (with added north arrow). From collection on deposit at Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter family

P 68

P 69

PART VI RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE INQUIRY

P 70

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS IN EARLY SPRING BO X W O O D G A R D E N P h o to g r aph ed by dron e an d ther ef or e r el ati vel y r es our c e ef f i c i ent, ae r i al ph o t o g r aph s m ay pr o v i de a l o t o f i n si g h t t o t h e bo x wo o d g ar de n â&#x20AC;&#x2122; s i n t e r i o r o r g a ni z a t i o n.

GROUND PENETRATING RADAR T ERRA C E T h e r e a r e n ot man y arch iv al c l ues to f ol l ow i n r egar d s to the ori g i n s o f t h i s u n u su al e l e m e n t o f t h e h o u se y ar d. Gr o u n d pe n e t r at i n g r ada r c o ul d b e us e d t o de te r m i n e th e ex isten ce of r oot systems on a tr ad i ti onal l y p l anted t e r r ac e .

BO X W O O D G A R D E N R o o t s y s tems wou ld a lso be a val uabl e el ement to i d enti f y wi thi n t h e bo x wo o d g ar de n . A su bt e r r an e an an al y si s o f t h e g ar de n c o u l d de t e r m i ne , fo r e x a m p l e , t he h i s to r i c loca tion of trees or gr ap e vi nes..

CEM ET E R Y G r o u n d pen etratin g radar is an i d eal tool f or i d enti f yi ng gr ave s i t e s. E v e n t h o u g h t h e i de n t i t y an d t o t al n u m be r o f g r av e s i s u n k n o wn , a r adar a na l y s i s w o ul d b e a c r u c i a l step tow ards rev eal i ng the r eal i ty of the c emeter y.

LIDAR LIDAR, which stands for Light Detection and Ranging, is a remote sensing method that uses light in the form of a pulsed laser to measure variable distances to the Earth. It is the most resource intensive tool on this list but it also has the highest capacity for informative analysis of the terrace, boxwood garden, cemetery, and the plantation in general. A potentially helpful connection is Meredith Poole, an archaeological historian at Colonial Williamsburg. Poole is working with an intern who has access to LIDAR aerials of Williamsburg area, and they could be a helpful team to get in touch with to see possibility of accessing Charles City LIDAR scans.

P 71

APPENDIX ENDNOTES BIBLIOGRAPHY

P 72

[intentionally left blank]

P 73

X.I HILL CARTER’S RESIDENTIAL SPACES | a time line from the archives T h i s ti m e lin e wa s con stru c ted f r om jour nal entr i es f ound i n H i l l C ar t e r ’ s f ar m jo u r n al s 1 8 1 6 - 1 8 7 5 , cu rren tly h eld i n the Shi r l ey Col l ec ti on at the John D . R o c k e f e l l e r Li br ar y i n C o l o n ial W illia msbu rg . Ad d i ti onal i nf or mati on was gl eaned f r o m r e c e i pt s an d f am i l y

[feb 20, see image] receipt: 16 apples, 12 peaches, 5 cherries, 4 pears 1826

r e c o r d s on deposit in special c ol l ec ti ons at the Li br ar y of Vi r gi ni a.

[march 14] “planted potatoes in garden” 1825 [aug 25] “carpenters finished five new quarters at shirley”

VEGETABLE

[nov1] “hauling up corn building stone wall, carpenters enclosed trees in the yard”

STRUCTURAL FRUIT TREE

“Plank and rails to enclose Garden” 1824 [sept] “Carpenters putting up Yard fence on post and rail” [dec 22]“put fence between kitchen and laundry”

OR NAMENTAL TREE

[feb 20] “set out 9 locusts in the yard”

[april 18] “sowed carrot seed in the garden” 1823 [feb 27] “Potatoes in garden planted 6 rows today” [feb 28] “5 rows of potatoes planted” [march 1] “Potatoes rows set out currant bushes” [march 3] “planted a square of peas early in garden” [march 25] “Finished planting potatoes in the garden, having planted 2 rows Liverpool potatoes” [march 25] “sowed late cauliflower seed in garden” [march 28] “burnt strawberry beds with straw” [april 16] “ Planted 6 Glocster Hicory Nuts in the yard [april 19th] planted an Almond Tree nut also”

[march 27] “Potatoes planted a square in the garden” 1822 [may 6] “green peas today for the 1st time; strawberries yesterday”

[dec] “Well was bricked up a new this year” First mention of fruit trees: “All fruit killed owing to warm weather” 1821

P 74

1829 [no date]“put up new gate by well in yard” 1831 [no date] “carpenters building a new smiths shop” 1834 “put up new gate near kitchen where there were draw bars before” [march 1] Receipt for seeds bought by“Mr Hill Carter Bot of James McKildoe”1:

1/2 gall onion buttons

1 oz silver skin onion seed

1/2oz long scarlet radish

1/2oz yellow summer radish

1oz Lat cauliflower

1/2oz New Cape or Purple Broccoli

1oz Scotch Kale 1oz Spinach seed 1oz parsnip seed 1oz Early York Cabbage seed 1oz Long Green Cucumber 1oz Early Buttersea Cabbage 1oz Early Sugar Loaf Cabbage 1oz Nasturtium 1oz Tomato Seed

Letter of fruit tree purchase, 1826. From collection on deposit the Library of Virginia, courtesy of the Carter Family

1838 [jan3] “sanding paths and graveling roads on plantation” 1840 [march3] “put up a kiln for oyster shells”; “set fire to the lime kiln tonight” [may7] “repaired stone wall in Bay Field”“fruit trees in bloom” [june18] “wind tore the fine old willows in the garden all to pieces” 1843 [no date] “carpenter making frames for grape vines” 1849 [feb28] “cut down, and cut up, all the old poplars in the yard”

P 75

X.II L OUISE HUMPHREY’S LANDSCAPE | a time line from the archives Th i s ti m e lin e wa s con stru c ted f r om jour nal entr i es f ound i n Loui s e H u m ph r e y ’ s jo u r n al s o n de po si t i n spe c i al c o l l e c t i o n s at t h e Li br ar y o f V i r g i ni a . VEGETABLE STRUCTURAL FRUIT TREE ORNAMENTAL TREE

1884-1890 spinach, turnips and brussels sprouts, artichokes, eggplants, tomatoes, cabbage, snap peas, okra, bush bean, celery, hops, “hickory tree in the garden”, strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, cucumber, parsnip, black eyed peas, white potato apples, pears, wine grapes, walnuts, peaches “Pollard trimming trees in orchard” “Britain cut the yard and perfectly vile, looks disgusting, all in gauges, circles and swamps”

1870-71 salsify, raspberries, blackberry tomatoes, peppers, cabbage, buckwheat, hops, asparagus, radish, beet, Bermuda onions, parsnip, carrots, currants, strawberries, corn, sage, figs, cauliflower, cucumber, tomato, lima bean, artichoke, cranberries, spinach violets, roses, daffodil, peas, hyacinths and lilies of the valley, wisteria, flowering almond, crape myrtle, box-hedge, petunia, osage orange hedge , “Alice’s heliotropes” “made a rough arbor for cloth of gold” “sowed portulacca and zinnia seed in boxes” “sowed balsam, zinnia, mignonette in another border” “made 11 quarts of blackberry wine” apple trees, peaches, nectarines, pears, figs, apricots “out in the yard all the morning having the dead limbs sawed off the fruit trees” “put pail across path in yard to stop its being a highway” “sowed cabbage in hot house”, “hot bed”

1868 Northern dependency deconstructed to build Upper Shirley house; first mention of grape vines

P 76

X.III LIST OF BOOKS PERTAINING TO GARDENING AND AGRICULTURE FROM THE SHIRLEY PLANTATION LIBRARY Davy, Humphry. Elements of Agricultural Chemistry, in a Course of Lectures for the Board of Agriculture; With an Appendix, Containing a Series of Experiments to Test the Value of the Grasses Cultivated in Great Britain; 2nd American ed. l8l9. Hudson & Co, Hartford. ___. The Henry Clay Almanac, For the Year of Our Lord 1844, being the 68th Year of American Independence. 1843.bGrigg & Elliott; Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co; Hogan & Thompson; G.W. Mentz and Son; Kay & Brother; M'Carty &Davis; Carey & Hart; Printed and published by T.K. & P.G. Collins, Philadelphia. Lincoln, Mrs. Botany for Beginners, 3rd ed. 1835. ?[Hartford, Ct]. Signature: Carter, Mary B. Signature: Carter, Mrs. Hill. Notes: Other work by this author: Familiar Lectures on Botany, l829. Between l829 and l835, Mrs. Lincoln remarried and became Mrs. Phelps. First ed. of this work was published l833. Miller, Philip. The Gardener's Kalendar, Directing What Works are Necessary to be Done Every Month in the Kitchen, Fruit and Pleasure-Gardens, and in the Conservatory: With an Account of the Particular Seasons for the Propagation and Use of All Sorts of Esculent Plants and Fruits Proper for the Table, and of All Sorts of Flowers, Plants, and Trees, That Flower in Every Month, 6th ed. l743. Printed for J. Rivngton, at the Bible and Crown, London. Signature: Carter, Landon. Notes: October l9, l762 Presented by Landon Carter, Sabine Hall. Miller, Philip. The Gardener's Dictionary, Containing the Methods of Cultivating and Improving All Sorts of Trees, Plants, and Flowers, For the Kitchen, Fruit and Pleasure Gardens; As Also Those Which are Used in Medicine, With Directions for the Culture of Vineyards, and Making of Wine in England, In Which Likewise are Included the Practical Parts of Husbandry, 4th ed, corrected and enlarged, abridged from the last folio ed; in 3 vols. Volumes l, 2, 3. l754. John and James Rivington, London. Signature: Carter, Hill. Notes: Vols. 2 & 3: Hill Carter, Shirley. ___. The Practical American Gardener; Exhibiting the Time for Every Kind of Work in the Kitchen Garden, Fruit Garden, Orchard, Nursery, Shrubbery, Pleasure Ground, Flower Garden, Hop Yard, Green House, Hot House, and Grape Vines, For Every Month in the Year, by an Old Gardener. l8l9. Fielding Lucas, Jr, Baltimore. Signature: Nelson, Hugh. Notes: Hugh Nelson, Petersburg. ** **Hugh Nelson was likely Fanny Nelson's father; Fanny Nelson (1827-1906) was daughter of Hill Carter, mother of Charles Hill Carter of High Hills Pujoulx, J. B. Promenades au Jardin des Plantes, a la Menagerie et dans les Galeries du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle. Tom. 1 & 2. l803. La Librairie Economique, Paris. Randolph, M, The Virginia Housewife. original publication 1824 Taylor, John [Col John Taylor of Caroline Co, Va.] Arator; Being a Series of Agricultural Essays, Practical & Political. 1814. J.M. Carter, Georgetown, Columbia (Washington D.C.) Signature: Carter, Hill. [Worlidge, John] J. W. Systema Agriculturae; The Mystery of Husbandry Discovered. Treating of the Several New and Most Advantagious Ways of Tilling, Planting, Sowing, Manuring, Ordering, Improving of all Sorts of Gardens, Orchard, Meadows, Pastures, Cornlands, Woods and Coppices. As Also of Fruits, Corn, Grain, Pulse, New-Hays, Cattle, Fowl, Beasts, Bees, Silk-Worms, Fish, etc. 4th ed, corrected and amended. l68l. Printed for Tho. Dring....[title page torn], London. Signature: Hill, Edward.

P 77

NOTES Page 18 1

See Ley’s thesis “The Slave’s Story: Interpreting Nineteenth-Century Slave History at Shirley Plantation,” on microfilm at Library of Virginia; a paper copy is housed with the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

Page 20 1

Reinhart surmised this area to be the location of the Weyanoke “King’s House” which John Smith mentions in his seventeenth century journals- but this is unlikely as subsequent archaeology has pointed to other sites.

Originally from “John Rolf’s Relation of the State of Virginia, 17th Century” 1617. The relevant portion of the letter reads: “At West and Sherley Hundred (seated on the north side of the river, lower than the Bermudas three or four myles,) are twenty-five, commanded by capten Maddeson- who are imployed onely in planting and curing tobacco,- with the profitt thereof to clothe themselves and all those who labor about the generall business” [sic]

See “The Secret Diaries of William Byrd 1709-1712” p.192 (apricots), p.343 (cherries and strawberries)

Page 23 1

Lynn (1967) cites the date of the stable fire from page 197 of the “Plummer-Carter Letterbook”

Page 26 1

A complete set of the published Farmers Register volumes is available for perusal at the Special Collections Archive at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Much scholarship has already been done regarding agricultural programs in the era of Hill Carter. James Teagle’s thesis “Land, labor, and reform : Hill Carter, slavery, and agricultural improvement at Shirley Plantation, 1816-1866” skillfully elucidates Hill Carter’s experimentations and evaluates the impact which Carter’s reforms had on the lives of his enslaved labor force.

Page 28 1

An entry from Hill Carter’s farm journals reads, “carpenters putting a new floor to seed wheat room in overseer’s house next to garden” (Aug. 20, 1835) Hill Carter’s journals (1816-1975) currently held at the John D. Rockefeller library in Colonial Williamsburg.

Page 31 1 To fallow a field meant to rotate out of use for a season, growing a leguminous plant (which would deposit nitrogen into the soil at the end of its life cycle), and turning this crop into the soil along with the manure and other amendments. A crop of fallow wheat is wheat grown in the newly turned and amended soil and therefore performs as the bumper crop of the whole rotation. Livestock inhabited the fallow field over the winter, and this involved the yearly construction of winter pens. Page 64 1

Letter to Mary Carter from her sister M. Braxton, dated Dec 11 with no year given. Accessed at the Library of Virginia Special Collections, Shirley collection on deposit, Container 3 : Folder 11

Hill Carter’s journals (1821, p.17) held at John D. Rockefeller library in Colonial Williamsburg.

Hill Carter’s journals (1843, March 23) held at John D. Rockefeller library in Colonial Williamsburg (page numbers end after page 22 of the journals)

Hill Carter’s journal from 1823 reads “Planted 6 Gocster Hicory Nuts in the yard” (April 16th); and “planted an Almond Tree nut also” (April 19th). held at John D. Rockefeller library in Colonial Williamsburg

Index X.1 1

Items taken from a receipt for plants titled“Mr Hill Carter Bot of James McKildoe,” accessed from collection on deposit at the Library of Virginia, Container 5 : Folder 6

P 78

BIBLIOGRAPHY Breen, T. H. Tobacco Culture The Mentality of the Great Tidewater Planters on the Eve of Revolution. Princeton University Press, 1985. Byrd, William. The Secret Diary of William Byrd of Westover, 1709–1712. The Dietz Press, 1941. Carter, Robert. 1866-1890 Robert Carter Plantation Journal. 1890. Charity, Julian. Courage at Home and Abroad : The Military History of Shirley Plantation. Shirley Plantation Foundation, 2012. Charles City County. “Natives in the Landscape.” CharlesCity.Org, 2006, http://www.charlescity.org/natives/eng-set.php. Editor: Maxwell, William. Virginia Historical Register, and Literary Advertiser, Vol. 1 for the Year 1848. MacFarlane & Fergusson, 1848. Herndon, Melvin. Tobacco in Colonial Virginia: The Sovereign Remedy. Virginia 350th Anniversary Celebration Corporation, 1957. “Hide.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1998, https://www.britannica.com/topic/hide-English-land-unit. “Hundred.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2012, https://www.britannica.com/topic/hundred-English-government. Leavitt, Genevieve. Slaves and Tenant Farmers at Shirley Plantation: Social Relationships and Material Culture. College of William and Mary, 1981, doi:10626308. Ley, Jennifer. The Slave’s Story: Interpreting Nineteenth-Century Slave History at Shirley Plantation. University of Delaware, 1995, doi:Film 1357. Lynn, Catherine. Shirley Plantation: A History. University of Delaware, 1967. Reinhart, Theodore R., editor. The Archaeology of Shirley Plantation. University Press of Virginia, 1985. Taylor, Glenda. “All You Need to Know About the Queen Anne House.” bobvila.com, 2018, https://www.bobvila.com/articles/queen-anne-house/. Teagle, James. Land, Labor, and Reform : Hill Carter, Slavery, and Agricultural Improvement at Shirley Plantation, 1816-1866. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1998, https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/35283. Virginia Department of Historic Resources. CC-052. 2005. Young, Joanne. Shirley Plantation: A Personal Adventure for Ten Generations. First, Shirley Plantation, 1981.

P 79