Lives and Legacies

Category: Daily Life in the 1700s

  • Horsing Around: Archeological Finds at Ferry Farm

    Think about a portrait or painting of George Washington.  What is a common element in the paintings?  His uniform, yes, he is indeed painted quite a bit in his impressive military uniform. But how about a horse?  George is often painted riding beautiful horses with a quiet dignity and noble appearance we expect from the father of our country. 

    Washington at Verplanck’s Point by John Trumbull, Source: Winterthur

    However, the horses in these paintings are not mere symbols of wealth or power. They are depicted with George because, from a tender age, his life has been intertwined with these creatures. As a surveyor, soldier, landowner, farmer, gentry, commander-in-chief, and president, he was inextricably linked with horses, not just as a mode of transportation but as a vital part of his daily life.

    And it all started at Ferry Farm…

    George moved to Ferry Farm around 1738 at the age of six. His father, Augustine Washington, was a member of the “planter class,” or Colonial American gentry. This meant he was a prominent member of society, involved in politics, and owned lots of land. Augustine purchased 150 acres across the river from Fredericksburg and later added an additional 450-acre parcel.  In total, he owned Little Hunting Creek, Pope’s Creek, and the Ferry Farm properties. 

    The point?  Augustine needed help because there were places to be, people to see, and fields to farm.  So, horses were a fundamental necessity for the Washington family, and George would have grown up around them, taking care of them and learning to ride.

    We have two great sources that give us some understanding of the horse situation at Ferry Farm. First, in 1743, the Washington patriarch died, leaving behind a widow, an 11-year-old George, and a probate inventory. On page two of the inventory, three horses and one mare are listed.

    Augustine Washington Probate Inventory, 1743

    Secondly, some pretty cool horse tack dating from the Washington occupation has been found during various archeological digs.

    The Finds

    One of the most universally known horse tack, essential for all horse maintenance – is the horseshoe.  The horseshoe was used to protect the hooves because “…being rendered subservient to the use of man…applied to severe and continued labour, and compelled to tread frequently…on the irregular and stony surface of the roads, it became necessary to secure his feet from ruin by strengthening them with the iron band which we call a shoe” (Vial de Saint Bel, 1793).  These shoes were handmade with no standardization across makers in shape, narrowness, or thickness. (Hume, 2001).  This makes it difficult to pinpoint and assign a time on shape alone.

    Farrier Shoeing a Horse by Marechal Ferrant et Operant Source: The Wellcome Collection

    Our horseshoe was found in the second cellar of the Washington Home. It is quite wide between the branches (the curving sides), and the toe seems to straighten a bit at the center. The crease (the groove that runs down the sides) gives enough depth to allow the shoe to be firmly attached to the hoof with six nails (which we found a few originals). (University of Zurich, 2024)  This find illustrates that there was active shoeing and horse maintenance going on at the farm.  Additionally, these horses were ridden or used for farm work because shoes were used to protect the hooves from the wear and tear of hard roads, distribute the horse’s weight evenly on uneven ground, and provide traction on various surfaces. 

    Horseshoe with original nails

    Another artifact found in the cellar of the Washington Home, the stirrup, further demonstrates horse riding as a family necessity. (Cofield, 2014) 

    Stirrup

    The stirrups are used as foot support for the rider, and they hang from a saddle on straps known as stirrup leathers.   Basic stirrups are made of three parts the eyes for the stirrup leathers to attach the stirrup to the saddle, a platform or base where the rider places their foot, and arms which connect the eye to the base. (Cofield, 2014)

    Examples of Stirrup Forms Source: Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland

    Horseback riding master and author VS Littauer described the Forward Seat as a stirrup-centric approach versus traditional riding’s seat-centric. He argued riding without stirrups taught people to grip with the knee, which he considered a dangerous habit and likely to stiffen the rider. With stirrups, you can ride with a looser knee, letting your weight flow PAST your knee and into the stirrup. That is a more secure approach than riding with the thigh and knee. (Littauer, 1962)

    Captain Vladimir Littauer – Forward Seat Riding,1947

    Stirrups allow the rider’s legs to absorb up/down motion by allowing them to stand in matching balance with the horse, which makes riding longer distances more comfortable. Augustine certainly had to travel a great distance to check on his properties and perform his civic duties, like serving as a justice of the peace and sheriff for the county of Westmoreland. 

    One final utilitarian bit of horse tack found again in the cellar is a mullen mouth bit or snaffle bit. This bit consists of two rings on each side of a half-moon-shaped bar with no joint.  The bit applies even pressure on the horse’s tongue and bars (gums) and allows the horse’s lips to feel the pressure from the bit and side rings.  The bit, bridle, and reins function to create communication between the rider and the horse.

    Mouth Bit

    The Washington children would have used bits to learn to control.  They would have learned how to work with the horse in a cooperative way that would create an effortless and seamless ride.  George used this skill of communication and intuition to become a great rider.  As Thomas Jefferson reminisced in a letter in 1814, “his person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would wish, his deportment easy, erect, and noble; the best horseman of his age, and the most graceful figure that could be seen on horseback.” (National Archives, n.d.)

    Lastly, just south of “The Quarter,” we uncovered around twenty leather ornaments.   They were used to decorate the leather straps, nosebands, harnesses, and reins of horses.  We wrote a post about them earlier explaining their purpose, which was purely aesthetic. Horse tack could be made without these pieces, but where is the fun in that?  These flashy accessories were a great way to grab the attention of the public and hint at how fashionable and elegant you were as you trotted through town.    

    Ferry Farm leather ornaments dating from the 1700s
    This copper-alloy mount dates from the mid-to-late 1700s


    These artifacts illustrate that not only were horses actively used by the family, but it also fostered an environment where young George would have taken his first steps into learning about horsemanship.  This knowledge and skill would help him in his future careers of surveying the Shenandoah Valley, as a lieutenant colonel during the French and Indian War, as a farmer and landowner at Mount Vernon, as a representative in the House of Burgesses, as commander-and-chief of the Continental Army and finally President of the United States. 

    Come see our new pop-up exhibit at Ferry Farm, where all these wonderful artifacts are displayed and put together with the help of our Fleming-Smith scholar, Sarah Moore.

    References

    Cofield, S. R. (2014, May 14). Stirrups. Retrieved from Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland: https://apps.jefpat.maryland.gov/diagnostic/SmallFinds/Stirrups/index-stirrups.html

    Hume, I. N. (2001). A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. New York: Vintage Books.

    Littauer, V. S. (1962). The Development of Modern Riding. Washington D.C.: D.Van Nostrand Company, Inc.

    National Archives. (n.d.). Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 2 January 1814. Retrieved from Founders Online: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-07-02-0052

    University of Zurich. (2024). Fullering. Retrieved from E-Hoof: https://e-hoof.com/glossary/en/fullering/

    Vial de Saint Bel, C. (1793). Lectures on the Elements of Farriery. London: Veterinary College, London.

  • Stop Collaborate and Listen TD is Back with a Brand New Edition

    A quick refresher from part one of the TD marked pipe saga – Clay tobacco pipes with the mark TD are a ubiquitous item at historical archaeology sites dating from the mid-18th through the 20th century. While at one point the mark represented a specific maker, it later became a mark synonymous with clay tobacco pipes themselves. So, it’s not surprising that archaeologists and historians have been looking to identify the origin of the mark for years. These efforts led to the naming of Thomas Dormer as the maker most likely to have begun the rise of the TD mark, though this identification was less than certain (Walker, 1966).

    Now that we are all caught up, let’s pick up the quest once again.

    Adrian Oswald’s (1975) index of pipe makers lists Thomas Dormer as one of the only London-based pipe makers with the initials TD trading with the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) in the years 1748-1770. HBC records also mention that Dormer went into business with his son for a brief time from 1754-1756. Oswald built on this by looking at the insurance policies of pipe makers of the time, which shows that the value of Thomas Dormer’s estate was nearly five times that of other pipe makers (Alexander, 1978). In the 18th century, pipe makers and the pipe making industry were often relegated to the lower class and the poorer parts of town (Walker, 1981). Dormer’s large estate implies he stood out at the time.

    Oswald’s (1975) pipe maker index
    Dormer insurance policy (Woollard, 2001)

    So, we know that Thomas Dormer produced and imported his pipes into North America around the time TD marked pipes started popping up at sites, and that he was doing well for himself. We can call it a day and say Thomas Dormer was the original TD, right? While that does sound pretty enticing, there still needs to be more evidence supporting Dormer’s claim to the TD mark. At the time of the previous research there was very little historical documentation of Dormer and his life available, which left some questions unanswered: Why did Dormer stop exporting pipes in 1770? What is the reason behind the brief mention of this son in the mid 1750’s? And why did these pipes continue to be produced beyond 1770 with the TD mark, if not by Dormer himself? These questions made it difficult to confirm that Thomas Dormer was the TD.

    Previous timeline of Dormer pipe production

    This opens the door for my research as I attempt to fill in the blanks surrounding Dormer and his life. Since a trip to London to begin my research was off the table, much of my investigation was done through online archival research. Yay for digitization efforts and increased access to information!

    One of the first items identified was Thomas Dormer’s will dated January 1771 (National Archives). It gives his occupation as a pipe maker and his location at Brewhouse Yard, confirming this to be the correct Thomas Dormer. Finding this document provided information that would further the investigation including a probable death date and the names of family members.

    Thomas Dormer’s will 1771 (National Archives)

    Speaking of family members, Thomas Dormer chose to leave the entirety of his vast estate to his “loving mother Judith.” On the other hand, he left his wife Margaret one single shilling. Hold up, just one shilling? This led me down a mini rabbit hole where I found that Thomas and Margaret had been married for 11 years. Indeed, long enough for her to have a fair share of the estate. Additionally, it wasn’t uncommon for wives to take over their husband’s pipe making business after their death, yet Dormer left things to his mother instead. Ouch!

    Dormer’s division of his estate (National Archives)

    Anyway, back to the investigation. Using 1771 as a probable death date I was able to find a Burial Notice dated February 1771 stating Thomas Dormer died at the age of 39 due to consumption, or tuberculosis as we know it today (London Metropolitan Archives [LMA]). An age at death gave me the ability to estimate his birthday to sometime around 1731 or 1732 and identified a Christening Record for Dormer dated 1731(LMA). It lists his mother as Judith Dormer which fits with previous records, and it also lists his father who is, wait for it, Thomas Dormer, a pipe maker. This uncovers the fact that there were two Thomas Dormers producing pipes in 18th century London, father and son.

    Dormer’s Burial Notice 1771 (London Metropolitan Archives)
    Dormer’s Christening Record 1731 (London Metropolitan Archives)

    After finding that fun fact I switched gears to see if I could find information about Thomas Dormer Sr. Given the birthdate of Thomas Jr., I figured Thomas Sr. was probably born some time in the early 1700s. Using that date, I identified his Burial Notice dated December 1756. It listed Thomas Dormer Sr. dying at the age of 56 due to asthma (LMA). Additionally, an apprenticeship indenture for Thomas Jr. was located (LMA). Dated 1746, it lists his seven-year apprenticeship under John Hawkes. Now, an apprenticeship in itself isn’t too exciting, but this was an apprenticeship for a joiner, not a pipe maker. Considering Jr. did go on to be a pipe maker, and a popular one at that, makes his previous foray into joinery an unexpected plot twist.

    Dormer Sr.’s Burial Notice 1756 (London Metropolitan Archives)
    Dormer Jr.’s Indenture Record 1746 (London Metropolitan Archives)

    Let’s put all of this information together. Cue the timeline! The newly discovered documentary evidence now allows me to create an updated chronology of the Dormer pipe production. Thomas Dormer Sr. began producing pipes in the London area some time prior to 1731. By 1748 Dormer Sr. was doing well enough in the business to begin exporting pipes into North America. Indenture records suggest that Dormer Jr. was not always intending to take over the business, but perhaps his father’s health prompted this, or the incoming wealth from overseas changed his mind. Nonetheless, sometime in the year 1754, or the years leading up to it, Thomas Dormer Jr. came into the family business. This partnership was short lived due to Thomas Dormer Sr.’s death in 1756, explaining the brief mention of their partnership in the HBC records. Following Dormer Sr.’s death, his son Thomas Dormer Jr., continued to produce and export pipes to North America until his death in 1771.  

    Updated Dormer pipe production timeline with new information

    This timeline helps put all the previous information into context and more fully supports Thomas Dormer Sr. and then Jr. as the originators of the TD mark.

    But wait there’s more! I also located Judith Dormer’s (Thomas Jr.’s mom) will dated 1782 (LMA). In her will she mentions her properties and its association with Tidy & Evans pipe makers (LMA). During my look into the HBC records I found that Tidy & Evans take over the London pipe export a few years after Dormer Jr.’s death. Now remember, Jr gave her all his estate which included his warehouse and workshop (LMA). Perhaps Tidy & Evans occupied his workshop and continued making TD marked pipes using Dormer’s molds after his death. Using the molds of other pipe makers was not unheard of at the time (Walker, 1981). But why would they want to make pipes with a mark other than their own?

    Mention of Tidy & Evans in HBC records and Judith’s will

    Well, a search on the Library of Congress’s Chronicling America located a 1771 Massachusetts Spy advertisement that specifically lists London TD pipes (LOC). Not only does this solidify that TD pipes were based out of London, it also supports that the popularization of these pipes occurred during the Dormers’ lifetimes. For these pipes to be advertised by name it can be assumed that their popularity had already been established by this point. Whether this popularity had to do with the quality or the quantity of Dormer’s pipes being imported into North America remains unknown. The resulting name recognition may have caused a continued demand for these pipes, leading Tidy & Evans and others to continue producing them.

    1771 Massachusetts Spy article (LOC)

    These new findings present a solid case for Thomas Dormer being the originator of the TD mark. We can now see that TD pipes were based out of London and popularized during the period when Dormer produced and exported pipes. After 1771 the TD mark stopped representing pipes made by Dormer, and the mark was then used by other makers, perhaps Tidy & Evans, representing tobacco clay pipes themselves rather than a specific maker.

    Research such as this illustrates the importance of revisiting past theories. Whether it be trying to answer questions about a mark representing nearly 300 years of tobacco smoking culture, or looking to find interesting insight into the life of the pipe maker that created it, there is more information out there, we just need to keep looking.

    So, what do you think? Did I solve the mystery of the man behind the mark?

    Danielle Arens

    GWF Archaeologist

    References

    Alexander, L. T. (1978) ‘Clay Tobacco Smoking Pipes from the Caleb Pusey House, The Archaeological Society of Delaware, 9, 35pp.

    London Metropolitan Archives; London, England; London Church of England Parish Registers; Reference Number: P69/Gis/A/002/Ms06419/016

    London Metropolitan Archives; London, England; London Church of England Parish Registers; Reference Number: P93/JN2/025

    London Metropolitan Archives; London, England; London Church of England Parish Registers; Reference Number: P93/JN2/026

    London Metropolitan Archives; London, England; London Church of England Parish Registers; Reference Number: P93/JN2/026

    London Metropolitan Archive; Reference Number: COL/CHD/FR/02/0778-0-785

    Manitoba Archives. Merchandise exported to HBC posts [microfilm]. H1-16-2 ( A.25/2 )

    National Archives, Kew, Will of Thomas Dormer, Pipe Maker of Saint John Wapping , Middlesex, PROB 11/963/352

    Oswald, A. (1975) Clay Pipes for the Archaeologist, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 14, Oxford, 207pp

    Walker, I. (1966, June). TD Pipes – A Preliminary Study. Quarterly Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia, pp. 86-102.

    Walker, S. (1981). The Clay Pipe Industry of the Parish of St Olave’s Southwark, in P Davey, The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe 6, Pipes and Kilns in the London Region, B97, 173–82

    Woollard, P, (2001) Some Clay Tobacco Pipemakers with Fire Insurance Policies in the Sun Assurance Company 1710-1844, The Society for Clay Pipe Research, 62

  • You Down with Old TD? Yeah, You Know Me!  

     TD Marked Tobacco Pipes That Is! 

    Clay tobacco pipes are a hallmark of historical archaeology. Grandma smoked, the enslaved smoked, the elite smoked, children smoked, just about everyone smoked. Smoking was one of America’s favorite pastimes, and there are plenty of pipes left in the archaeological record to prove it. Tobacco pipes were not only a vessel for a leisurely activity, they could also be a way to display one’s identity or beliefs.  

    Figure 1: A Smoking Club (NYPL)

    Because of this, the motifs and marks on tobacco pipes can tell us a lot about the people who used them.  

    Tobacco pipes can also be valuable tools for dating a site by using pipe bore diameters, typologies, and maker’s marks. This last one helps set the stage for our question of the hour.  

    Some makers would mark their pipes to indicate a product as theirs.  These marks can be found on different parts of a pipe, such as the bowl, heel, or stem. Finding a pipe with a maker’s mark can be very exciting as it allows a pipe to be attributed to a specific pipe maker and, thus, a time period. But that is not always the case. One of the more common maker’s marks in many archaeological sites is the mark “TD.” Remember the two we found during last summer’s dig?  

    Figure 2: Diagram of a tobacco pipe National Pipe Archive
    Figure 3: TD pipe bowls in Ferry Farm collection
    Figure 4: TD pipe bowl from 2023 dig

     So, you’re probably thinking, what’s the question again? Just go look up a pipe maker with the initials TD, and you will have your maker. Well, unfortunately, it’s not always that easy. 

    There are multiple pipe makers with those initials, and the pipes with variations of the TD mark have been found at sites with occupation dates suggesting the mark was being produced from the mid-18th century all the way into the 20th century. At some point, the mark stopped representing a single maker and instead became a symbol used on pipes throughout the years, reflecting clay tobacco pipes themselves. Think of it as the Kleenex or Q-tip of its time. TD became synonymous with clay tobacco pipes. This can be seen in written records like a catalog from 1892 that touts their rendition of “the Celebrated “T.D.” pipe” (Zorn). An early 20th-century song referencing “the Old TD” also supports the lasting influence of the mark (Cooper, 1907, as cited by Walker, 1966).  

    Figure 5: George Zorn & Co.’s “T.D.” pipe advertisement 1892
    Figure 6: Early 20th-century smoking song, no known date or author, Cooper 1907 as cited by Walker 1966

    Since there is no solid end date to help frame who the possible maker could be, archaeologists and historians have focused on looking at beginning dates to help find the original maker of the TD pipes, settling on a date in the middle of the 18th century. Archaeologists Adrian Oswald and Iain Walker are often cited as laying the foundations of the current TD lore. The combination of their findings identifies 18th-century London-based pipemaker Thomas Dormer as the most likely originator of the TD mark (Walker, 1966). With that said, Walker (1966) states that more information will have to be found to definitively give Dormer credit for originating the mark. 

    So, that brings us to the start of my research and a revisiting of the foundation of this theory, which was laid out as early as the 1930s.  Who is Thomas Dormer, and is he the original TD? Why were TD pipes so popular that they were copied and made for centuries? And can we find new information to crack the case of the elusive TD mark? 

    The first step of the investigation is reviewing the literature and identifying current thoughts on TD pipes and their maker. One of the earliest deep dives into TD pipe origins can be found in the article “A Theory Regarding TD pipes” in the November 1937 printing of Antiques magazine. In this article, Alfred Hopkins expresses the mystery surrounding the mark and suggests its possible meaning. At the time, Hopkins (1937) and his contemporaries were unable to find potential pipe makers with the initials TD that would indicate the mark was referring to a maker. Instead, he states that it was a trademark of sorts to identify a quality product (Hopkins, 1937). He also mentions that TD may represent the beginning of the Christian hymn Te Deum Laudamus (Hopkins, 1937). Now remember, folks, this was written in the 1930s, and at the time, they didn’t have easy access to information. While more information has since been shared, we now know that there were indeed pipe makers with these initials and look more toward a maker rather than a hymn; Hopkins’ article plays an integral part in our quest by illustrating that there was an interest in the TD mark as early as the 1930s.  

    Figure 7: 1937 Alfred Hopkins article 

    Moving away from the 1930s and into the 1960s, Adrian Oswald compiled an index of pipe makers, which Iain Walker (1966) refined to find three possible English pipe makers that could be the originator of the mark: Thomas Dennis, Thomas Darkes, and Thomas Dormer. Walker (1966) continued this search and identified London-based pipemaker Thomas Dormer as the most likely of the three. Nailing down their sources became the next part of the puzzle in an attempt to confirm this information through primary source research and examination of any sources referred to in support of the theory.  

    This is where the quest to find new information about Thomas Dormer begins. Through this investigation, I was able to identify the “OG TD,” some juicy 18th-century family drama, and the possible first plagiarizers of the TD mark. There are twists, turns, and, unfortunately, too much to tell you in just one blog, so be sure to check out part two, where we get to the bottom of this mystery that began nearly 100 years ago. 

    Danielle Arens

    GWF Archaeologist

    ​​References 

    ​​(2022). Retrieved from George-M-Woodward-mavcor.yale.edu.jpg 

    ​George Zorn & Co. (1892). Pipes & Smokers Articles. Philadelphia. 

    ​Hopkins, A. (1937, November). A Theory Regarding TD Pipes. Antiques, pp. 234-235. 

    ​National Pipe Archive. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.pipearchive.co.uk/images/how%20to/pipe_figure_1.jpg 

    ​Walker, I. (1966, June). TD Pipes – A Preliminary Study. Quarterly Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia, pp. 86-102. 

    ​​​ 

  • Seeing The Big Picture:  How Excavated Ceramics Informed The George Washington Foundation’s Acquisition of Complete Pieces for Display

    The archaeology and curatorial departments for The George Washington Foundation have long worked together to furnish the reproduced Washington house with historically accurate items that resemble as closely as possible the ones that George and his family would have lived with daily. These pieces are not originals, which means visitors touring the house can handle them.

    Go ahead and touch everything.

    In our latest collaboration we’ve been examining sherds of ceramic vessels owned by the Washington’s to obtain actual eighteenth-century dishes. We want to display these dishes in our gallery to give visitors an idea of what the whole vessels looked like. Four such ceramics have recently been acquired at auctions by the Foundation and you can see them first here along with the excavated remnants they resemble.

    Creamware tankard with strawberry terminals and twisted reeded handles, ca. 1750-1800
    Creamware tankard with strawberry terminals and twisted reeded handles, ca. 1750-1800
    Creamware jug with strawberry terminals and twisted reed handles; face below the spout of the jug. ca. 1750-1800
    Creamware sauceboat with curved handle which terminate with strawberry flowers.
    Moulded detail finials

    Three of our acquisitions are a type of English ceramic called ‘creamware,’ which was invented in the early 1760’s and was very popular with George’s mother, Mary. Both this lovely pitcher and mug exhibit decorative elements represented by our excavated ceramics. Most prominent are the elegantly curved handles that terminate in delicate strawberry flowers. At least two vessels with these types of handles have been recovered at Ferry Farm. The first is a highly decorative creamware sauce boat and the second a petite teacup, both of which were considered quite fashionable for the time. The jug and teacup also share a common form of decoration called a ‘beaded rim.’

    Creamware jug with strawberry terminals and twisted reed handles; face below the spout of the jug, ca. 1750-1800
    Creamware jug with strawberry terminals and twisted reed handles; face below the spout of the jug. ca. 1750-1800
    Creamware sherd with “beaded rim”
    Creamware teacup sherd with “beaded rim”

    Another teacup owned by Mary was this beautiful piece hand-painted with a detailed swag motif. But from the sherds it’s difficult to really appreciate how graceful this decoration is. Luckily, our curators hunted down a similar cup and saucer with the same decoration, which is unusual. The saucer also features a beaded rim that has been filled in with gold gilding, although we believe the gold to be a later addition to the piece. The cup and saucer also have handwritten tags affixed to the bases which indicate they had the distinction of having been in the collection of a well-known (at least to ceramics geeks like yours truly) collector of creamware. This man by the name of Donald Towner had written extensively on the topic of English ceramics and over his career had amassed a large study collection, of which this was one. His book on the Leeds Pottery in England features a catalogue from the pottery that includes many of the decorative elements and shapes discussed above (Towner, 1965).

    English Creamware Cup and Saucer, ca. 1775-1780
    English Creamware Saucer, ca. 1775-1780. Formerly in Donald Tower Collection, 1968, A Belton, 1988 and Diana Edwards Murnaghan
    Teacup from Donald Towner Collection, 1968.
    Teacup sherd with swag motif

    But my favorite is this delightfully potbellied creamer with three legs featuring lion’s heads and paws for feet. The ceramic type in question is called Whieldon and started to come on the market in England around 1749. Of note is the raised molded leaf decoration which resembles one sherd from our collection. While we may never know the exact type of vessel our leaf came from, the complete creamer gives one a better idea of how the decoration was placed and looked. Mary’s choice of ceramics played a large part in emphasizing her and her children’s place among the Virginia Gentry and we’re very pleased to have some whole examples now to help illustrate to visitors just how lovely some of these dishes were!

    Whieldon ware sherd, ca. 1740-1770
    Staffordshire Mottled Creamware Milk Jug, c. 1755-1765
    Staffordshire Mottled Creamware Milk Jug, c. 1755-1765

    Mara Kaktins, Archaeologist & Lab Manager

    Bibliography

    Towner, Donald.  The Leeds Pottery, 1965.  Taplinger Publishing Co., Inc., New York. 

  • What’s on your Thanksgiving table?

    Thanksgiving is next week, and families and friends across the United States will gather again to celebrate the past year’s blessings. 

    Days for giving thanks have been proclaimed throughout history for many reasons – most often to celebrate a bountiful summer or fall harvest, the end of a war, or even the beginning of a new nation. George Washington proclaimed a one-time day of Thanksgiving on Thursday, November 26, 1789, “to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, … for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.”.

    The 1769 Thanksgiving Day Proclamation by George Washington

    Individual states have proclaimed specific Thanksgiving days throughout the nation’s early years. Still, it wasn’t until 1863 when President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation designating the last Thursday of November “as a day of Thanksgiving” to be observed by all “fellow citizens in every part of the United States.” The nation was still suffering through the Civil War. Lincoln included a remembrance of “all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity, and Union.”

    1863 Thanksgiving Day Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln

    As the traditional vision of Thanksgiving is based upon the 1621 New England harvest feast shared by the Pilgrims of Plymouth, Massachusetts, and their new friends, the Wampanoag tribe, the November holiday is associated with an abundance and display of fall harvest foods. A table laden with a wide spread of traditional foodstuffs is the norm, but what’s underneath all that food is what I’m interested in!

    Jennie Brownscombe’s 1925 very idealized version of the first Thanksgiving

    Our best china! Sometimes, it’s Grandma’s china, brought out of the basement, dusted, and cleaned off for the occasion. Other times, it’s our wedding china, if you are of that generation that still wants or received wedding china. Other times, it’s unique dishes made and decorated for the occasion (think turkey-shaped plates!). Dinner plates, salad and butter plates, serving platters and bowls, condiment vessels, punch bowls, sauceboats for the gravy, dessert plates, tea, and coffee services, crustal wine glasses – the variety can be tremendous, and the different table wares are utilized to display and serve specific foods and finished dishes.

    Turkey Plate if that’s your thing.
    Turkey shaped gravy boat and cranberry sauce dish…an absolute necessity on a Thanksgiving table

    Mary Washington, as a member of the gentry class in Colonial Virginia, would have been well-versed in setting a stylish dinner table for family and guests. Formal dining habits during the 18th century slowly evolved to dinners consisting of multiple courses of food prepared and served in a more elaborate and complicated fashion. Cookbooks of the age detailed the possible menus for different seasons and even produced drawings of how each course’s dishes were laid out on the table. Elizabeth Rafferty’s 1769 The Experienced English Housekeeper includes a copperplate drawing illustrating one such arrangement for the second course of a dinner. Hours could be spent looking up how some of her dishes were prepared, such as “Pistacha Cream,” “Potted Lampreys,” or “Transparent Pudding Covered With a Silver Web.”

    Second course dinner layout from The Experienced English Housekeeper, 1769

    Fragments of highly specialized ceramics excavated at Ferry Farm, the plantation Mary called home for much of her life, speak to her efforts to set a stylish table for guests. Numerous highly decorated (molded or painted) creamware vessels, including sauceboats, plates, platters, oval and round serving bowls, condiment bowls, casters, serving spoons, and tea wares, are in our collection and speak to the refinement of her table. Porcelain was the most desirous of tablewares, but its sheer expense was prohibitive for Mary except for limited items, such as teawares. Creamware, however, was within her budget and was extremely fashionable during the third quarter of the eighteenth century in English society.

    Mary also had a fancy white salt-glazed stoneware fruit dish in her collection. This dish, and possibly an accompanying pierced bowl, would serve local and non-local produce such as grapes, figs, oranges, pineapples, apples, peaches, and pears. Fresh fruit, especially during off-season times, was expensive as it had to be shipped in from warmer climates. However, its presence on the table indicated a measure of wealth and, consequently, status within the gentry lifestyle. Mary needed to maintain her gentry status for herself, but more importantly, for her children and their future success in the stratified society in which they lived.

    Dish, 1760-1775 in Kenmore Collection
    Fragments of a white salt-glazed fruit dish excavated at Ferry Farm

    So, what’s on your table this Thanksgiving?

    Judy Jobrack

    Archaeology Field Director

  • Of Mice and Men: A brief exploration of rodents’ history in America

    A pest is a broad term for any organism that spreads disease, causes destruction, or is generally a nuisance. In the 21st century, we still constantly battle pests from squirrels who chew through your internet cables or spiders who set up house in the high corner of the ceiling, watching and judging you to evil mosquitoes that ruin outdoor activities and leave you with itchy red welts that no amount of calamine lotion will help. It is a fight as old as time. 

    I wanted to investigate one pest in particular: rodents. Why were mice and rats present in colonial homes? Why this was an issue? What were some of the methods the Washington’s would have used to combat these furry creatures? And how we know without a doubt that Kenmore and Mount Vernon had rodent tenants.

    The Suspects

    House Mouse
    Black Rat aka Roof Rats
    Brown Rat aka Sewer Rat

    The house mouse, or Mus Musculus, originating on the Asian and Indian subcontinent, has become the most successful invasive species in recent history. [1] They arrived in this country with the trading ships and settlers that came to the New World in the 16th century. [2][3]

    Similarly, the black rat, aka roof rat, boarded ships for their westward journey around the same time as the seafaring mouse. [4]  Their presence is noted by the residents of Jamestown in November of 1608, stating, “When the shippes departed al the provision of the store but that the President had gotten was so rotten with the last somers rain, and eaten with rats and wormes” [5] The notorious brown rat or sewer rat, who seems to currently enjoy the cities of Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, arrived a little later than their brethren setting foot in the new country around the 1750s.[6]

    America, the land of plenty…of garbage

    There is no nice way to say it, but living in colonial America was usually gross. Housing wasn’t always the greatest, sometimes being very rudimentary. Food storage was typically simple and easily accessible. But one of the biggest problems (or benefits if you are a rodent) was the lack of systematic waste disposal. [7] [8] Garbage (including human waste) was a personal problem often solved by opening the window and chucking out.

    We have abundant archeological information from Ferry Farm and Kenmore that supports these habits. A large part of Ferry Farm has been excavated over the decades, leaving clear evidence that the Washington family and their enslaved workers disposed of waste right in the backyard…off the porch.    Large amounts of artifacts were discovered and mapped, showing the proximity to the house, meaning the garbage was close, and rodents love trash.

    Map showing the concentration of animal bones excavated from the midden at the rear of the Washington house at Ferry Farm.

    At Kenmore, the garbage situation seemed to be a little more regulated because the grounds and buildings were planned. The main house was made of brick, surrounded by two wood-built structures containing the kitchen and laundry. During excavations of the kitchen yard (between the house and kitchen), there were minimal artifacts, but a dump site was found west of the kitchen. The location could be accessed by the window or by walking around the side of the building and contained a pig jaw, animal bones, bone-handled knife, and other objects. The kitchen is about 30 feet from the house, with the slave passage doors opening right onto the kitchen yard…plenty close enough for an enterprising rat or mouse. 

    Bad House-guests

    So, why are rodents bad to have in your house? Disease, contamination, destruction, smells, and lots of poop. [9]  Rats can squeeze through an opening the size of a quarter. Mice only need the size of a dime…so they will be everywhere in your house and will bring friends. [10] Rats and mice are spreaders of disease from rat-bite fever that spreads through bacteria in the rodent’s saliva, urine, or droppings to the bubonic plague transmitted by the lice hitching a ride on their fluffy friend.[11][12]  While today, rodents are relatively low on the list of dangerous disease spreaders in an era of limited medical knowledge and treatments, it could be a matter of life or death.

    Contamination and destruction are these creatures’ modus operandi. They get into everything, period. They will eat almost any human food, chewing through any storage system, leaving behind chaos; they have even been known to eat soap and glue. [13]  While venturing through the house, they are constantly urinating and pooping, which is smelly, can create mold growth, and should never be consumed. [14] In their quest for food, they often destroy household items, eating books, chewing clothes, gnawing on mattresses, and even nesting in furniture. All of which is not only annoying but expensive to fix or replace. [15][16]

    But one of the most offensive things a mouse or rat can do is die in your walls. Take it from Colonel Landon Carter, who had to deal with a rat dying behind his wainscoting, informing everyone, “Wainscoted rooms have their conveniences [inconveniences?] as a dead rat has been stinking behind mine in the hall at least six days and is now intolerable in spite of burning tar…this dead rat stunk prodigiously.” [17] 

    Colonel Landon Carter, not too fond of rats. Source: Wikipedia

    Fighting Back

    Surprisingly, colonists used many of the same techniques we do today to eliminate these pests. Pesticides or chemical warfare was widespread, with many recommendations and recipes dating back to the 15th century. I found recipes containing helliberry leaves, bitter almonds, “seade of wild cowcumbers,” colluentida, hemlock seed, aconite or wolfsbane, and arsenic.[18]   I don’t know many of those ingredients, but apparently, they kill rodents nicely. 

    Hemlock seed, the notorious plant which was used to execute Socrates for impiety and corruption of the youth.
    Wolfsbane an
    extremely poisonous plant that should be handled with care.

    Another method was traps, which are common today. They were pretty popular, and there were many advertisements in the Virginia Gazette from sellers touting that their mouse traps just arrived from England. [19] There are also many instructions for building easy mouse traps like the “deadfall” or “noose” traps, which are as horrible as you imagine. [20][21]

    Deadfall mouse trap, c. 1800-1850 Source: V&A Collection

    Lastly, one method that is making a comeback is animals, both cats and dogs.[22][23] Cats have been used for ages as rodent killers and are good at their job. [24]  A 14th-century manual suggests that if you have problems with vermin, “have as a good supply of cats.”[25]  The famous diarist Samuel Pepys wrote in December 1660, “my boy taking a catt home with him from my Lord’s, which Sarah hath given him for my wife, we being much troubled with mice.”[26]  There are even modern programs like Barn Buddies that save feral and skittish cats and adopt them out as “rodent control technicians.”[27]

    And dogs, mainly terriers, have been used to clear mice and rat infestations for centuries, just like cats. Ever the dog lover, George Washington had terriers at Mount Vernon, which probably helped immensely around the plantation.[28]  Today, cities like Chicago and New York use these canines in modern rat hunts.[29] It seems the skills of the terrier will always be in demand. 

    Little Historians

    Lastly, how do we, without a doubt, know that there were rodents at Kenmore and Mount Vernon? Rat nests. Rat nests are usually found in walls or under floorboards, and they not only prove these guys resided in the houses as long as the families themselves, but also provide a fascinating historical glimpse into the material lives of the occupants.

    Mount Vernon documented the finding of a rat nest in 1949 behind the wall in Washington’s bedchamber. When dissected, it included buttons, paper, rope, yarn, a whole woman’s shoe, and fabric matching Washington’s bed curtains.[30]  

    Objects from rat nest found in the wall of Washington’s bedchamber, 1949. Source: Mount Vernon Instagram

    Similarly, in 1989, a rat nest was found in Kenmore while investigating the walls and floorboards. We recently picked apart the bundle to find fabrics, fibers, thread, yarn, newspapers, bones, nutshells, and wood splinters. The remnants in the nest were dated no later than the early 20th century due to dates on newspaper fragments and the absence of plastics.

    In conclusion, rats and mice have been a constant annoyance since they first set foot in this country; unfortunately, that is still somewhat true. These enterprising rodents have adopted America as their own and we as fellow citizens must learn to live together despite our often distaste for each other.

    Fun Fact – We don’t want to malign rats more than they have been throughout history so we would like to add that rats make good pets.  They are quick learners, highly trainable, very clever, and have excellent memories.  They are now being trained to detect land mines, diseases like tuberculosis, and even rescue earthquake survivors.

    Heather Baldus

    Collections Manager

    [1] Agwamba, K. D., & Nachman, M. W. (2023). The demographic history of house mice (Mus musculus domesticus) in eastern North America. G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics, 13(2). https://doi.org/February 2023

    [2] Agwamba, K.D., & Nachman, M.W. (2023)

    [3] Agwamba, K.D., & Nachman, M.W. (2023)

    [4] Newman, M. H. (2001). The vermin -killers: Pest control in the early Chesapeake [Doctoral Dissertation, Willam & Mary University]. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd/1539623387/, pg 111.

    [5] Newman, M.H. (2001), pg. 47.

    [6] Tapia, A. (2021, October 23). America’s 10 Most Rat-Infested Cities. Newsweek. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://www.newsweek.com/americas-10-most-rat-infested-cities-1638136

    [7] Newman, M.H. (2001), pg. 17.

    [8] Newman, M.H. (2001), pg. 46.

    [9] (2014, January 6). Of Mice and Men: Rodent Infestations Plague Nearly A Third of Americans. National Pest Management Association. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://www.pestworld.org/news-hub/press-releases/of-mice-and-men-rodent-infestations-plague-nearly-a-third-of-americans/

    [10] (2014, January 6). Of Mice and Men.

    [11] (2019, January 18). Transmission. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://www.cdc.gov/rat-bite-fever/transmission/index.html

    [12] (2019, July 31). Ecology & Transmission. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://www.cdc.gov/plague/transmission/index.html

    [13] Introduced Species Summary Project

    [14] (2022, December 27). How a Mouse Infestation Can Cause You Thousands in Damage. Spidexx. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://www.spidexx.com/blog/2022/december/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-mouse-infestatio/

    [15] Newman, M.H. (2001), pg. 17.

    [16] (2022, December 27). How a Mouse Infestation Can Cause You Thousands in Damage

    [17] Newman, M.H. (2001), pg. 84.

    [18] W, W. (1680). The Vermin-Killer (pp. 4-9). London: Samuell Lee.

    [19] Unknown, U. (1766, July 25). Just Imported and to be Sold by the subscribers at their store in Norfolk. Virginia Gazette. https://research.colonialwilliamsburg.org/CWDLImages/VA_GAZET/Images/PD/1766/0084hi.jpg

    [20] Newman, M.H. (2001), pg. 119.

    [21] Feild, Rachael. 1984. Irons in the Fire: A History of Cooking Equipment. Ramsbury,

    Marlborough, Wiltshire: The Cromwood Press

    [22] Pasley, J. (2023, March 18). How the rat population in New York City grew by 800% and infested the city in less than 65 years. Yahoo News. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://news.yahoo.com/rat-population-york-city-grew-143000754.html

    [23] Cass, J. (2017, November 10). Chicago needs good dogs to handle the rat epidemic The Chicago Way. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/john-kass/ct-met-rats-terriers-kass-1112-story.html

    [24] Newman, M.H. (2001), pg. 115.

    [25] Bayard, T. (1991). A Medieval Home Companion Housekeeping in the Fourteenth Century (1st ed., pp. 97-98). Harper Collins Publishers.

    [26] Pepys, S. (1983). The diary of Samuel Pepys : A new and complete transcription (p. 325). London: Bell.

    [27] (n.d.). Adopt a Barn Cat. Barn Cat Buddies. https://www.barncatbuddies.org/

    [28] (n.d.). Dogs. George Washington’s Mount Vernon. http/www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/dogs/

    [29] Cass, J. (2017, November 10). Chicago needs good dogs to handle the rat epidemic The Chicago Way. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/john-kass/ct-met-rats-terriers-kass-1112-story.html

    [30] Mount Vernon [mount_vernon]. “In 1949, preservation staff removed a rat’s nest from behind a wall in the Washingtons’ bedchamber..”* Instagram, May 19, https://www.instagram.com/p/CsbIc9sOO_2/.

  • No Buttons for the Ladies

    Whilst I costume actors, living historians, and myself from time to time in 18th century clothing, I find myself puzzled about the stark difference between the closures and attachments of ladies’ and men’s garb.  I have to lace myself into my stays, tie on layers of padding and petticoats around my waist, and finally pin my gown closed.  Men have the enjoyment of a few buttons on their breeches and waistcoat, but that is it.  It frequently makes me grumpy how long it takes me to dress in comparison to my male counterpart.  I did not understand this phenomenon, until recently. 

    To put 18th century clothing closures into perspective, you had hooks and eyes, buttons, and ties/laces.  Thomas Hancock created elastic for gloves, suspenders, and stockings in the 1820s, but it struggled to withstand heat and last through time.  The elastic we know and love in our garments today did not come around until the early 1900s.[1]  The modern zipper was patented in 1917 and was used mainly on boots and tobacco pouches.  It took another 20 years before the technology even made it to mass produced clothing.[2]  By comparison, the button first becomes functional over decorative around 1,000 BCE in Asia.  Buttons would eventually travel the Mediterranean during the crusades into European territories around the late 11th century CE.[3]  So George Washington did not have a zipper on his pants or elastic on his socks, but he definitely had buttons on his coat.   

    A eye from a hook and eye set. Source: Ferry Farm Archaeological Collections

    Hooks and eyes were sometimes used for gown closures for women in the 18th century.  They were not used as much as pins were because of the rigidity in size it created for the garment. 

    We have buttons from men’s garments in the archaeological collections here at Ferry Farm.  We also see buttons all around male portraiture in our curatorial collection.  The ladies, however, are stuck with laces, ribbons, and pins.  And boy, do we have the pins to prove it in the archaeology collections. 

    Two metal buttons most likely from men’s garments.  Source: Ferry Farm Archaeological Collections
    Bone buttons Source: Ferry Farm Archaeological Collections
    Pins were used for pinning jackets closed and keeping caps pinned to your hair.  They were a necessary part of dressing. Source: Ferry Farm Archaeological Collections

    A small sample of the large collection of brass dress pins found at Ferry Farm.  Pins were not used for sewing, as basting before sewing was the regular practice.  Pins were used for pinning jackets closed and keeping caps pinned to your hair.  They were a necessary part of dressing.

    The answer to why this phenomenon is how it is hit me one day after rewatching a lecture given by a former staff member entitled “Betty Washington Lewis and Women’s Health.”  Dr. Kelly Brennen Arehart spoke about maternity wardrobes and how women wore their everyday clothing throughout pregnancy.  For my contemporary mind, this was shocking, but the more I thought about it the more it made sense. 

    Women go through a lot of fluctuations in body shape, weight, and proportions in their lifetime.  Between hitting puberty and development of curves, to many pregnancies, to the changes of menopause, women’s bodies go through so much.  Of course in between all of the big changes, there are also changes to the female body based on time in her menstrual cycle, metabolism fluctuations, or periods of eating more or less or different types of food that all change the body’s shape and size.  Unlike today, women of the past could not just go to the shop and buy a pair of pants in the size up.  Clothing was incredibly expensive and time consuming to make before sewing machines and mass production come into play.  In the 18th century, even the highest classes of women did not have the money or the time to go buy or have new clothing made when they gained a few pounds or got pregnant.  It was a matter of adjusting the clothing they already had.  And that is exactly what ties, pins, and laces allowed women to do. 

    The lacing, pinning, and tying made clothing far more adjustable compared to the rigidity of buttons.  Women tied their petticoats looser and simply covered the wider gap in the side with their jacket or gown.  Stays were either loosened significantly by the laces or they were left unlaced at the bottom entirely, especially in cases of late term pregnancies.  On top of the stays, jackets could be pinned further out to allow for more room in the bust and waist, or a stomacher could be added in the center opening of the jacket to expand the top even further.

    Whether these closures were intentionally created to be adjustable or if it was just a byproduct of lacking clothing technology, I am not entirely sure.  But the idea that buttons were only used on men’s not so fluctuating bodies (for the most part) says something.  A button is sewn down and cannot be easily moved or adjusted on a regular basis.  Once a button is sewn into place, there is no room for variation in body shape, unless one wanted to move the buttons every time he ate a large meal the previous day. 

    Even though Betty Washington Lewis had Charlotte, who we believe to be an enslaved woman acting as the seamstress of the Lewis household, Betty was pregnant on and off for twenty years.  If Charlotte or another enslaved seamstress had to make a maternity wardrobe for Betty every time she was with child, the seamstress would have no time to do any other tasks whatsoever.  It was not economical with precious time or expensive cloth for women to need new clothes every few weeks. 

    So to tie all this together, I am still not happy that it is so inconvenient for me to dress myself in 18th century clothing, but I understand why getting dressed was this way.  The adjustability of women’s clothing was so intentionally created to conform to their bodies in any season it was in.  It also opens my eyes to why pins were so important.  Without them, a woman could not dress. 

    Letter from Abigail to John Adams, June 14, 1775.  Source: Massachusetts Historical Society

    …I have a request to make you. Something like the Barrel of Sand suppose you will think it, but really of much more importance to me. It is that you would send out Mr. Bass and purchase me a bundle of pins and put in your trunk for me. The cry for pins is so great that what we used to Buy for 7.6 are now 20 Shillings and not to be had for that. A bundle contains 6 thousand for which I used to give a Dollor, but if you can procure them for 50 [shillings] or 3 pound, pray let me have them. Mr. Welch who carries this to head Quarters waits which prevents my adding more than that I am with the tenderest Regard

    your

    Portia

    Allison Ellis

    Manager of Public Programs

    [1] “Questions About Elastic,” Maggie May Clothing, Accessed July 10, 2023, https://maggiemayfashions.com/questions-about-elastic-2/.

    [2] Ninette Dean, “The Up and Down History of the Zipper,” The Smithsonian Libraries and Archives, Accessed July 10, 2023, https://blog.library.si.edu/blog/2010/05/03/the-up-an-down-history-of-the-zipper/.

    [3] Caroline Stone, “The Westward Journeys of Buttons,” AramcoWorld, Accessed July 10, 2023, https://www.aramcoworld.com/Articles/November-2020/The-Westward-Journeys-of-Buttons.

  • Bane of the Washingtons Part II: The Deaths of Lawrence, Fielding, and Samuel

    Welcome back to our 3-Part Blog charting tuberculosis in the extended Washington Family. If you are new to this series, Part I examined how the disease works, charted its history, and explained standard courses of treatments in the 1700s. You can find the blog here, and we encourage a review of the “Treatment” section. In Part II, we will begin to look at the family members who suffered from the disease and how this impacted their lives and those around them.

    Lawrence Washington (1718-1752, aged 33/34):

    Lawrence Washington Source: Mount Vernon

    Perhaps the best-known case of tuberculosis in the Washington family pertains to Lawrence Washington. George’s eldest half-brother, credited as serving as a role model, died of the disease in 1752, which subsequently laid the foundations for George to inherit Mount Vernon and become the Father of His Country. Behind this, however, lies one of the more clear timelines for the devastation the disease.

                Lawrence may have contracted tuberculosis during his service in the War of Jenkins’ Ear (served 1740-1742) or after his return to Virginia in 1742. Certainly, he had developed severe enough symptoms, particularly a cough, by the end of 1748, to cause him to take a leave of absence from the House of Burgesses. He resumed his duties in the spring of 1749, but his illness forced him home for a final time in May. That same month, George wrote hoping for news that his brother’s cough had improved and that he had “given over the thoughts of leaving Virginia.”1 Lawrence could not provide his brother with the news he desired, and sailed to England in the summer of that year to consult with physicians. Lawrence returned in November with little encouragement, but set out for Berkeley Springs in July 1750, to take the waters. George accompanied his brother on this venture, but they did not stay long.

    By 1751, Lawrence had exhausted any hope of finding a cure at home and his doctors recommended visiting a warmer climate. Following this advice, Lawrence and George sailed for Barbados on 25 September and arrived on 2 November. Shortly after their arrival, George recorded that a doctor came “to pass his opinion on [his] brother’s disorder, which he did in a favorable light, giving great assurances that…a cure might be effectually made.”2 George mentions little else of Lawrence’s condition in his journal, a month of course went undocumented as George had smallpox, and he returned to Virginia alone in December.

    Lawrence, having not found the relief he hoped for, decided to try Bermuda and journeyed there after George left. In an April 1752, letter to a friend, Lawrence referred to Bermuda as his “last refuge, where [he] must receive [his] final sentence.”3 Describing himself as “a criminal condemned, though not without hopes of a reprieve,”4 Lawrence followed his doctor’s treatment plan by “abstaining from flesh of every sort, all strong liquors, and by riding as much [he] could bear.”5 His doctor advised to take what benefit he could from the climate as another winter in Virginia would surely kill him. While Lawrence remained somewhat hopeful in this letter, he soon wrote again about his “unhappy state of health”6 and expressed the belief that, if it should worsen, he would “hurry home to [his] grave.”7 Evidently, Lawrence soon resigned himself to his impending death as he returned to Mount Vernon and set his affairs in order with the aid of his half-siblings and stepmother. He died on 26 July 1752.

    Upon Lawrence’s death, he left behind his wife Anne Fairfax and daughter Sarah. Three other children had already died all under the age of two. Infant mortality frequently occurred in the 1700s, so it proves impossible to know what caused each death. However, it remains a possibility that they contracted tuberculosis from their father, which then killed them quicker due to their age and weaker immune systems, or left them vulnerable to secondary infections. Sarah would suffer a similar fate in 1754, aged four, and her mother, having married into the Lee family, would die in 1761, aged thirty-three. These deaths allowed George to inherit Mount Vernon.

    Fielding Lewis (1725-1781, aged 56):

    Fielding Lewis

    The husband of Betty Washington and the mind behind Kenmore, Fielding Lewis served his country during the war by funding various supply and defense lines. One of the richest men in Virginia, Fielding had the ability to provide aid and, as the brother-in-law of the commander-in-chief, could hardly stay out of the conflict. While his efforts did much for the cause, Fielding drew the short straw by spending nearly all of his money. Accounts of Fielding Lewis’ death often insinuate a connection to the stress of losing his fortune. While this certainly put him under strain, and would not have helped his health, Fielding’s case of tuberculosis meant that he would have died regardless of his financial status.

    Tracing tuberculosis in Fielding’s life proves more difficult than that of Lawrence. Mentions of Fielding as ailing exist for several years prior to his death. However, with no description, one can hardly say if this references tuberculosis or some other affliction. Like many, he frequented Berkeley Springs and even purchased property there. Fielding recorded little of his visits, but his interests lay in the spring’s supposed medicinal benefits and, to that end, undertook an annual August trip from 1772 onwards. Throughout the war, Fielding held the rank of colonel and, though he never received a formal posting, oversaw Fredericksburg’s gun manufactory and the defense of the Rappahannock. This position required no military action and had strong connections to his background as a merchant. However, the choice of assignment may have derived from knowledge that he would never be well enough to effectively command troops. Then again, Fielding was in his fifties and had no military experience. In any case, the position reflected a strategic choice that played to Fielding’s strengths and lessened the impact of field inexperience and ill health.

    If Fielding hoped for a peaceful death, he would not receive it. In the summer of 1781, with the British encroaching on Fredericksburg, the Lewis household and Mary Washington fled. At this stage, Fielding’s health had significantly deteriorated, leaving him an invalid confined to his home. A sudden evacuation by carriage would have done little to ease his discomfort as the household hurried to another property in Frederick County, Virginia. Once there, Fielding focused on putting his affairs in order and likely did not have the strength to visit nearby Berkeley Springs. The news of the Yorktown victory undoubtedly brought some emotional respite, but it proved short-lived as Fielding died mid-December 1781. The location of his burial site on the Frederick County property remains unknown. Fielding’s death brought immense grief to his widow, Betty Washington, who had lost her brother Samuel to the same disease only three months earlier.   

    Samuel Washington (1734-1781, aged 46):

     Samuel Washington Source: Mount Vernon

    The second son of Augustine Washington and Mary Ball, Samuel grew up at Ferry Farm with his full-siblings. Said to have suffered from tuberculosis for most of his life, it remains unknown where, when, and from whom he contracted it. However, by visiting Lawrence in July 1752, to help put his half-brother’s affairs in order, seventeen-year-old Samuel certainly faced exposure. Samuel died at his home Harewood, near Charles Town, West Virginia, in September 1781, shortly before the victory at Yorktown. The home itself lies conveniently close to Berkeley Springs, which may indicate that its location and Samuel’s move from Stafford County, Virginia, derived from a desire for easy access to the springs and their reputed health benefits.

    Despite dying just shy of age forty-seven, Samuel famously married five times. His final wife, Susannah Perrin Holden (1753–1783, m. 1778), survived him, and the fourth, Anne Steptoe (1737–1777, m. 1764), died of complications from a smallpox inoculation. However, the deaths of his first three wives, Jane Champe (1724–1755, m. 1754), Mildred Thornton (roughly 1741–1762, m. 1756), and Lucy Chapman (1743–1763, m. 1762), have long been associated with tuberculosis.

    All three experienced rapid declines in health after their marriages to Samuel, and in correlation with several pregnancies. Pregnancy and childbirth proved extremely dangerous during this period, so these deaths could simply be tragic examples. However, as pregnancy exacerbates tuberculosis, the common interpretation remains that the women contracted the disease from Samuel, saw it worsen at an alarming rate due to pregnancy, and the strain of one or more births on top of the disease made it impossible to recover. Regarding his children, several died quite young, which may mirror the fate of Lawrence’s children, and three of his sons who reached adulthood would ultimately die of the disease. 

    Coming Up

                In our final blog on tuberculosis, we will be taking a look at how the disease impacted the next generation of the extended Washington family and those they enslaved. This will be coming out on June 28th.

    Emma Schlauder

    Research Archaeologist

    Bibliography

    2-7 Anderson, Alicia K. & Lynn A. Price (editors) 2018     George Washington’s Barbados Diary: 1751-52. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, VA.

    1 Chernow, Ron 2010     Washington: A Life. Penguin Books Ltd, London, UK.

    Felder, Paula S. 1998     Fielding Lewis and the Washington Family: A Chronicle of 18th Century Fredericksburg. The American History Company.

    Glen, Justin 2014     The Washingtons: A Family History, Vol 1, Seven Generations of the Presidential Branch. Savas Beatie LLC, El Dorado Hills, CA.

  • Bane of the Washington Family Part I: The Disease

    Epidemics and pandemics loom large in history. Few have not heard of the Black Death or Spanish Flu, and Covid-19 still affects our lives. Short, two to three-year outbreaks of these diseases kill quickly and in staggering numbers, but what about the diseases that have stuck around throughout history and brought about death in a much slower fashion?

    Tuberculosis (TB) represents one disease that humanity has never managed to shake. A devastating illness marked by a cough and wasting of the body, it has infiltrated all corners of the world, killing more than any other microbial pathogen. The 1700s proved no exception, and the level of contagion associated with the disease meant that once it entered a family, it proved hard to eliminate. Sadly, this became the fate of many members in two generations of the Washington and Lewis families and, undoubtedly others who came in close contact with them. In Part I of this examination of TB in the Washington family, we will examine the disease itself.

    Watercolor of a TB Victim by R. Cooper, ca. 1912 (Wellcome Collection)

    Brief History of TB

    Tuberculosis originated in East Africa, possibly around 3 million years ago, and evolved into our modern strains between 250-1000 years ago. This makes it one of the oldest diseases still in existence. While primarily a disease of the lungs, TB has the potential to infect most tissues and organs. Skeletal deformities caused by certain strains make it identifiable in the archaeological record, which help to date the disease. As humans migrated across the world, they brought the disease with them. Evidence even exists to suggest that TB thrived in parts of the Americas before the arrival of Europeans. Its presence makes it one of the rare diseases that Europeans did not introduce, though encroachment on indigenous groups and confinement of them to specific areas did lead to a rise in cases. Various names have applied to the disease, but in the Western World, the most common historical names include “consumption,” “White Plague,” and “phthisis.”

    Highly contagious, the disease could strike anyone, with those living in cramped and unhygienic conditions experiencing a higher risk of infection. Cities, therefore, had more cases than the countryside. However, the true rate of infection for the 1700s remains unknown as the recording of disease cases did not start until the early 1800s. Once this practice got underway, TB ranked as the leading cause of death in places such as Philadelphia, where it accounted for nearly 15% of all deaths in two separate periods (1807-1826: 7,972 deaths or 15.04%; 1831-1840: 6,093 deaths or 14.23%). From statistics such as this, estimates for previous eras can occur with TB likely causing 25% of all deaths in Europe from the 1600s-1800s and similar numbers occurring in North America.

    With such a high rate of infection, and its tendency to spread within families, some came to interpret the disease as inherited, while others continued to support the theory of miasma. A more radical thought blamed vampires, leading to several periods of panic in New England during the 1800s. Today, we understand germ theory, but this would not become mainstream until late 1800s and early 1900s—nevertheless, suggestions of TB’s true contagious nature date to at least 1546. German scientist Robert Koch put the debate to rest when he identified Mycobacterium tuberculosis as the causative agent behind the disease in 1882. The rod-shaped bacteria thus gave the disease its common name. This discovery helped lead to the realization that several strains and forms of the disease exist. While M. tuberculosis spreads via the air and droplets, the zoonotic form of the disease, Mycobacterium bovis, thrives in cattle and their relatives before jumping to humans. This occurs through the consumption of contaminated dairy products and produces a near identical infection to M. tuberculosis.  

    Mycobacterium tuberculosis (NIH)

    Despite the pathogen’s deadliness, though also in part of it, TB took on a romantic and fashionable nature. Many a character would suffer from the disease in 19th-century literature, with it running as rampant in the novels of the Brontë sisters as it did in their family, and Lord Byron once lamented his good health since a case of TB would make his appearance more interesting to women. The pale, slim, feverish appearance of the infected fit the ideal female body image that emerged between the late 1700s and mid-1800s. On the extreme end of things, some individuals purposefully exposed themselves to the disease in the hopes of achieving this appearance. A more manageable level saw fashion attempt to mimic the symptoms with corsets and skirts creating the illusion of slim waists while makeup lightened the skin and tinted the cheeks.

    Sickness

                As with every disease, the onset, severity, and progress of the infection varies depending on the health of the infected individual. For instance, tuberculosis could burn through very young children before anyone identified the disease in the 1700s. Likewise, someone with a stronger immune system might fall ill for a longer period before all the symptoms came to together to provide a diagnosis. Nevertheless, TB has several key identifiers.

    The disease develops in two basic forms, pulmonary and extrapulmonary. The former sees the infection restricted to the lungs and serves as the most common manifestation. Typical symptoms included a cough, which produces blood at a progressed stage, extreme weight loss, decline in appetite, sweats, fever, fatigue, and paleness. The disease can occur over several attacks, interrupted by brief respites, which worsen with time. As the disease progresses, it leaves holes in the lung tissue giving it an appearance akin to Swiss cheese. Extrapulmonary cases pertain to TB that has spread to an organ or tissue outside of the lungs. The standard symptoms remain in addition to physical indications in the impacted areas. This may include enlarged lymph nodes, sores, and spinal deformities that develop over time. Two forms include Pott’s Disease, TB of the spine, and Scrofula, TB of cervical lymph nodes.        

    While TB can affect all age groups, historically, it has most often struck the young. In Ancient Greece, Hippocrates noted, “phthisis makes its attacks chiefly between the age of eighteen and thirty-five.”1 Higher rates of death amongst those in their twenties and thirties added to the tragedy of the disease, though hope of relief did exist. TB has a unique ability to go dormant during which it walls itself up in the lungs or simply pauses in other parts of the body. While this latent state can reverse at any point, meaning a victim could have years between symptoms and still die of it, the disease may never reactivate. In this scenario, a person would test positive under modern examinations, but suffer no impact to their health or prove contagious to others.  

    All active cases, however, lead to a decline in the sufferer’s immune system and leaves them open to secondary infections. Cases of pneumonia, as well as meningitis, prove common. A letter from a Fredericksburg woman, dated March 1867, perfectly illustrates the disease. Her son, who had just passed, suffered an “attack of Hemorrhage of the Lungs” first in 1865 and again in “the summer of ’66.” She reported that he recovered from both attacks, but became ill with the mumps in February of 1867 followed by “the symptoms of fell consumption being clearly developed.”2 The boy ultimately lost the strength to rise and found himself confined to a makeshift bed a few months prior to his death.

    Treatment

    No cure or successful management plan for tuberculosis existed in the 1700s. As such, roughly 66% of cases resulted in death within the first five years of infection. However, lack of success did not stop doctors from prescribing a standard course of treatment that originated in ancient times. To anyone familiar with medical practices of the eighteenth century, the use of emetics, such as mercury and bloodletting, will come as no surprise. Both treatments aimed to purge the body of an affliction, and doctors applied this to nearly every ailment. In truth, these “cure all’s” did more harm than good, with mercury poisoning the patient and bloodletting weakening them. Still, other prescription medicines may have brought some symptomatic relief or, at the very least, not harmed the patient further.

    Other forms of treatment involved lifestyle changes in the form of diet and exercise. Viewing items such as meat and alcohol as harmful in large quantities or too difficult for the body to process, doctors instructed TB patients to eliminate them from their diet. Instead, they should consume plenty of milk, preferably from a donkey, and vegetables. On top of this, the patient should increase fast-paced exercise or travel, such as horse riding, to the extent that their strength allowed. This would ideally force clean air into the lungs. While well-intentioned, neither change could treat a bacterial infection.

    Other changes involved relocation. Some may be familiar with the phrase “taking the waters” The belief that natural springs, particularly hot ones, provide health benefits dates to prehistory and exists in multiple cultures. Some truth lies in this, but no spring could cure TB beyond the warm waters and steam providing some relief to a weakened, cough-ridden body. Nevertheless, doctors frequently instructed patients to visit springs, giving rise to Berkeley Springs in Colonial Virginia. A destination for wealthy Virginians starting in the mid-1700s, some visited for general health benefits and the social scene, while others went specifically for TB. If none of these treatments worked, doctors would prescribe a course of action that everyone knew served as a last resort: relocating to a warmer climate. In Colonial America, some patients went to the southern colonies while others elected to try the Caribbean (Figure 6). They found no cure in these locations, but the belief in springs and warmer or dryer climates providing relief for TB victims would continue into the 1900s.  

    Bane of the Washingtons

                All forms of tuberculosis mentioned above existed in the 1700s, but which one did the Washingtons have? Parts II & III of our Tuberculosis Blog will closely examine individuals connected to the Washington and Lewis families that had the disease, but we can make a few conclusions. Regarding contraction of the disease, the number of people afflicted, and their close relations to one another, it remains highly probable that they passed it to each other. Of the eight people identified across two generations, none developed a spinal deformity, and no mention of enlarged lymph nodes appear. This implicates pulmonary TB as the likely suspect in all cases.

    Nevertheless, we cannot forget M. bovis. With no knowledge of the disease or methods of pasteurization, the frequent consumption of dairy products and presence of cows on farms made it a key source of potential exposure. The Probate Inventory taken in 1743 after Augustine’s death records an inactive dairy building at Ferry Farm. Whether the Washingtons ever used it for dairy remains unknown, but they certainly obtained and consumed dairy products regularly. We will never know what vector the disease took in entering the Washington Family or when each individual first contracted it, but we can piece together how it affected their lives and ultimately ended them. Stay tuned for Parts II and III: The Victims.

    Emma Schlauder

    Research Archaeologist

    Bibliography

    Barberis, Ilaria, Nicola Bragazzi, Lucia Galluzzo, & Mariano Martini 2017     The History of Tuberculosis: From the First Historical Records to the Isolation of Koch’s Bacillus. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene 58: 9-12.

    Brown, Kathleen M. 2009     Foul Bodies: Cleanliness in Early America. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

    Buchan, William 1772     Domestic medicine; or, The family physician: being an attempt to render the medical art more generally useful, by shewing people what is in their own power both with respect to the prevention and cure of diseases. Chiefly calculated to recommend a proper attention to regimen and simple medicines. Evans Early American Imprint Collection, University of Michigan < https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=evans;cc=evans;q1=Gout;rgn=main;view=text; idno=N09695.0001.001>. Accessed 11 April 2023.

    CDC History of World TB Day. CDC < https://www.cdc.gov/tb/worldtbday/history.htm#:~:text= Johann%20Schonlein%20coined%20the%20term,%E2%80%9Cschachepheth%E2%80%9D%20in%20ancient%20Hebrew.>. Accessed 11 April 2023.

    CDC Symptoms of Pulmonary and Extrapulmonary TB Disease. The Division of Tuberculosis Elimination, CDC < https://www.cdc.gov/tb/webcourses/Course/chapter4/4_ diagnosis_of_tb_ disease_4_clinical_practices_symptoms_of_pulmonary_and_extrapulmonary_tb_disease.html>. Accessed 11 April 2023.  

    2 Conway, Mary Catherine Washington Henry 1867     “Letter to Jane ?, Cabin Mill – March 22, 1867.” Access granted by Suzanne Leigh Peake (owner) and Wyatt Falcone,                        

    1 Daniel, Thomas M. 2006     The History of Tuberculosis. Respiratory Medicine 100: 1862-1870.

    Mackowiak, Philip A., Vera Tiesler Blos, Manuel Aguilar, & Jane E. Buikstra 2005     On the Origin of American Tuberculosis. Clinical Infectious Diseases 41(4): 515-518.

    Mullin, Emily                                                                                                                                            2016     How Tuberculosis Shaped Victorian Fashion. Smithsonian Magazine, Smithsonian < https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-tuberculosis-shaped-victorian-fashion-180959029/&gt;. Accessed 11 April 2023.

    Nardell, Edward A.  2022     Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis (TB). Merck Manual < https://www.merckmanuals.com/ professional/infectious-diseases/mycobacteria/extrapulmonary-tuberculosis-tb>. Accessed 11 April 2023.

    National Jewish Health  2013     Tuberculosis: History. National Jewish Health < https://www.nationaljewish.org/ conditions /tuberculosis-tb/history>. Accessed 11 April 2023.

    Otis, Edward O.  1909     The Great White Plague. Thomas Y. Crowell & Co., New York.

    Palmer, Mitchell V.  2011     Bovine Tuberculosis and the Establishment of an Eradication Program in the United States: Role of Veterinarians. Veterinary Medicine International. 

    Rankin-Hill, Lesley M. 1997     A Biohistory of 19th-Century Afro-Americans: The Burial Remains of a Philadelphia Cemetery. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, CT.

    White, Tim D., Michael T. Black, & Pieter A. Folkens  2012     Human Osteology, 3rd edition. Elsevier Inc., Burlington, MA.

  • Stay Informed About Historical Undergarments

    You have probably seen an enormous amount of corsetry imagery in your life. Whether it was the scene in Gone with the Wind where Mammy is lacing Scarlet into her corset as she holds onto the bedpost or a social media post about waist training using a modern piece of shapewear. Needless to say, you probably think that corsetry was restricting, painful, and dangerous for all women in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. Enter me, a corsetry enthusiast, here to break the wall of misconceptions surrounding women’s boned undergarments. 

    I would like to start by differentiating between stays and corsets. Stays are the fully or partially boned shaping garments worn by women in the 18th century. Stays gave support to the bust and created an inverted conical shape by holding the shoulders back, trimming the waist, and supporting the mantua, or gown. Stays can be laced in the front, back, or both. Corsets became fashionable in the early to the mid-19th century. Corsets give the more famous hourglass shape, are laced in the back, and fastened in the front with hooks. I will be focusing on 18th-century stays, but know that many misconceptions about stays and corsets fall into similar categories. Some differences are the spark to the misconceptions, though. 

    Early 18th Century silk stays in collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

    1880s Silk Corset in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

    Take everything you think you know about stays and throw it out the window. The most common misconceptions about historical boned shapewear can be debunked if you step outside of the 21st century’s media-driven view of corsetry.

    Weren’t stays painful and hazardous to women’s health? No, actually. This misconception comes from the idea that women tight-laced their stays, meaning they pulled the laces tighter to force waste reduction. Most women did not practice tight lacing. Additionally, the boning was made of baleen (whalebone), which looks rigid but is quite flexible and molds to the wearer’s body over time. Stays were meant to be supportive, not restrictive. Organs were not squeezed, and ribs were not broken. Think of stays as a garment, not unlike a modern bra: snug, supportive, but wearable in an everyday setting. Women were able to work, eat, and breathe in their stays. It was probably more likely you would faint from the smells in the street than you would from the tightness of your stays in the 1700s. 

    1777 Satire of fashion print, British Museum

    Women of all classes in society wore stays. From the lowest of working classes to the highest of nobility, everyone wore them. You were not considered properly dressed without your stays on. Materials differed based on what you could afford, but some iteration was necessary for every woman. Working women often wore stays without straps so as not to restrict any movement of the arms or shoulders. Wealthier women who were not doing physical labor tended to enjoy the extra support the straps gave.

    Stays were not worn up against the skin. No matter what the covers of romance novels or the saucy scenes in period dramas portray, there was always a layer of clothing between the woman and her support garment. Laundry was not as simple as throwing everything into a machine and hitting start in the 18th century. Therefore, women wore foundational garments called shifts that were washed frequently and protected outer garments like gowns and stays that were not washed as often. A shift was a nightgown-like garment usually made of linen. This was considered your base layer. It absorbed sweat and oils, protecting the rest of the clothing and stays from the elements of the body. 

    Linen shift in the collections of Colonial Williamsburg

    Stays were never laced in a crossed pattern; they were always spiral laced.    That crisscross lacing that you see so often was not commonly used until 19th-century corsets. Spiral lacing was achieved by anchoring one end of the lacing chord at either the top or bottom and running it in a circular pattern through the offset laces until the other end of the stays were reached, then it was anchored off at that other end. This is a common mistake made in period films. If it isn’t spiral laced, it isn’t the 18th century. 

    Spiral-laced early 18th Century linen stays in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art
    Cross-laced 1890s silk corset in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

    Another lacing myth is that women in the upper classes were the ones who wore back-lacing stays, and women in the lower classes wore front or front and back-lacing stays. This idea came to be from the thought that women needed help to get into back-lacing stays; therefore, they needed a servant or enslaved person to place them in while lower-class or poorer women could lace their own stays in the front. Experts know this is not true as stays in fancier fabrics, like silk, worn by wealthier women are often front lacing, and stays in common fabrics, like linen, are often back lacing and vice versa with no real correlation. This tells us that the lacings of stays were not exclusive to class. I can also confirm that this was most likely the case as I have worn and laced my own back lacing stays by myself. It is not a magic trick or due to any extreme flexibility. I do what I was shown: lace the stays loosely in front, then spin them around, so the lacing is on my back and tightens them up. Simple, fast, and effective. 

    Something surprising that I learned while constructing my stays is that stays were not made by the milliner or mantua maker. Stays were most frequently made by a specialty staymaker or the tailor. That’s right, and this is such a specific and complicated garment to construct that it was often made by a specific craftsman. It took many years for someone to master the art of stay-making. Despite mantua making and millinery work being a female dominated trade in the 18th century, stay making and tailoring was a male-dominated trade. It took a lot of strength to process the whalebone, a job more suited to men. Next time you hear an actress from a period drama complain about how tight the corsetry was and how she could barely breathe, know that her corset was most likely not fitted properly and made historically; therefore, it just did not fit. Stays were made to fit the wearer, which would take an enormous amount of time to do for a film’s costumes. Premade corsets are bound to be uncomfortable to wear. Staymakers knew exactly how to fit a set of stays to the wearer, an art that is now nearly lost to time. 

    1780s stays from the Victoria & Albert Museum Collections (linen)
    1780s stays from the Victoria & Albert Museum Collections (silk)

    Stepping back into our 21st-century lenses, what can you see? Do you see oppressed women fainting in the street or strong women working in their homes and out in the world going about their business? I hope this has made you think twice about regarding corsetry as the worst garment ever to grace the body, but also about appreciating the women who wore them and what they did to get us to where we are today. 

    Allison Ellis

    Manager of Public Programs