We are heading into the final stretch of this year’s exploration of the 18th-century kitchen at George Washington’s Ferry Farm, and it definitely hasn’t disappointed! The finds are getting bigger and better as we continue excavating deeper into the cellar and expand our look into the surrounding area. We have made a ton of progress that wouldn’t have been possible without the help of our crew of the George Washington Foundation staff, interns, and University of South Florida field school students. While there are still a few weeks before the official end of the dig on July 11. Just in case you missed them, here are some quick introductions and fun finds from the 2025 field school and crew.
Left to right: Judy, Danielle, Abby, Sarah, Alaina, Alaina S., Sofia, Addie
Field School
“Hi, my name is Alaina Scapicchio, and I am a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of History at the University of South Florida. This is my third summer digging at Ferry Farm. My favorite moment of the summer was excavating a partially intact pig jaw!”
-Alaina
“Hi! My name is Addie, I am a history and anthropology student at the University of South Florida. My favorite artifact to find are the animal bones.”
-Addie
“Hi, my name is Alaina. I am studying history at USF. My favorite part of the field school was digging in the kitchen because of how many cool artifacts we found. My favorite artifact was the piece of the Bartmann jug!”
-Alaina
“Sofia Almeida is a first-year History PhD student at the University of South Florida. Her research focuses on historic cemeteries, public history, and memory. One of her favorite parts of field school was digging in the kitchen cellar. One of her favorite artifacts this season was a decorated fragment of Staffordshire ceramic.”
-Sofia
GWF Interns
“Hey! My name is Abby! I am a recent graduate from UVA and am planning to pursue a career in archaeology. I enjoy reading and playing Ultimate Frisbee in my free time. My favorite artifact that I helped find this season was a projectile point with jagged edges.”
-Abby
“Hey all, my name’s Max Puckett. I’m a senior at the University of Mary Washington, currently pursuing a BA in Historic Preservation. In my spare time, I like to cook, research, and read. I’ve really loved this field season so far- we are pulling out a ton of interesting and exciting artifacts.”
-Max
Sarah came to Ferry Farm as a VCU student in the summer of 2014 and has been in over half a dozen summer digs since then. This year’s dig is very special to her because it is focused on the cellar of the Washington kitchen. Her favorite artifacts from this dig are the ones that can actually be paired and mended with each other because much of what collapsed in the kitchen fire was left in place and not scattered or missing.
-Sara
GWF Staff
I have been involved with the Ferry Farm Archaeology Department since 2012, when my youngest twins graduated from high school. I started out as a volunteer but then took on a part-time position cataloguing artifacts from the summer digs, which then turned into a full-time job as a lab assistant. I have been co-field director since 2019. I have a BA in Anthropology and an MA in Historical Archaeology, with past jobs in cultural resource management and historic sites, such as Mount Vernon. Though I really enjoy pulling out the handfuls of wine bottle necks and bases, I do find it more awe-inspiring when we pick out the tiniest and fragile eggshell fragments among the rubble and debris inside the kitchen cellar.
-Judy Jobrack
“Hello! I’m Danielle, and I have been at Ferry Farm since 2022, first as an intern and then lab assistant and co-field director. As a UMW Historic Preservation alum, I love all things old, both above ground and below, so this year’s dig has been particularly exciting with all the architectural bits we have been finding. With that said, I think my favorite artifact so far has been a brass/copper button –metal with verdigris is just so cool!”
-Danielle Arens
Though some of our crew is leaving, the rest of us will be digging every weekday until July 11, so be sure to come say hi and see what new things we have uncovered!
A Personal Look At Civil War Soldiers As Told Through Artifacts
Ferry Farm is most well-known as the Boyhood home of George Washington. While our primary emphasis of interpretation and research has focused on young George and his family’s life on this farm, Ferry Farm has many other stories to tell. The American Civil War had a major impact on the Ferry Farm community, changing both the landscape and the lives of those who lived here. This blog will look at how our archaeological efforts have brought to light artifacts that reflect the experiences of the soldiers that were stationed on the “old Washington Farm.”
Washington House at Ferry Farm“The Old Mansion of the Washington Family” (1833) by John Gadsby Chapman shows the foundation stones of the house where George grew up at Ferry Farm and trees along the riverbank.
The Washington house and its outbuildings gradually fell into disrepair until by the mid-1830s there was no trace of them on the landscape. But the soldiers still knew the significance of the site. In April 1862, the Civil War came full force to Fredericksburg and to Ferry Farm. Federal Forces took over and occupied the City of Fredericksburg behind the retreating Confederate Army. Encampments and gun emplacements were established all along our side of the river and throughout Stafford County as the army set about maintaining control of the city across the river. Engineers were set to the task of rebuilding the railroad bridge and erecting pontoon bridges, including one at the end of Ferry Road.
Looking over Fredericksburg by Alfred R. Waud
This spring deployment and the military occupation of Ferry Farm was relatively quiet and uneventful. There is no evidence of a large, formal camp at Ferry Farm, but soldiers were stationed here to protect one of the pontoon bridges that ran from the bottom land of Ferry Farm across to the city of Fredericksburg. In August of 1862, the army suddenly retreated from the city and the surrounding countryside to defend Washington, D.C.
In November of the same year, the full force of the Union Army returned to Stafford County in preparation for the retaking of Fredericksburg and their expected march to take over Richmond. Instead, the Federals suffered a devastating defeat at the Battle of Fredericksburg in December and retreated to the north side of the river for winter camp. Now, Ferry Farm was being used more actively as a staging ground for multiple troop movements, bivouacs for soldiers guarding the pontoon bridges, and as a defensive line for the Federal troops.
A defensive trench, or rifle pit, with an adjoining berm to protect soldiers from gunfire originating on the Fredericksburg side of the river, was dug across the edge of the upper river terrace, stretching north-south from the edge of the stream gully through the remains of the Washington house. A small extension on the south end of the trench was dug out to connect it to the now-exposed cellar.
Artifacts found within the cellar trench fill reflect the extensive use of the house ruins by soldiers during both occupations. In the spring and summer, they used the farmhouse as their headquarters, writing on the plaster walls and leaving graffiti in pencil and charcoal on hundreds of plaster fragments that have been excavated and preserved.
Plaster fragments with graffiti
Various artifacts were abandoned when they left, including canteens, bullets, gun parts, and writing tools. But this blog isn’t about buttons, bullets, and buckles. It’s about the items the soldiers found more dear. Objects they made or relied on for small comforts.
So, on a more personal level, what was everyday life like for the Union soldiers stationed here during the Civil War? When they weren’t directly experiencing the brutal and intense combat fighting on the front, it was a routine-filled life of constant drilling, standing watches, maintaining equipment, and finding imaginative ways to entertain themselves in the camps. But camp life had its own struggles and hardships. Poor shelter, food, and hygiene, along with low immunity rates to communicable diseases, all contributed to high rates of sickness and disease. Add to that boredom and homesickness, and camp life was a private’s first test of survival.
It was very important for the soldiers to recognize that they were standing on the very ground that their hero, George Washington, once stood on. Those sentiments were expressed in a speech by Private Edwin Jones of the 6th Wisconsin when he said, “We are assembled on sacred soil…It was while living on this plantation, under the direction and blessed with the teaching of a noble mother, that George Washington learned those lessons…fitting him for leadership in war and peace, to lay the foundation of the mighty Nation that we today are fighting to preserve.”
On a more personal note, we know soldiers spent a lot of idle time playing games among themselves. Dice, card games, chess, checkers, and gambling were all very popular, and remnants of these activities are found on all Civil War sites. At Ferry Farm, we have a collection of gaming pieces, including this bone die and a gaming piece crafted from a Minié ball, which could have been used to play chess, checkers, or as markers in a game of chance.
Bone die, one of the many gaming pieces uncoveredGaming pieces crafted from a Minié ball
And we can’t forget about the importance of music in camp life. Music was a common and welcome pastime activity for troops. Fiddles, guitars, fifes, harmonicas, and accordions all came out at night to entertain the soldiers who relished listening to songs about home and the worries of war. Jaw harps were inexpensive and easily portable, which made them very popular with soldiers. Our jaw harps, one of which was recovered from the civil war trench, is of the style known as a Gloucester type, one of the most common designs in America during Colonial times and after the Revolution.
“Gloucester type” jaw harp
Nothing is normal about wartime. Many people were forced to improvise, and it’s very hard to determine why a soldier placed four unfired Minié balls in this tin can, which was revealed through X-ray. Did he lose his ammo case? Was it just idle behavior? Were these bullets saved to be turned into gaming pieces? This is the type of artifact that raises more questions than answers.
A tin can filled with four unfired Minié balls, X-Ray of tin can with four unfired Minié balls
Literacy – Ink Bottle/Pen nib:
Literacy among Civil War soldiers was very high, and much of what we know about daily camp life comes from the letters written and received by the soldiers themselves. Letter-writing to loved ones at home allowed the soldier to keep up with local news, forward monetary and business instructions to those left running the household or farm, and relay war news to their family.
A complete ink bottle and pen nib recovered from the site evidences the desire for correspondence, both official and personal. The ink bottle itself was found in the Bray cellar hole, which the Union soldiers used as a defensive dugout to avoid Confederate sharp shooters. We can just picture a group of soldiers huddled down inside the cellar, building a small campfire to stay warm, and writing letters home to their families. Was it a hasty departure that left this bottle in the cellar, or perhaps the owner expected to return but didn’t. As archaeologists, we can’t answer all these questions, but we know it was used during the Civil War by a Union soldier and was found in a location many soldiers never wanted to be stuck in.
This particular ink bottle is an ‘umbrella’ shape, one of the most ubiquitous ink bottle forms from this era. The bottle was typically meant for single use and would have been made in one of the numerous American glasshouses present during the 19th century. It was then filled with ink, affixed with a label, and marketed for single use.
“umbrella” shaped ink bottle and small pen nib
This small pen nib is stamped with a maker’s mark and style name. The Esterbrook Company started making nibs, including the “Relief” style, in 1858 in Camden, New Jersey, and became one of the largest manufacturers of this product in the US. The nib was part of a dip pen, which consisted of a handle made of various materials and the replaceable nib.
The first evidence of self-care in the trenches takes the form of a small double-sided bone comb. Combs were made from an assortment of materials, including bone, ivory, gutta perch, and steel, and were used for grooming the moustache and hair. But their fine teeth were also handy in capturing the pesky lice that were endemic to camp life among men marching and living together in close quarters. This comb would have been an essential component of any soldier’s personal kit.
small double-sided bone comb
Our second evidence of self-care is this intriguing bottle. It is not so much interesting because of what it is – it’s a very common medicine style bottle for the mid-19th century– but rather what’s inside. Clearly visible within the bottle is a hard black substance, and for years, we’ve wondered what the substance may be.
Mercury bottle, mercury was used for a variety of medicinal reasons at the time
So we chipped off a little fragment of the substance and sent it to Ruth Ann Armitage, our chemist friend at Eastern Michigan University. The sample was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy to map out specifically what elements were present in the sample. Our sample was also run through DART (direct in real time) mass spectrometry. This technique is good at detecting organic components within a substance.
Almost immediately, Dr Armitage responded, and we weren’t disappointed: “Did you know there’s mercury in this?” Nope, we did not.
However, this discovery was not too surprising given the use of mercury in many medicines for thousands of years. Nowadays, it’s common knowledge that you shouldn’t drink mercury…or touch it…or inhale it, but for a long time, mercury was seen as a potent healing metal, and it was readily rubbed on skin, consumed, and vaporized for immediate effect on the lungs.
And while all these treatments using mercury did little to address the body’s underlying medical problem, mercury did cause an immediate bodily response, which convinced people it was working to cure their ailments. When applied topically, it burned. When introduced into the body, it caused a person to sweat, salivate, and have diarrhea. The mucous membranes also went into overdrive, leading many to believe that the bad stuff in your system making you sick was being purged by the mercury. The reality, of course, was that the body was trying desperately to rid itself of poison.
So, if the residue inside our bottle was medicine, what was its exact formula? All we can say at this point is that it was mercury-based and that it could have been in either liquid or pill form. Common Civil War-era uses for mercury-based medicines were for treating skin sores and lacerations, internal and external parasite infections, syphilis, and constipation, to name but a few. On a side note, an almost identical bottle also containing mercury was found across the river in Fredericksburg at a site that was well known to be a Union field hospital. It was found in a knapsack discarded in a trench that included amputated limbs.
Lastly, we’d like to highlight one of our favorite artifacts, a tiny hatchet about two and a half inches long, recovered from the bottom of the Civil War trench. For such a diminutive object, it speaks quite loudly to our local history in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Initially, earlier archaeologists at Ferry Farm assumed it was a pewter toy souvenir given out or sold in 1932, when our country and Fredericksburg celebrated the 200th anniversary of George’s birth. Indeed, cheap pewter toys were very popular during this time period.
Lead toy hatchet found in Civil War-era trench with traces of tin and nickel. Lead toy hatchet found in Civil War-era trench with traces of tin and nickel.
A recent reexamination of all the artifacts from the context where the hatchet was found revealed that nothing from that stratum had any 20th-century artifacts in it, nor did the two strata above it. In fact, the youngest artifacts from these strata were all mid-19th century. Additionally, although the archaeologists who excavated the hatchet didn’t know it at the time, the excavation unit from which the hatchet came sat right inside the Civil War-era trench.
This revelation shut the door on our ‘it’s a 20th-century souvenir’ narrative but opened the door to an even cooler one. A close examination of the hatchet showed that it didn’t have mold seams, which are always present on cast pewter toys. Furthermore, for some reason, it had one smooth side and one textured side, leading us to believe that it was handmade, not machine-cast. This was supported by a thorough internet search to find an identical toy hatchet, which came up empty, further supporting our new theory that this piece was a one of a kind. The textured side resembled the grain of wood, so we surmised it had been cast in a simple hand-carved wooden mold. All of these clues, combined with its location within a Civil War trench, made us suspect that the hatchet was crafted by a soldier, likely from a lead Minié ball. The hatchet is likely ‘trench art’, which is defined as objects of art either made by soldiers, POWs, or by civilians to create mementos of the war experience.
To further support our identification of the hatchet as trench art, we took the artifact to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, where Katherine Ridgeway analyzed it using XRF, or X-ray fluorescence analysis. This non-destructive technique determines the composition of metal. We also brought along a few Minié balls recovered from the same unit for comparison. It turned out that what we thought was a pewter hatchet was actually a lead hatchet with a similar compositional profile to Minié balls, which are mostly lead with trace amounts of other metals such as tin and nickel.
One can just imagine a bored Union soldier whittling the mold and then melting down some of his bullets to pour into it. He likely chose the hatchet form because of the famous cherry tree story, in which young George Washington owned up to hacking his father’s cherry tree with a hatchet by proclaiming, ‘I cannot tell a lie.’ The soldier would have been well-versed in the Washington cherry tree myth at Ferry Farm, created by Mason Locke Weems in his first biography of Washington, published in 1800. By the 1860s, the story was nationally known. Additionally, letters Union soldiers wrote while encamped at Ferry Farm indicate they knew the site’s connection to Washington. They even went so far as to send home cherry seeds for their families.
Grant Wood — Parson Weems’ Fable (1939)
While the identification of the hatchet is now secured, we have so many more questions. Who was this soldier? How many hatchets did he make, and why did this one come to be left behind in his trench? Was it a souvenir for himself, or did he send one home to his family, or share with fellow soldiers? Did he survive the war? Unfortunately, these are mysteries that will likely never be solved, but that make for great pondering.
It’s the most wonderful time of the year! There’ll be dirt out for screening, ceramics for cleaning, and lots of good cheer…. Okay, sorry, that might be a little too far. But it is a super exciting part of the year here at Ferry Farm, George Washington’s Boyhood Home. We have officially started this summer’s dig season!
Building off of the previous two years’ exploration of the kitchen site, we are revisiting the 18th-century kitchen cellar again this year. While last year’s dig focused on locating and exposing the kitchen’s stone wall foundations, our focus this year will be excavating the fill within the cellar walls that had been deposited as a result of a fire sometime in the 1740s. The fire caused the building to collapse in on itself, filling the cellar space with ash and debris.
Excavating sites like this are very exciting because they represent preserved moments in time, leaving the possibility to find artifacts left in situ or in place, when the fire occurred. It is likely that most of the artifacts excavated will have evidence of the extreme heat caused by the fire. Toasty artifacts from the 2023 preliminary kitchen exploration have been washed and catalogued, showing damage to artifacts, such as glass bottles and ceramic storage vessels, ranging from being slightly charred and burnt to being completely melted. Toasty or not, these artifacts will help us nail down the date of the fire and what was being stored in the kitchen cellar when it went up in flames.
18thc kitchen cellar fill area within stone foundation to be excavated this seasonPortion of burnt cellar fill uncovered during the 2023 excavation season.
Our 18th-century kitchen, unfortunately, lies beneath the foundations of two farmhouses with full cellars dating from the 19th and 20th centuries. The construction of these homes severely impacted the kitchen structure and its burnt cellar fill, making it difficult for our archaeologists to accurately interpret the kitchen’s architectural features. A small portion of the kitchen cellar fill was also the subject of previous archaeological excavations in the 1990s, so we are not the first team to sample the fill. But in the interest of site preservation, the kitchen remnants were covered over twenty-five years ago with protective geofabric, and the farmhouse cellars backfilled completely with sand.
Luckily, we had the help of an excavator at the beginning of this season to remove the five feet of protective sand covering the kitchen cellar fill so we could get to the fun stuff sooner! But our fun isn’t restricted to the cellar, as we still have multiple 5” x 5” units around the outside of the kitchen foundations to investigate. Our team is still trying to locate the midden (trash deposits) and fireplace associated with the kitchen, as well as additional architectural evidence that would give an idea of the overall form and dimensions of the complete kitchen structure.
Excavator carefully removing the sand covering the cellar fill under the watchful eye of GWF archaeologists. The concrete wall foundations seen in the photo are the remnants of the 1914 farmhouse built atop the kitchen foundation. Exposing the cellar fill
Every excavation year brings new and exciting finds as we sift through thousands of years of site habitation. Come visit us while we dig weekdays from opening until 3:30 pm through July 11th. Hope to see you there!
On July 22, 1942, Annie Fleming Smith wrote a letter. Smith was a prolific letter writer—her innumerable missives had helped raise the funds that saved Kenmore two decades earlier—so it is not surprising that she put pen to paper on that summer day. What is surprising is that the intended recipient of that letter was not a prospective donor, a fellow regent of the Kenmore Association, or a friend. Instead, she addressed her epistle to Frank Knox, the Secretary of the Navy. Smith wanted “confirmation of the fact of the naming of the U.S.S. KENMORE” after the home and “any other information you can release” about the ship.[1]
Letter that Annie Fleming Smith sent to Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox asking for confirmation that the first USS Kenmore had been named after the historic home. Smith, Annie Fleming to Frank Knox, July 22, 1942. The George Washington Foundation.
Although there is no record that Knox responded to Smith (there was, after all, a war on), the USS Kenmore was, in fact, named for the historic estate. The Naval History and Heritage Command ship-naming file on Kenmore I (AP-62) includes an April 13, 1942, memo to the Secretary of the Navy from the chief of the Bureau of Navigation and prepared by Louis Emil Denfeld, then assistant chief of the Bureau of Navigation, recommending that the President Madison be renamed Kenmore, in honor of the “[h]ome of Betty Washington at Fredericksburg, Virginia, sister of George Washington who married Col Fielding Lewis.”[2] The recommendation was approved on April 16 of that year, and the newly renamed vessel was “commissioned at Baltimore, Md., on 5 August 1942, Cmdr. Myron T. Richardson in command.”[3]
USS Kenmore (AP-62) on trials in the Chesapeake Bay on August 14, 1942. Shipscribe
Smith had learned of the ship during a mid-1942 visit to the estate from Lt. Commander William VanC. Brandt (USNR) of the Kenmore, who later wrote to “Miss Annie” to thank her for her hospitality.[4] “All the Officers of the Kenmore,” Brandt told Smith, “were most interested in learning the history and record of the beautiful estate for which our ship is named.”[5] Brandt planned to have framed and displayed in the ship’s wardroom photographs of the property given to him by Smith; later, the vessel’s captain requested a picture of the house for his room.[6] For her part, Smith was “thrilled” to meet Brandt and “to know about your ship,” although she was skeptical enough of the origin of the transport’s new name to write Knox.[7]
The Arlington National Cemetery headstone of William VanC. Brandt, from whom Annie Fleming Smith learned that a Navy ship had been named after the historic home she had helped save from development in the 1920s.
The Kenmore operated primarily in the Pacific until September 1943; she was then converted into a hospital ship and renamed Refuge.[8] The Navy must have liked the name Kenmore, as it was bestowed in October 1943 on another transport, originally called the James H. McClintock.[9]The Kenmore II also served in the Pacific Theater and, after “hostilities ended on 15 August 1945, [began] returning veterans to the U.S.”[10] She was decommissioned on February 1, 1946.[11]
USS Refuge (AH-11), formerly the Kenmore (AP-62), photographed in February 1944 in Baltimore after her conversion from transport to hospital ship. Shipscribe.The second USS Kenmore (AK-221, ex AP-162) in San Francisco Bay around December 1945. Shipscribe.
The Kenmores were not the only vessels named for properties associated with George Washington and his family. The Wakefield (AP-21) borrowed its name from the Westmoreland County birthplace of the first president, today owned by the National Park Service.[12] There have been five Mount Vernons; the first was built in 1859 and chartered by the Navy two years later, before they bought it later that year.[13] The most recent vessel named after Washington’s residence and plantation was a dock landing ship commissioned in 1972 and decommissioned in 2003.[14] The possible birthplace of Mary Ball, George Washington’s mother, lent its name to the Epping Forest, a dock landing ship launched in 1943.[15]
The monikers of other ships are connected more tenuously to places tied to George Washington and his family. For example, a 1943 submarine chaser was rechristened the Abingdon in 1956.[16] The vessel’s new name came from the town of Abingdon, in Washington County, Virginia (named, yes, for George Washington).[17] According to the county’s official history, “myths claim that [the town] was named for Martha Washington’s ancestral home” in England.[18] While this may be a false etymology, were those who named the ship drawing on the tale when they chose to call the vessel Abingdon? Additionally, the many Arlingtons that have served the Navy over the years have each been named after Arlington County, which draws its appellation from Arlington House, built for George Washington Parke Custis, the step-grandson of his celebrated namesake.[19]
Arlington Mansion was built by George Washington Parke Custis. Union soldiers posing on the lawn, June 28, 1864.
The Navy’s infatuation with the commander in chief of the Continental Army has, of course, also been expressed by naming ships directly after Washington and his family, not just their properties. While a complete inventory of such vessels is beyond the scope of this post, it is worth noting that four ships have been named the George Washington, including CVN-73, an active nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, while several others have sailed under just his surname.[20] Martha, George’s wife and the nation’s first first lady, has inspired the names of at least two Navy ships: the Lady Washington and the Martha Washington.[21] Civilian shipbuilders have also found inspiration in the Washington family: the SS Mary Ball was a liberty ship active during World War II.[22]
U.S.S. George Washington in Yokosuka, Japan in 2008. Four boats shared the name “Lady Washington.” The first was commissioned by the Continental Congress in 1776.USS Martha Washington inbound to Hampton Roads, Virginia, from Brest, France, 1918.
Who was responsible for naming these ships? As hinted at above, while final authority for ship names was (and still is) the responsibility of the Secretary of the Navy, during World War II, it was the Bureau of Navigation (renamed the Bureau of Personnel on May 21, 1942) that researched and recommend ship names based on the traditional naming conventions associated with each class of vessels.[23]
Typically, it was dock landing ships, or LSDs, that were named for “cities and places of historical interest of same name, or places of historical interest only.” [24]Epping Forest, Gunston Hall I (named for George Mason’s home), Ashland (for the boyhood home of Henry Clay), Carter Hall (after the Virginia estate), Oak Hill (for the home of President James Monroe), and Shadwell (for the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson) are all examples of LSDs whose names aligned with this convention.[25]
But the Kenmores, the Mount Vernon IV, and the Wakefield were not LSDs; they were transports, classified AP, and anyone seeking consistency in the Navy’s naming of troop transports during World War II is bound to be disappointed. Some vessels in the AP class were named after celestial bodies, others after Revolutionary War heroes, and others, as we have seen, after historic estates.
Dang it, Ben, you had one rule.One of the original six frigates whose construction was authorized by the Naval Act of 1794.
This lack of consistency is not surprising. After all, when Benjamin Stoddert named the Navy’s sixth ship, a frigate, he chose to call it the Chesapeake, despite President George Washington’s agreement with the recommendation that frigates be named after “principles or symbols found in the US Constitution.” Therefore, “the very first naming decision by the very first Secretary of the Navy resulted in the ‘corruption’ of the established naming convention.”[26] This tradition of flexibility regarding ship names has endured, and ship names continue to excite interest (and occasionally strong feelings) from many parties, including those who propose denominations for new vessels. If you are such a person, here’s an idea: how about another Kenmore, or maybe a Ferry Farm?
Adam Nubbe
Manager of School & Youth Programs
[1] Smith, Annie Fleming to Frank Knox, July 22, 1942. The George Washington Foundation.
[2] Naval History and Heritage Command, Kenmore I, ship-naming file, April 13, 1942.
Archaeology is trash. There, I said it. Before you call Mr. Jones and have me thrown in a pit of snakes, let me explain. Generally speaking, archaeology focuses on understanding the past through the items that people left behind, i.e., their trash. Most of the things we find are left around because they were broken or no longer needed. Disposal of these items looked much different before modern garbage collection as we know it today. Rather than trashcans and landfills, trash was often thrown outside of the home or workspace near windows and doors or any other designated disposal areas. These areas, also known as middens, usually have a high number of artifacts and are top-tier when it comes to understanding a site. So, in other words, archaeology is trash, and we love it.
Most people can get behind the archaeologists saving the trash that’s hundreds or thousands of years old, but things are a little different when it comes to saving more modern materials like plastic. When visitors or volunteers see things like plastic bottle caps or food wrappers in our bags to bring back to the lab, they usually have a few questions. Like, “Did you mean to keep this?” Or “Why are you keeping this trash?” Here at Ferry Farm, we don’t pick favorites, every bit of trash can tell us something about the site and how it has been used.
One-way modern materials can help us understand a site is by helping us determine the Terminus Post Quem (TPQ), or “time after which,” of a layer. The TPQ is determined by identifying the earliest production date of the most recently produced item. For layers deposited before the widespread use of plastics, ceramics are usually used for determining the TPQ because they are datable (temporally, not romantically) since most have very specific production dates, and they also hold up pretty well under ground. For example, when looking at the ceramics in a layer with tin-glazed wares, Buckley, and creamware, the TPQ would be 1762 since that is the earliest production date of the most recently produced ceramic (creamware). All the items in the layer had to have been deposited after that date.
The same idea works with modern synthetic materials like plastics, which are usually found at sites that have been used within the last 100 years. If there were to be some plastic soda bottles, weed eater line, and styrofoam in a layer, the TPQ would be 1978. While these materials may also be items you have in your home, not thought to be worth collecting and preserving, their presence in a layer helps provide a date. They can also tell us if an earlier layer was disturbed.
When archaeologists talk about disturbed layers, we aren’t judging their emotional state or love of 2000s heavy metal. Instead, when a layer is described as disturbed, that means there was some sort of activity happening after the initial deposition that affected that layer. During last season’s dig, there were layers with a mix of colonial, prehistoric, and modern materials that indicated that the area was disturbed by some subsequent activity. The information gathered by the presence of modern materials is important for the interpretation of the site and its use over time.
Example of a disturbed layer– Artifacts include prehistoric flakes and fire-cracked rock, colonial items like tobacco pipe stems, Civil War Minie balls, and modern-day plastics
Now that we know why we keep this so-called modern trash. Here are a few examples of how the presence of these items helped our archaeologists understand a part of our site.
My favorite example happened during last year’s dig. One of our crew, Abbie, was preparing a feature for photographs and had to keep clipping pesky hairlike roots that were in the way. After a bit of excavating, it turns out the “roots” were bristles from a plastic broom. The broom dated the feature fill to the late 20th century and got to the root of the hairy soil issue.
Pesky broom in feature
Our staff has numerous examples of these modern materials being used to help identify previous archaeology as well, from candy wrappers at the bottom of shovel test pits and trenches to an entire trowel! While things like plastic trash bags and food containers aren’t the most exciting to find, they play a part in interpreting the history of activities on the site.
Once something is left behind, it becomes part of the archaeological record, whether it was 10,000 years ago or yesterday’s lunch. What does your trash say about you?
Some of the most delicate objects in our collection are our archives. Paper and other document materials like vellum and parchment are very sensitive materials that can be irreversibly damaged simply by light. This makes it very difficult to display or put on exhibit for extended periods despite our comprehensive policies for conserving and preserving documents; exhibition has always been unfeasible. To remedy this, we have been working on getting archival-safe, high-quality images of our important documents online for everyone to access. So, while you might not see the documents in person, you can still explore, read, and learn about these important papers while we preserve them for future generations.
Until we launch our online archives, I wanted to give everyone a sneak peek at a few of our incredible pieces.
One of our oldest documents in the collection is a Land Grant signed by William Gooch on September 28, 1730, written on vellum. William Gooch was a colonial administrator who served as governor of Virginia from 1727 to 1749. The grant is not in the best condition, but it reads that it grants 400 acres in Spotsylvania County to Paul Plunkepee. This grant is officially recorded as Land Office Patents, No. 14, 1728-1732, page 40, and is available at the Library of Virginia.
Land grant to Paul Plunkepee signed by William Gooch. 28 September 1730.Land grant to Paul Plunkepee signed by William Gooch. 28 September 1730.Sir William Gooch, 1st Baronet, was a British Army officer and colonial administrator who served as the governor of Virginia from 1727 to 1749.
One of our most unique documents is a letter from George Washington to Lieutenant Governor Robert Dinwiddie, written on June 10, 1752, when he was twenty. Robert Dinwiddie served as Lieutenant Governor of Virginia from 1751 to 1758. In the letter, George requests his first military appointment to the open adjutancy of the Northern Neck or other district. George’s half-brother Lawrence had been appointed Adjutant General of the colony in 1743. Due to his illness and eventual death, the adjutant was to be divided into smaller districts (i.e., Northern Neck).
Dinwiddie declined the appointment but assigned George to an envoy position that winter to confront the French, who had recently built a fort on what Dinwiddie considered British land. Additionally, George met with the Iroquois Confederacy to make peace and obtain intelligence about the French.
Letter from George Washington to Robert Dinwiddie, 10 June 1752Letter from George Washington to Robert Dinwiddie, 10 June 1752
This amazing letter pinpoints the beginning of George Washington’s illustrious military career, which would eventually culminate in him becoming the first President of the new United States of America. The letter is in great condition after meticulous conservation work, which included repairs with Japanese tissue called tengucho and wheat starch paste called jin shofu. It was then cleaned and flattened, and the iron gall ink stabilized.
A transcript of the letter can be found on the National Archives website at Founders Online.
Next are two letters between George Washington and Irish-born publisher Matthew Carey. Matthew Carey moved to America in 1784 and settled in Philadelphia, where he established a publishing business and bookshop with $400 given to him by the Marquis de Lafayette. Carey’s first publication was The Pennsylvania Herald in 1785, followed by two of the first successful American magazines, The Columbian Magazine and The American Magazine in 1786 and 1787.
1824 portrait of Lafayette by Ary Scheffer is currently in the U.S. House of RepresentativesMathew Carey was an Irish-born American publisher and economist who lived and worked in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
In George’s first letter to Carey in 1785, he requests a subscription to Carey’s newspaper but asks him to send the newspaper disguised as an ordinary letter because George has been having problems with the post office delivering his newspapers . George thinks his papers may not have been delivered because “persons who wishing to read News Papers without being of the expence [sic] of paying for them, make free with those which are addressed to others.”
Letter from George Washington to Matthew Carey, 1 March 1785Letter from George Washington to Matthew Carey, 1 March 1785
The second letter between George and Matthew is dated June 25, 1788. The year before, Carey launched “The American Museum” magazine. It was a literary museum that reprinted significant historical documents on American history and original essays on politics, commerce, and culture. The magazine got a positive response, but Carey was finding it expensive to distribute the magazine across the country, so he asked George, one of his first subscribers, to write an endorsement for the magazine that would help attract new subscribers.[2]
Washington responded immediately, seizing the opportunity offered by Carey to express his belief that the free dissemination of information and ideas was vital to preserving American liberty. ‘I could heartily desire,’ Washington wrote, that ‘copies of the Museum and Magazines, as well as common Gazettes, might be spread through every city, town & village in America – I consider such easy vehicles of knowledge, more happily calculated that any other, to preserve the liberty, stimulate the industry and meliorate the morals of an enlightened and free People.”
Letter from George Washington to Matthew Carey, 25 June 1788Letter from George Washington to Matthew Carey, 25 June 1788Extract of a letter from his Excellency General Washington, to the printer of the American Museum
Carey published Washington’s endorsement in the next issue of his magazine—his marks for the typesetter can be seen in the original Washington letter. The result was a flood of new subscriptions that allowed Carey to continue publishing The American Museum for another four years.
Transcripts of the letters can be found on the National Archives website at FoundersOnline.
These are just a few of the amazing documents in our collection, which we hope to bring you soon so that you can explore them yourself. Check back often, and we will keep you updated on our progress with our digitization project.
Heather Baldus
Collections Manager
Bibliography
Edd Applegate (August 17, 2012). The rise of Advertising in the United States: A History of Innovation to 1960. Scarecrow Press. p.25.
As you drive down the road, sometimes, there are enough signs to make your head spin. It can be tempting to just drive by these stark white cast iron road markers with black text when you see them. Even so, sometimes you can’t help but let a word or a phrase catch your eye, sparking curiosity as you continue on with your travels.
“Highway markers near Seven Pines, VA” courtesy of the Library of Virginia. (Virginia State Chamber of Commerce)
The Virginia Highway Marker program is the oldest one of its kind in the United States (Virginia Department of Transportation, n.d.). In 1927, State Route 1 was freshly paved and ready for new motor vehicles to coast down from Washington, DC to Richmond. (Virginia Department of Transportation, 2006).
Drivers were given a red carpet to travel straight to what many viewed as the birthplace of our nation, George Washington’s Mount Vernon. Thousands began their pilgrimage. Hotels, motels, gas stations, and attractions began to pop up along the path.
“Moorestown High School Class of 1927” posing in front of Mount Vernon
With all these new travelers who appreciated their state’s history, William E. Carson of the Conservation and Economic Development Commission erected several markers along the road, designating historic areas of interest and turning the roads into an attraction. (Virginia Department of Transportation, n.d.).
Fabricating the markers was a beast to tackle since the traditional method of construction would have been granite. Unfortunately, the stone was a bit too pricy and was also found to be difficult to read at the lightning-fast 25 mph speed limit. Aluminum was an option for its lightweight and non-corrosive nature, and in fact, many early signs were manufactured from the metal, although they were quickly found to crack easily. They were replaced with cast iron, and cast metal has been the preferred method of construction ever since (Rachal, 1949).
Two of our three markers were first seen in the early years of the program. The oldest of our three was also the one that had the least amount of time in the light. The Accokeek Iron Furnace marker (E-49) is located off Courthouse Rd in Stafford near an archaeological dig site owned by the George Washington Foundation. The modern iteration was erected in 1998.
Accokeek Iron Furnace: The Principio Company constructed the Accokeek Iron Furnace nearby about 1726 on land leased from Augustine Washington (father of George Washington), who became a partner. After Washington’s death in 1743, his son Lawrence inherited his interest in the company and the furnace. When he in turn died ten years later, his share descended first to his brother Augustine Washington Jr. and later to William Augustine Washington. The archaeological site is a rare example of an 18th-century Virginia industrial enterprise. It includes the furnace location, the wheel pit and races, a retaining wall made of slag, an extensive slag dump, and mine pits.
This text is not what was written prior to 1930. Those signs were brief, containing only a sentence or two for motorists to read as they drove by. Between 1927 and 1930, though, cars sped up. Where they were once going 25 mph, they were soon going 40 mph or even rocketing 50 mph down the highways!
Trying to read the markers while driving quickly became impossible. The Commission’s solution? Publish a booklet with each highway marker printed and arranged neatly for passengers to read as they traveled. All you had to remember was the marker’s number or title. The first of these booklets were distributed in early 1930, free of charge (Rachal, 1949).
This edition contains the earliest record of the Accokeek marker, then titled “Ancient Iron Furnace,” and reading only: “Here on Accokeek Run were iron mines and a furnace in which Augustine Washington, father of George Washington, began to smelt iron in 1727.”
Unfortunately for our little marker, this was the last time it could be featured in the booklet. Disaster struck in late 1930. Engineer P. W. Snead wrote to the Commission on December 19th to report that the sign was found that morning, knocked from its post, and shattered. The commission wrote back a few days later, asking for the aluminum pieces to be gathered and sent back since the factory would refund them for the parts. (Library of Virginia Archives, 1930). The Accokeek marker was not restored until 1998, 68 years later, as part of a federal grant, according to the manager of the highway marker program, Jennifer Loux.
The “Washington’s Boyhood Home” marker is also found in the booklet’s first edition, and its modern counterpart is now at the entrance to Ferry Farm. Although there are no records of the sign being damaged prior to its replacement in 1997, after exposure to the elements for almost 70 years, it was probably time for a refresh.
Alternatively, the motivation for the marker’s replacement (likely from the same federal grant) may have come from historical inaccuracies. The original text of the marker reads:
“Washington’s Boyhood Home: At this place, the Ferry Farm, George Washington lived most of the time from 1739 to 1747. Here, according to tradition, he cut down the cherry tree. Washington’s father died here in 1743. The farm was his share of the paternal estate.”
We now believe that the Cherry Tree story was likely an exaggeration or a myth, and so the verbiage was changed on the modern marker. Many old highway markers contained inaccurate information, as is often the case with many historical resources. As technology and research evolve over time, so does what we know. Another example of this never made it to the press, but early drafts of the marker’s text include his attendance at the “Old Field School.” We have since learned that there is no documentation of Washington ever attending a formal school in his life.
The current marker was installed in 1997, the same year the George Washington Foundation obtained the property, and the sign continues to greet visitors to this day.
George Washington’s Childhood Home: The Washington family moved to a plantation here in 1738 when George Washington was six years old. Along with his three brothers and sister, young Washington spent most of his early life here, where, according to popular fable, he cut down his father’s cherry tree and uttered the immortal words, “I cannot tell a lie.” His father, Augustine, died here in 1743, leaving the property to him. His mother, Mary Ball Washington, lived here until 1772 when she moved to a house in Fredericksburg that Washington bought for her.
Our third marker is different, having not been placed until 1995. At this point in time, the highway marker program had been passed around, with different organizations all bearing the burden of putting up new signs and maintaining the old ones. It first passed hands in 1949 to the Virginia Department of Highways, who, after a year, handed the responsibility off to the Virginia State Library. In 1966, it was traded again and is now operated by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources in collaboration with the Department of Transportation (Virginia Department of Historic Resources, n.d.).
Former director of the Kenmore Association (now the George Washington Foundation) Vernon Edenfield wrote to the DHR proposing the marker. The Association paid for the manufacturing out of pocket. You can now visit it along Caroline St, four blocks from Kenmore, in front of Fielding Lewis’ storefront.
Kenmore: Four blocks west stands Kenmore, built in 1775 by Col. Fielding Lewis for his wife, Betty, sister of George Washington. Near here, between Kenmore and the Rappahannock River, stood Lewis’s warehouses and docks. Kenmore’s intricate plasterwork is the finest in the country. Among 19th-century owners and occupants were Samuel Gordon, who named it Kenmore, and William Key Howard Jr., who restored and embellished the mansion’s plasterwork. Washington and other Revolutionary leaders often visited, and during the Civil War, Union troops used it as a hospital. The Garden Club of Virginia, starting in 1929, rehabilitated Kenmore’s gardens as its first restoration project.
Although you might think after nearly 100 years of recording and presenting history that the Virginia Highway Marker program has run out of ideas, you can’t be further from the truth. New markers are being planned constantly, and more gaps in history are being filled each year. In Fredericksburg alone, there are plenty more markers commemorating the city’s rich history. If you feel there is an opportunity for a new marker somewhere, you can submit a proposal through the DHR’s website.
The unveiling of the new Freedom Rides marker in 2021 at the site of the old Greyhound bus depot on Princess Anne St, which was proposed by staff and students from the University of Mary Washington
History can be found anywhere if you know where to look, and the Virginia highway markers are a testament to that. Be sure to keep an eye out for them on your next drive!
Prats, J. J. (2010, October 23). State Historical Markers Numbering Plans. Retrieved from The Historical marker Database: https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=2
Rachal, W. M. (1949). Historical Markers on Virginia Highways. State and Local History News, 151-153.
Virginia Department of Transportation. (2006). A History of Roads in Virginia: “The Most Convenient Wayes”. Richmond: Virginia Department of Transportation Office of Public Affairs.
Virginia Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Historical Markers. Retrieved from Directional Signing Program: https://vaidsp.com/historicalmarkers/
Virginia State Chamber of Commerce, a. L. (n.d.). Highway markers near Seven Pines, Va. Picture Collection.
As the United States and historic sites across the country, including the George Washington Foundation, prepare to commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary next year, it might be easy for the eightieth anniversary of the end of World War II to become an afterthought. After all, the interpretation of Historic Kenmore focuses on the Revolutionary era; the home was already the better part of 200 years old in 1945. But the histories of Kenmore and Fredericksburg are as intricately intertwined with the Second World War as they are with the War of Independence, and the legacies of both conflicts resonate today.
Soldiers being hosted on lawn of Kenmore
Like many Americans, the women of the Kenmore Association sought during the war years to demonstrate pride in their nation and support for its troops. Annie Fleming Smith, then national secretary of the Association, showed her appreciation for the country’s military by opening Kenmore’s doors to thousands of service members stationed in the Fredericksburg area. The Association took them “through the mansion and served them iced tea and gingerbread.” It hosted lawn parties and entertained soldiers early in the day and late at night. Hosts told everyone in uniform “who passed over the Kenmore steps…about George Washington, and other great men, passing over these very same steps.”
Kenmore hosted soldiers with gingerbread and iced tea.
Smith regarded the Association’s commitment to “making our American boys feel at home in a home of the Washingtons” as Kenmore’s way of contributing “to the defense of the nation.” She also hoped that visits to Kenmore would crystalize in servicemen a commitment to the U.S. ideals of freedom and democracy.
The commitment to helping the recently transplanted soldiers feel comfortable in town was admirable; however, there are no records of Smith or Kenmore welcoming Black servicemen, stationed along with their white counterparts at what was then A.P. Hill Military Reservation and other nearby military installations. Smith and other members of the Kenmore Association, along with whites across Fredericksburg, the South, and the country, apparently did not see any conflict between simultaneous support for liberty, as embedded in the founding documents of the United States, and a racist social system.
The 366th Infantry Regiment
So how, in segregated Fredericksburg, did Black service members spend their leisure time? If the city’s white-led institutions, including Kenmore, did not welcome African Americans serving their country, Black Fredericksburgers proved happy to host the men fighting the Double V campaign—victory over fascism abroad and victory over racism and discrimination at home. Indeed, at least two Black fraternal organizations in Fredericksburg provided recreational opportunities to African American soldiers during World War II.
The city’s Black Odd Fellows lodge (located at 301 Charles Street), “under auspices of the Citizens Committee of Local Negros,” hosted at least one dance for African American soldiers from A.P. Hill. This dance, held in February 1942, came shortly after white officials implicated Black servicemen stationed at A.P. Hill and Fort Belvoir in a “near-riot” that began after a Fredericksburg police officer attempted to arrest a Black soldier for public intoxication.
Following the altercation between the soldiers and the city’s police, during which white officers beat a Black soldier and threw a tear gas grenade, the Free Lance-Star published a letter to the editor from local NAACP leaders calling for the establishment of a Black USO—since the white USO barred Black soldiers from entering— and more leisure opportunities for African American soldiers in the city.
Other efforts to make the city more welcoming to Black service members followed. In May of that year, a group of Black Fredericksburgers requested that “the city furnish recreational facilities, showers, soap and towels for colored troops stationed at Camp A. P. Hill.” According to the letter containing this request submitted to the City Council, “there were slightly over a hundred colored soldiers now stationed at Camp A. P. Hill and that there were no recreational facilities at Camp A. P. Hill or in the City of Fredericksburg for these colored troops.”
Rappahannock Lodge 229 of the Independent Benevolent Protective Order Elks of the World in April 2008. The lodge was home to Fredericksburg’s Black USO in 1943 and 1944. Rappahannock Lodge 229 of the Independent Benevolent Protective Order Elks of the World in March 2024. 1103 Winchester Street is just a block from Historic Kenmore.Historic plaque at former Rappahannock Elks Lodge 229
Eventually, the efforts of Black soldiers’ advocates succeeded: The Black USO sought by the NAACP leaders opened in June 1943 at Rappahannock Lodge 229 of the Independent Benevolent Protective Order Elks of the World (otherwise known as the African American Elks). Lodge 229 was at 1103 Winchester Street, just a block from Historic Kenmore. Across the world, USOs gave “troops somewhere to play cards, dance and socialize while taking a break from their duties.” Each USO facility was supposed to be “open to all men in uniform,” regardless of race, but in practice, centers were often segregated. Fredericksburg’s white USO opened in January 1942 at 408 Canal Street, which is today the Dorothy Hart Community Center.
USO Club, Fredericksburg, VaUSO Club, Fredericksburg, Va
Although Fredericksburg’s Black USO closed the following April, reportedly because of low attendance, another Black USO was completed in Caroline County in December of 1943 and was still operating in 1945.
USO, Caroline County USO, Caroline County
However, the presence of these recreational facilities did not resolve tensions between white area residents and visiting Black service members. In the fall of 1943, while the Fredericksburg USO was open, A.P. Hill Military Reservation was home to the 366th Infantry Regiment, a Black unit. When members of the 366th chaffed against racism—for instance, by evicting the driver of a bus who instructed the soldiers to move to the back of the vehicle and finishing the drive back to A.P. Hill from Fredericksburg themselves—local whites reacted with fear. By November, the city’s white residents worried that the soldiers planned to “‘clean up the town on the first’” of December in objection to Jim Crow laws and segregation. Whites expressed relief when the unit shipped out before that date.
During World War II, the Kenmore Association opened its doors to white soldiers to share the stories of those Americans “who planned the principles, which is the beacon light of the world today.” Eight decades ago, the world’s democracies fought for those principles and defeated the forces of totalitarianism abroad, but racism endured at home. While progress has been made in the United States regarding the assertion “that all men are created equal,” the struggle against inequality continues.
Adam Nubbe
Manager of School & Youth Programs
Bibliography
Fredericksburg City Council. (1942, January). Fredericksburg City Council Minutes Vol 28. Fredericksburg, Virginia, USA.
Hall, D. (1943, November 27). Fearful Whites Relieved as 366th Leaves Virginia. Baltimore Afro-American, p. 21.
There once stood a large horse chestnut tree on the corner of Fauquier and Charles Street in Fredericksburg. It was noted as one of the thirteen legendary Washington horse chestnut trees planted by George himself. By the 1930s, it was becoming clear that the tree needed some help, so the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) took up the cause to protect this historic tree.
Washington’s Horse Chestnut TreeGroup of ladies and small child posing in front of horse chestnut tree, ca. 1930s
The tree legend states that George, while visiting his mother in June 1788 in Fredericksburg, decided to plant thirteen horse chestnut trees from her house to his sister’s house, Kenmore, just a few blocks away. This provided a scenic path for his mother when she visited her daughter Betty. These trees commemorated the thirteen original states.
Mary Washington’s House, c. 1930sAmerica’s Historic Horse-Chestnut TreeMap showing the distance between Mary Washington’s house and Kenmore…following the potential path of the horse chestnut trees.
It is a great story. It is patriotic and nostalgic, showing George as a man of the earth with his love of trees, gardening, and horticulture. He planted these trees for a future America to remember the struggles to create this country and the precious nature of our land that we must protect. But is it true? Did George plant that tree? What is the evidence?
The horse chestnut tree is a native of the Balkans region (Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Northern Macedonia). It made its way to Europe and England during the seventeenth century, noted as growing in South Lambeth, London, and being planted by Sir Christopher Wren at Hampton Court.
Horse chestnut trees Bush Park, Hampton Court, England planted by Christopher Wren in 1669-1670.
There is documented evidence of some horse chestnut trees crossing the Atlantic to Mr. John Bartram, one of America’s first botanists in the 1740s. In a letter from Peter Collinson, an English botanist, dated September 16, 1741, he wrote to Bartram, “I have sent some Horse-Chestnuts which are ripe earlier than usual; hope they will come fit for planting.”. Bartram acknowledged receiving them and stated that most were blue-molded, and only one germinated and grew. Over twenty years later, Bartram updated Callison on the success of the lone seedling, writing, “But what delights me is that our horse chestnut has flowered. I think it must excel in America.”
Letter from Royal Parks and Gardens, Hampton Court, May 24 1936
Bartram’s Gardens in Philadelphia was quite popular and visited by many founding fathers while working there. George visited the gardens twice in the summer of 1787 while in the town during the Constitutional Convention, noting, “Sunday, June 10, 1787, breakfasted at Mr. Powell’s and in company with him rid to see the Botanical Gardens of Mr. Bartram, which, though stored with many curious plants, shrubs, and trees, many of which are exotics, was not laid off with much taste, nor was it large.”
John Bartram’s house and upper garden at Bartram’s Garden
Why mention this? In some versions of the story, Washington got his horse chestnut trees from this garden, but there is no evidence that the legendary trees were obtained from this famous historic garden. George only made two diary entries about horse chestnut trees on April 13, 1785, writing, “Received from Col. Henry Lee of Westmoreland 12 horse chestnut trees (small) and an equal number of tree boxes. They appeared to have been some time out of the ground. Planted 4 of the Chestnuts on my serpentine walk – two on the east end and the rest in the vineyard.” And again, on April 2, 1788, wrote, “Transplanted from a box in the garden, thirteen plants of the horse chestnut into shrubberies by the garden walls.”
Fruit Garden and nursery at Mount VernonSmall botanical garden at Mount VernonUpper garden at Mount Vernon
The entry shows evidence of planting the famous Washington trees, right? No, because George was at Mount Vernon in April and didn’t leave for Fredericksburg to visit his mother until June 10, 1788.
But could he have had them sent down and have them planted before he came to see his mother? Yes, but the story says that George planted these trees with his own hand. Additionally, it would be odd for George to mention planting the trees while in residence at Mount Vernon and not say that they were in his mother’s garden in Fredericksburg. Washington was a diligent diarist but never mentioned planting thirteen horse chestnut trees in his mother’s garden.
Mary Washington’s house gardens, Fredericksburg.
Further, no known letters from George, Mary, or Betty mention any horse chestnut trees between Mary’s gardens and Betty’s Kenmore.
Spring time in the gardens at Kenmore Plantation (can you spot the cat?)
This was all the primary source evidence I could find relating to George and any horse chestnut trees. So, I looked further into the story to see what other evidence was being used to verify that this tree was indeed one of the thirteen Washington trees.
As I said in the beginning, by the 1930s, many, including the DAR, were trying hard to save this lone surviving chestnut tree. With their extensive reach, they got Fred H. Arnold, the Assistant Forester for the National Park Service, to do an age-determination test on the tree in May of 1934. Mr. Arnold noted some issues with the test, stating that the lower twelve feet of the tree was filled with concrete, so the coring sample had to be taken above this “repaired defect”. Even then, a complete coring sample could not be extracted due to decay in the interior of the main stem. Additionally, Mr. Arnold said that it was very difficult to count the annual rings due to their obscurity because the texture difference between the springwood and summerwood for the horse chestnut tree (genus Aesculus) is very slight. Taking into account all this, Mr. Arnold estimated the tree to be around 139 years old with as much as 10% in error, either plus or minus, which would put the date it was planted somewhere between 1781 and 1809, which means that the tree is indeed old and could have been planted during Washington’s time in Fredericksburg.
Age Determination, May 6 1934
Lastly, local historian James Henry Heron collected local citizens’ recollections of the tree and the story. Mrs. Lilias Hamilton Scott, the wife of Mr. John Scott, who owned the lot on which the tree stands, wrote that her grandmother (Mrs. Janet Scott Hamilton) stated her great-grandmother (Mrs. Francis Scott) resided in Fredericksburg in 1788 and was Mary Washington’s neighbor and intimate friend. She said the trees were planted by Washington.
Letter from Mrs. Lilias Hamilton Scott, January 10 1934Letter from Mrs. Vivian (Emily) Fleming Smith, January 20 1933Letter from Mrs. Alice Ashby Coghill, January 10 1934Letter from PV Daniel, January 1- 1934
Mrs. Vivian Minor Fleming traces the story back to Miss Lou Carruthers, her sister Mrs. Davis, and their grandfather Rev. S.B. Wilson’s housekeeper, Mrs. Polly Skelton, who had previously been a housekeeper for Mary. Mr. P.V. Daniel, who remembers five of the original thirteen trees, lived across the street from the remaining one for over sixty years and said Miss Anna Wilson, granddaughter of Rev. S.B. Wilson, told him the story. Mrs. Alice Ashby Coghill says her aunt, Mrs. James Hipkin Dickinson, who lived at Mary Washington House after Rev. S.B. Wilson said Washington planted the trees and passed out horse chestnuts to friends. While I have no doubt these people are truthful in their recollections, they do not offer any definite evidence. They merely document that the legend was a well-known story but not that it was true.
Regardless, the much-loved old tree was rightfully given proper emergency care with a donation and service from Senator Martin L. Davey from Ohio and The Davey Tree Expert Company. The famous tree lived happily for over another half century before being taken down in 2004.
The Last of the Thirteen Horse Chestnut Trees postcard, ca. 1930sWashington’s horse chestnut tree being removed, 2004
Whether this tree was planted by George along with twelve others will probably never be conclusively proven. Were the people wrong to save the tree all those years ago without better evidence? Absolutely not. They saved a beautiful 200-year-old horse chestnut tree with a legendary attachment to George Washington, but they also saved a bit of their own past, nostalgia, and pride in their own town’s history.
While the house at Historic Kenmore has been faithfully restored to its circa 1775 appearance, the road to that final result was a pretty dirty one. As in plaster dust, paint fumes, and all manner of dirt and debris. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the first forays into the research for and the subsequent writing of a Historic Structure Report (HSR) took place. This project entailed a number of architectural historians selectively pulling up floorboards and peeking behind plaster walls to more fully understand how the house was originally built, its current condition, and its history of change over time. This important document provided us with a clear understanding of Kenmore’s architectural history, was the guiding document for a decade-long restoration of the structure, and also gave us a collection of architectural fragments and individual artifact finds that continue to help us understand the material world of those who lived and labored at Kenmore through the centuries.
In a past blog post, we learned a bit about rats as collectors and examined a rat’s nest that was discovered during that HSR investigative period. If you haven’t looked at the video of the unpacking of that nest, here it is. (In that nest, there were assorted papers, fibers, and other fluffy goodies dating to around the turn of the 20th century.) But the nest wasn’t the only thing uncovered during that HSR peeking and prodding process.
Enter the “Above Ground Archaeology” or “Interior Archaeology” collection. These eclectic artifacts were carefully collected, numbered according to their context or find location, bagged, documented on a list, and lovingly packed away in our ubiquitous Hollinger boxes. Over the years, some of the artifacts were pulled by curators for exhibition in the Kenmore galleries, but most were stowed away in their boxes for long-term preservation and research purposes.
The use of found objects in historic structures to help illuminate the material world of the building’s residents and workers is not a revolutionary concept. Colonial Williamsburg, for instance, in their recent restoration of the historic Bray School, removed modern plaster walls, revealing not only structural information but also artifacts: “We are collecting building fragments and objects found in the walls…These items shed light on the building’s original finishes and various inhabitants since 1760.” Riversdale Historical Society has been showcasing some of their “found” artifacts on Facebook — most recently posting a set of buttons for National Button Day.
Recently, we pulled a few of Kenmore’s artifacts into exhibit cases in our refreshed orientation exhibit in the Bissell Gallery of the Crowninshield Education Center at Historic Kenmore. Together with in-ground archaeology, these exhibit cases help us illustrate the built environment and the wares known and used at the site.
Case in the orientation exhibit at Historic Kenmore – including molding fragments and nails found during the HSR investigationsCase in the orientation exhibit at Historic Kenmore – including the tiny (sewing) scissors found near one of the second-floor fireplaces.
In 2010, then Intern Ashley Dean (University of Mary Washington) was tasked with inventorying the three boxes of artifacts, and for that, we are extremely grateful. What resulted from that inventory project was a 12-page list of artifacts that formed the center of this rejuvenated research initiative. The artifacts in these boxes range from architectural elements (plaster fragments, nails, wallpaper bits) to broken household goods (bottle glass, ceramic pieces) to whole objects (beads and a pair of sewing scissors). When first bagged and numbered, these artifacts were recorded by location context—based on the mapping system then being used in the architectural investigations of the house, with room numbers ranging from B001 in the cellar (or basement level) to 301 being the attic (or 3rd floor) of the house.
Attic (Room 301) mapping
Fast forward to 2024, the artifacts were again reviewed, and the idea blossomed to plan a textile assessment of all the small scraps of fabrics that had been collected. According to our in-house review, we could tell that they dated to a variety of periods and ranged in their likely original use, from costumes to household linens.
Selection of textile fragments in the Kenmore Above Ground Archaeology collection (July 2024)
One particularly large artifact proved the most intriguing — a pile of blue and white check fabric. The indeterminate ball of checked fabric piqued the interest of staff and now serves as the starting point for a multi-year conservation assessment and interpretation project. A few months after our in-house assessment, we hosted a textile conservator who conducted a baseline review of the textile fragments and more fully examined the artifact for potential treatment. She had a rapt audience that morning!
Textile fragments in the archaeology lab, awaiting the arrival of the textile conservatorTextile conservator Colleen Callahan examining what we had determined to be a child’s full apron or pinafore
And just a few weeks ago, the textile artifact, which looks to be a full child’s apron or pinafore, was transported to the conservation lab for treatment and further research.
Check fabric before conservation. Armholes visible along upper portion.
The found artifacts from Historic Kenmore have not yet been able to fully share their stories. We look forward to beginning to delve more into their manufacture, use, and re-use by the generations of people who wore them, worked with them, saved them, hid them, and otherwise interacted with the artifacts and the spaces in which they were found.