Archaeology of Memorialization

Beginning in 2023, the Montpelier Archaeology Department worked with the Montpelier Descendants Committee (MDC) on conducting a series of surveys of the Montpelier Burial Ground of the Enslaved. The goal of these surveys was to determine the full extent of the burial ground. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) surveys in 2018 indicated that the burial ground was much larger than the area defined by visible grave depressions. These surveys showed that the area of the burial ground was some 10 times larger than previously thought and held the potential for over 200 burials. Importantly, this number of burials suggests that this space served as the central burial place utilized by the enslaved community of Montpelier.

The discovery regarding the size of the burial ground was critical for the MDC as there was one spot where they knew their enslaved ancestors rested. The significance of this discovery led the MDC to make plans for developing a memorial to their enslaved ancestors. In March 2023, the MDC and the Montpelier Foundation secured a grant from the Mellon Memorial fund in order to design and build a memorial.

With plans made to design the memorial, the MDC formed a committee to oversee memorial plans. One of the first goals set by this committee was to ensure the memorial was placed adjacent to but outside of the boundaries of the burial ground. In addition, the committee wanted to restore the burial ground to its 19th century appearance. The committee has worked very closely with the Montpelier Archaeology Department in designing surveys to meet these goals. The chair of the Montpelier Descendants Committee Memorial Commitee, Henry Anglin, provided the following statement on our work:

We are very excited about working with the MDC to understand their ancestral burial ground. All the work we are conducting at the site is in full collaboration with the MDC with the goals outlined in their plans for memorializing this space. The MDC has full decision-making power in all of the work we are doing and we are working for the MDC in the work outlined in this webpage. This work follows the Clientage Model which defines the descendant community (in this case the MDC) as the ethical client who has full decision-making authority for the disposition and memorialization of their ancestorials burials and burial space. Further, we as archaeologists bring our expertise to this relationship and make recommendations that allow the work to follow best practices in the discipline of archaeology. This model for working with descendant communities was devised by Dr. Michael Blakey in his work on the African Burial Ground Project in New York City. Dr. Blakey is a descendant member of the MDC and is the National Endowment for the Humanities Professor of Anthropology, Africana Studies, and American Studies and Director of the Institute for Historical Biology, College of William & Mary.

The remainder of the story map outlines our findings from the 2023 surveys and the goals of the 2024 excavation season. The Montpelier Archaeology Department has conducted three different surveys in 2023, including: Ground Penetrating Radar, metal detector surveys, and vegetation surveys. Each will be described in turn followed by a landscape analysis and plans for the 2024 season. Throughout the description of work carried out in the 2023 survey season, we will include questions that archaeological excavations can answer. Those that are in italics are the ones that we will be approaching in the 2024 season.

The previous GPR survey, carried out in 2018, covered a limited area of the burial ground due to the presence of heavy brush. Moreover, the 2018 GPR transects (each pass of the equipment along a predetermined grid) were separated by 3 ft. While the results suggested a more expansive burial ground, this larger 3 ft. interval has higher chance of missing subsurface anomalies than shorter intervals. As such, we designed the updated 2023 survey to be conducted on 1.5 ft. intervals in order to ensure the detection of all potential burials. Additionally, in order to more carefully assess the area, we spent the first 6 months of 2023 clearing the burial ground of brush and fallen timbers. This was to ensure that the upcoming GPR surveys would have unobstructed access to the ground surface, and therefore further reduced any chance of missing a potential burial anomalies. This is especially important as many of the potential burial shafts are in areas where there are no visible surface depressions or field stone markers present. As such, GPR is the only non-invasive means of identifying these graves.

Determining whether signals generated by GPR are burial shafts is made through several variables. First is through observing the presence of a signal in deeper soil layers. That signal must repeat each time the GPR device passes over the anomaly on adjacent transects. Second, determining whether a potential anomaly is a burial or not requires analyzing the depth, shape, size, orientation (typically East/West), and relationship of the anomalies to one another. In the map below you can see many of the anomalies are oriented East to West, occur in clustered rows, and are generally consistent in depth and size with burials from the time period. The spacing of GPR transects every 1.5 feet resulted in a high number of signals being detected, with the characteristics described above. Analysis of the 2023 GPR data, conducted on the 1.5 ft. interval, revealed over 250 potential burials.

The majority of the grave signals are in the western half of the burial ground (including the area of grave depressions within the linear mound). This portion of the woodlot contains depressions that are indicative of an unplowed surface. To the east of this concentration of signals, the density of grave signals drops off dramatically and the terrain is much more uniform (see LiDAR map below for illustration of ground terrain in relationship to grave signals). This difference in terrain suggests the potential of that the eastern portion of the woodlot was plowed, altering the landscape. The question remains as to whether the lower number of potential burials detected by the GPR in this area is a result of obscuring due to the historic plowing or correlates to a lower density of graves in this area.

It is important to note, that there is a high potential that there are more burials present than were revealed from the GPR surveys. This is due to several factors. First, the clayey soils of Montpelier tend to absorb and dampen the signals generated by the GPR device. The age of the graves (over 200 years old in most cases) has led to a lack of differentiation between the disturbed soil in the grave shaft and the surrounding subsoil. Finally, decay results in the absorption of burial remains (coffin and body) by the surrounding soil, leaving no strong physical remains to reflect back as a signal with the GPR. As a result of these variables, there are likely more graves than are reflected in the GPR survey.

A good example of this low visibility of graveshafts, is the lack of potential burials observed in the transects run in an adjacent open field to the southwest of the woodlot. During oral history interviews conducted by with former duPont workers, an employee, Buck Smith recounted that human skeletal remains were exposed when this field was plowed in the early 1920s. In 2018 both cadaver dog surveys and a different GPR survey presented the case for burials in this field. While the 2023 GPR did not recognize burial-related anomalies in this area, the most accurate method of assessing the presence of burials can only come through excavation units. Even minimally invasive excavation would reveal important differences in soil texture, color, and inclusions) that would indicate the top of graveshaft feature.

Metal detector surveys are one of the primary means that we have used to find historic sites at Montpelier. The use of gridded metal detector surveys results in the entire surface area of a site being scanned for metallic hits and has allowed us to locate barns, fences, homes, roads, and other sites related to the plantation landscape at Montpelier. For the burial ground, we conducted these surveys with the hope of locating fence lines and activity areas related to the historic use of this space. In addition, there possibility of locating surface items such as grave offerings or items lost during activities at the burial ground.

The map above shows artifacts dating to the era of enslavement at Montpelier. These fall into several categories: nails, personal items, and plow parts. Dennis, our Metal Detector Technician, located several buttons while surveying the area. One unique aspect of these buttons is the high quality of their manufacture. Dennis reported that similar buttons found in nearby living and work areas appeared to be from more of a middling quality, while the buttons recovered from the burial ground were possibly lost from finer clothing. Given the likelihood that members of the community would be in their Sunday-best at a funeral, there is some chance of these buttons being associated with such activities here at the burial ground.

Dennis also located several concentrations of cut and wrought nails, one of which was of particular interest as the concentration also contains broken cast iron pot fragments. What is remarkable about this collection of artifacts is its similarity to cooking shed sites that we have located in other areas of the property. This artifact cluster is located in the middle of a light concentration of potential burials, in an area which we hypothesize is a subsequently plowed field. As such, it could either be a cooking event associated with the labor conducted at the site or these may be associated with an event carried out by the enslaved community with intention in the burial ground.

Throughout the burial ground, Dennis has located a number of historic surface items (within 4-5" of the ground surface) in the areas of GPR grave signals. These include a fragment of clipped iron, a fragment of clipped silver with a hallmark, a knife, and other tool parts. These and all artifacts were reburied in the exact location where they were identified. These historic objects may represent items intentionally left at individual grave sites by loved ones in order to honor the memory of the departed. This tradition was also observed at the  Gilmore Family Cemetery  where the children of George and Polly Gilmore placed their parent's bed atop their final resting place. These possible grave offerings, combined with the presence of field stones (quartz and greenstone) and possible evidence of intentional plantings (discussed below), comprise the current evidence for physical markers in the cemetery. Other evidence may be recovered in future surveys and excavations.

The recovery of two plow points in the eastern portion of the woodlot provides further evidence that this area was plowed. Additionally, the ground surface being even, younger trees, and the lower density of native plant life in this area support this area being plowed. What Dennis was also able to pick up with the metal detector surveys was the potential edge of the field area that was marked by wire fence fragments he located with his metal detector.

One of the most challenging parts of the metal detector survey was the presence of early 20th century trash piles in the burial ground. During the duPont era, workers deposited architectural debris, household trash, and equine medicine bottles in the woods of the burial ground. The use of wooded areas for trash disposal was a common occurrence before the advent of county landfills.

The duPont-era trash encountered indicates this area was not seen as a sacred area during the duPont era. Discussions with duPont-era workers, however, do reveal that they knew the area was a burial ground. Limited sampling of this trash has yet to reveal any grave goods being placed in this area in the 20th century, such as wreath frames or mounts. It is of interest to note that before 1930, the Madison Family Cemetery was overgrown and the DAR hired a former enslaved individual, William Adams, as the caretaker for that cemetery. The majority of the trash found in the burial ground dates to the 1930s and later. We will continue to sample the 20th century duPont-era trash deposits for potential clues to the use of the burial ground in the Jim Crow era.

Through the 2023 season, we brought in specialists to conduct a floral survey of existing plants in the burial ground and a dendrochronology survey of the eastern portion of the woodlot.

The Center for Urban Habitats (CUH) conducted two plant surveys of the Burial Ground--one in late May for emergent species and another in late June for more hearty plants. This survey revealed that the eastern portion of the woodlot had a much less complex set of plants, which points to the impact of early 19th century plowing on this space. The western area (location of grave depressions) had more botanical complexity, but showed evidence of invasive species due to ground disturbance from its use as a cemetery. One of the primary invasive species observed in this area is periwinkle (Vinca minor) which is often associated with enslaved burial grounds. When CUH plotted the periwinkle, its location correlated closely with possible burials found by the GPR (note will add in map of periwinkle in GIS).

CUH also observed the presence of certain invasive brush species in the undergrowth which usually do not take hold unless the woodlot floor was kept open for a length of time. This suggests management of the woodlot and the burial ground during the 19th century that would have kept the area clear of brush. This would have encourage the growth of native plants that were observed in the woodlot.

Concurrent with the floral study, Dr. Dan Druckenbrod of Rider University conducted a dendrochronological survey of the eastern portion of the burial ground. In this study, standing trees were cored, and down trees had slices cut out to examine tree ring patterns. This study cross-dated trees with each other to confirm the age of the specimens sampled. The majority of the trees examined were in the portion of the burial ground that appears to have been plowed sometime in the 19th century. The dating of the trees in this section of the woodlot indicates a late 19th century age with the use of the area as a field before. This suggests the plowing occurred as late as the early to mid-19th century. Again, this begs the question as to whether the burial in the plowed section of the woodlot pre-date or post-date the use of the area as a field. This is one of the questions we will be seeking answers to in the 2024 season.

In addition to the GPR and MDS work, important clues come from the analysis of the landscape terrain. One of the principal means of observing landscape features is through LiDAR, which was conducted of the entire Montpelier property in 2018. LiDAR provides detailed mapping of the terrain, that allows very subtle surface features to be identified. These features can include edges of plowed fields, woodlines, fencelines, paths and more.

At the Burial ground site, one of the most prominent features is an ovular shaped linear landscape feature that encircles the grave depressions in the central portion of the burial ground. This linear feature shows up prominently both on the landscape and in LiDAR maps. The feature consists of a mound or berm along the southeastern circumference and a ditch along the northwestern circumference. This large landscape features matches an area shown on the 1908 map as a copse of woods. We have long assumed that this 1908 copse was comprised of older trees as as established woodlot. Recent landscape survey suggest that this area has never have been plowed, corroborating our hypothesis. Significantly, this ovular area contains the highest concentration of both visible burial depression and probable grave signals present in the GPR survey (see map below).

Interestingly, the mounding appears to be atop many of the grave signals. As such, the mound may post-date those burials. The question then arises: is this oval-shaped linear mound a landscape feature that was intentionally placed or one that formed as a result of being on the edge of a woodlot and a plowed field. Second, are there graves that were covered over by the mounding, and would this suggest a date for the landscape feature. Archaeological excavations would need to be performed in order to answer this question.

A second set of more subtle linear mounding appears to mark the edge of a field. The possible field line is highlighted in pink overlaying the 1908 map above and is subtly perceptible on the LiDAR map. As noted in the discussion of the GPR surveys above, the ground surface to the right of this line appears to be smoothed with evidence for plowing. To the left, there are more defined ground features, including higher concentrations of grave signals from the GPR surveys. During the metal detector surveys, Dennis located evidence for fencing materials in the area of this linear feature. Archaeological testing is needed to determine the extent of plow disturbance in this area, and the formation sequence of this linear feature.

One of the more revealed aspects of this landscape feature is its relationship to the burial ground. If, as oral history and earlier GPR surveys indicate, the burial ground extends into the field to the southwest and the creation of the 3600' foot landscape line post dates these burials, the reorganization of the landscape would have occurred without regard to the burial ground. Such as large landscape scheme would have been carried out at the bequest of the Madison family and would have served to obscure the burial ground.

This act takes on special meaning when we consider how the Madison Family Cemetery is defined on the landscape by a brick wall. This wall was built with bricks that are similar to those used in the 1809 wing additions to the main house, suggesting construction when Hugh Chisolm was working on the property as a mason. By 1809, the area around the old Mount Pleasant site was being plowed and the unmarked graves at the family cemetery might have been seen to be at risk. Based on findings from a 2008 GPR survey, this brick wall encloses all of the graves present at the site, with none being outside of the brick wall. As such, the act of building this brick wall around the Madison Family Cemetery would have not only provided a visual marker of the burials on the landscape, but also protected the site from any disturbances such as plowing.

In contrast, there are no physical markers at the Montpelier Burial Ground of the Enslaved. nor any physical delineation for the boundaries of the burial ground. This made the site very vulnerable to disturbances, most especially from expanding agricultural operations (plowing) into areas of burials. One of the questions we want to pursue through the 2024 excavation season is the intersection between the burial ground as a sacred space of the community and that of incursions from activities such as plowing.

The primary goal for the 2024 excavation season is to define the boundaries of the Montpelier Burial Ground of the Enslaved. The goals of this project are to ensure the exact extent of the burial ground is understood so this site can be protected in preparation for the planning a memorial to the enslaved. While the above surveys greatly improved our understanding of the potential for burials across a wide area, there remains a lack of definitive clarity on the presence of burials in several key areas and how far those burials extend. There are two areas with distinct characteristics in which the presence and extent of burials must be verified. These areas include: Field #1, which extends east of the woodlot towards the main house, and Field #2, which extends to the south towards the Home Farm and Mount Pleasant. These two areas will be tested separately and in sequence. The following sections define the survey and excavation strategies to be employed during the 2024 season based on previous results (discussed above).

The first sections we will be investigating is the area shown in the figure above as Field #1. As noted above, the GPR, metal detector, terrain and vegetation surveys suggest this area was plowed based on the following:

• GPR signals within this section of the project area lack definition at the top of the grave shaft which may be the result of plowing.
• Metal detector surveys within this area revealed the presence of a plow blade and deeper surface strata, including 18th-19th century nails, which all suggests a plowed context.
• Visual and LiDAR surveys show the terrain is remarkably smooth in this area: completely lacking any evidence of older tree throws and no visible surface grave shaft depressions. Plowing tends to obscure surface features.
• Vegetation surveys show a much lower density and diversity of native flora in this area that is likely reflective of the disruptive impact plowing has on indigenous species.
• Dendrochronology shows the hardwoods in this area date to the late 19th century with evidence for a remnant cedar thicket predating the hardwoods. Cedar thickets are a typical sequence for abandoned fields.

The presence of GPR signals that are suggestive of grave shafts raises important questions around how the historic use of this area as a plowed field intersects with the burial of community members within this space. We will be placing excavation units in areas where GPR has indicated burials to determine the following:

1. Do GPR signals represent grave shafts? The presence of grave shafts will be determined by excavating down to undisturbed subsoil to define the presence of the top of a grave shaft feature.
2. If the GPR signal is in the location of a grave shaft, are there other grave shafts nearby that were missed by the GPR survey? The presence or absence of these grave shafts will be determined by excavating units down to subsoil (or other intact surface) to determine the presence of the top of a grave shaft feature.
3. Is a plowzone (a thick layer formed from plowing) present in this portion of the site, and if so what is its relationship to any observed grave shafts? The relationship will be established by determining whether the grave shafts are below the plowzone (indicating the plow cut the top of graveshafts) or if the grave shafts cut into the plowzone. This will define the temporal relationship between the use of the site as a burial ground and its use as a plowed field.

Once we define the extent of graves in Field #1, we will turn our attention to defining the extent of the burial ground in Field #2. Field #2 contains two components--the former roadbed for Race Barn Road and the sloping field to its south.

As discussed above, Field #2 was originally identified as containing burials during interviews with former duPont workers. While interviewed, Buck Smith recalled that bones were encountered during plowing within this field in the early 1920s. In 2017, a cadaver dog survey provided a positive indication for human remains within this field. The 2018 GPR survey similarly revealed signals in this area with a high potential to represent grave shafts (see white dots in the map above).

However, the recent 2023 surveys did not give as strong of an indication for the presence of graves shafts in Field #2 as those found in the wooded areas to the north (woodlot and Field #1). Despite this, there were some weaker signals identified in the location of those previously identified in 2018.

Many of the potential burials identified during the 2018 survey are located along the edge of the roadbed for Race Barn Road. During the 1920s this area was stripped down to subsoil for the construction of the road. In 2019, the paved surface was removed down to the top of the roadbed fill to allow grass to grow. Archeological excavations of the road area will include testing the possible burials identified during the 2018 GPR along the old Race Barn Rd, as well as exploring the road bed itself. This will require the removal of any remaining construction-related layers within the old roadbed. Removing this overburden will allow us to answer the question: are there any intact grave shafts below the road bed, and what is the level of preservation?

Archaeological excavations within Field 2 will repeat the steps and protocols outlined above for the investigation of Field #1.

You can join us in this season of archaeology at the Burial Ground! We are running expeditions throughout the spring, summer, and fall. In addition to our expedition member community returning to help us understand this site, we are very excited to have members of the Montpelier Descendants Committee and descendants of the African Diaspora take part in the excavations at the site. For more information on our week-long programs, click on the button below:

In addition to our week-long programs, we are also hosting special day-long programs and open houses throughout the year. These include our Breaking Ground and Breaking Bread event for the African American community on April 27, open house on Juneteenth, and open house on Constitution Day.

We are also setting up a webcam at the site so that whenever we are at the site, community members can login and converse with archaeological staff. We will also digitally host open house events each month to provide highlights of the work we are conducting. We will provide a link to this site on this webpage.

Continue to check back on this webpage for developments as we will be updating this page!

We would like to acknowledge the following partners in making this work at the Montpelier Burial Ground of the Enslaved possible: