April 3, 2026: Revisiting the North Yard

By Iris Puryear

April 3, 2026

Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference in Gettysburg, VA, March 11-15.

Monticello’s North Yard, encompassing the area directly north of Thomas Jefferson’s mansion house, is one of two flanking yard spaces utilized by enslaved and free occupants of the plantation during and after Jefferson’s lifetime. Until recently, our understanding of the archaeological landscape in this area has been limited, largely due to the challenges of unprocessed legacy data (see Figure 1).

To date, the most comprehensive archaeological investigation of the North Yard was conducted in the 1980s under the direction of Dr. William Kelso. These excavations yielded hundreds of paper field records and over 100,000 artifacts collected over the course of five field seasons. The process of compiling and cataloguing this legacy collection is now nearly complete, the result of a long-term project undertaken by the Monticello Archaeology Department in 2019. Drawing from artifact data catalogued into the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS), this study offers a preliminary reanalysis of the North Yard assemblage with a focus on the chronology of the site’s southeastern excavation zone.

Research Questions

1. What characterizes the stratigraphy of the southeastern zone, and what processes of site formation shaped it?
2. What  can ceramic ware type and correspondence analyses tell us about the functional history of the site? Can we see evidence for change in yard space usage over time?

This proposed chronological framework utilizes ceramic ware type and correspondence analyses to examine the stratigraphic landscape of the southeastern area and evaluate four across-site historic strata identified in the 1980s. While preliminary, this work aims to establish a basic foundation upon which a more refined chronology of the site can be built, with the object of gaining new insight into the functional history of this yard space from the late 18th through 19th centuries. 

Documentary and Landscape History

The North Yard was physically and functionally shaped by its close association with the North Dependency Wing of Monticello mansion, which delineates the southern boundary of the yard space (Figures 2a-b).

Its history is also closely entwined with Jefferson’s evolving designs for the mountaintop landscape over the course of his lifetime. Execution of these designs necessitated several large-scale earth-moving events accomplished with the aid of enslaved labor, the foremost of which was the process of leveling the mountaintop surface. The initial phase of this monumental project took place ahead of construction on what would become the first iteration of Monticello mansion, or what is now referred to as “Monticello I" (Figure 3a).

As recorded in a letter penned in May of 1768, Jefferson instructed his chosen contractor at the time to facilitate the leveling of:

“250 f. square on the top of the mountain at the N.E. end by Christmas” (Bear and Stanton 1997)

This shred of correspondence from 1768, designating a “250 f. square,” is the only leveling campaign on the mountaintop documented in Jefferson’s lifetime. However, several decades of archaeological research have since demonstrated that the topography of the mountaintop today, consisting of a (considerably larger) 500’ leveled terrace, should largely be attributed to a second landscaping event that occurred decades later (Armstrong et al. 2025) (Figure 4).

This leveling was completed between 1796 and 1809 and coincided with construction on the final version of Monticello mansion, or “Monticello II” (Figure 3b). Integral to Jefferson’s vision for Monticello II was the installation of two L-shaped dependency wings, the northern of which was constructed between 1802 and 1809 (Neiman 2008). Building the partially subterranean wings represented a massive physical undertaking. It required laborers to excavate a deep vertical cut into the mountain slope, which could then be buttressed by a large stone retaining wall (O’Connor and Neiman 2022). The sediment displaced from this process was used to expand the dimensions of the East and West Lawns and is evidenced archaeologically by thick deposits of fill sediment that occur beneath the modern ground surface (Figure 4). Collectively, these large-scale earth-moving events not only impacted the area immediately adjacent to the North Wing, but also shaped the eastern edge of the North Yard space, which incorporates part of the leveled terrace for the East Lawn. 

Jefferson’s designs for the North Dependency also appear to have evolved over time, with some uncertainty as to the ultimate partition and function of the space (Figure 5). While 20th century interpretations of the wing have variously shifted, current consensus suggests the space was chiefly dedicated to carriage housing and served little to no domestic function (O’Connor and Neiman 2022). The wing additionally incorporated an ice house, as well as a wash house that operated in the basement of the North Pavilion for a period (Trist 1828). That the activity spaces comprising the dependency were primarily nondomestic in character is further corroborated by the lack of evidence for historic fireplaces in the structure (O’Connor and Neiman 2022).

After Jefferson’s death, the role of the North Wing under subsequent ownership in the latter 19th century is even less certain. Monticello’s second purchaser, druggist and entrepreneur James Barclay, inhabited Monticello for fewer than five years before selling the property to U.S. naval officer Uriah Phillips Levy in 1834 (Urofsky 2001). The Levy family intermittently occupied Monticello until ownership transferred to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation in 1923. Although evidence for the precise function of the North Wing in the Levy period is sparse, several first-hand accounts report the structure had deteriorated and the roof had collapsed by the late 19th century (Mesick Cohen Waite Architects 1992). Photographs of the mountaintop taken in the early 20th century, prior to reconstruction efforts, testify to this state of physical degradation (Figure 6).

The ultimate restoration of the wing, overseen by Milton L. Grigg and Fiske Kimball between 1938 and 1939, appears to have been largely informed by written documents (O’Connor and Neiman 2022). This interpretation stressed the wing’s primary function as a stable and incorporated a 60’ wide carriage turnaround, ideas drawn from Jefferson sketches dating to the late 1760s and 1780s (Figure 7). The history of the adjoining yard space in the post-Jefferson period is similarly unclear, although documents indicate the area was at least sporadically plowed for the purposes of agriculture and later land clearance (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Aerial image of the Monticello mountaintop, c. 1931, detailing the North Dependencies and North Yard (courtesy of Thomas Jefferson Foundation and Jefferson Library)

1980s Excavations

Extensive excavations of the North Yard space took place between 1985 and 1989 under the supervision of Dr. William Kelso and Barbara J. Heath. The primary object of this field work was to achieve a better understanding of yard usage in the Jefferson period and uncover evidence to corroborate or otherwise dispute the conclusions of Grigg and Kimball decades before (Figure 9). 

Field work centered on three major areas of excavation: (1) a southwestern zone adjacent to the North Wing, (2) a northern zone situated between the modern shuttle bus road and the First Roundabout, and (3) a southeastern zone focused on an area north of the privy in the dependency wing and the northern periphery of the East Lawn (Figures 10-11). In her 1989 site report, Barbara Heath summarized the landscape of the North Yard as “bounded to the east by a stone lined tunnel, and to the west by a subterranean barrier referred to by Jefferson as the ‘ha-ha’” (Heath 1989). The yard space adjacent to the wing was found to be thick with debris and household refuse, material which steadily decreased in density to the north and downslope. No evidence for a carriage turnaround was identified over the course of excavations, leading archaeologists to conclude that early plans for the road feature had never come to fruition (Heath 1989). 

Southeastern Zone Overview

The focus of this paper is the site’s southeastern zone, encompassing 31 variously sized units excavated between 1987 and 1988 and comprising roughly a third of the total excavated area (Figure 10, Figure 12). This area of the site was opened with the objective of expanding the area of investigation in search of the historically documented carriage turnaround. When this endeavor proved unsuccessful, research questions evolved to focus on two additional historic features that had been exposed in the process. The first was a Levy period fence line, consisting of a line of postholes that began at the corner of the North Privy and extended northeast along the perimeter of the East Lawn. The second was a stone masonry tunnel that integrated with the wall of the North Privy and continued approximately 40’ downslope to its northern terminus (Figure 11, left; Figure 12).

This is one of three such tunnels associated with a total of five privies that historically serviced the main house and flanking dependency wings. These subterranean features appear to have been uniquely designed by Jefferson to function as a ventilation system for the adjoining facilities (O’Connor and Neiman 2025). It is likely the North Yard privy tunnel was constructed during or shortly after the transition to Monticello II (c. 1796-1809). This is evidenced archaeologically by an associated builder’s trench that was found to intrude a surrounding deposit of Monticello II landscaping or construction fill (Figure 13).

Over 11,000 ceramic sherds have been catalogued from the southeastern excavation zone, amounting to nearly 60% of the project’s total ceramic assemblage to date. The sheer density of ceramic artifacts here is immediately notable for a yard space with no documented domestic function. Because of the relative isolation of the North Yard from other known living quarters and domestic workspaces on the mountaintop, it has often been assumed that much of this ceramic material represents Jefferson and Levy family refuse associated with elite dining activities in the main house (Fraser Neiman, personal communication 2025). This peculiarity may critically distinguish the North Yard from its counterpart to the south of the house, known as the “Kitchen Yard” (see Figure 2, left). The southern yard space, in contrast, was positioned at a crossroads of various domestic and industrial activity spaces in the South Wing, mansion house, and along Mulberry Row to the south.

Southeastern Zone Stratigraphic Groups

To better understand the depositional history of the southeastern zone, a limited number of stratigraphic groups (or “SGs”) were compiled, representing four historic strata that occurred across site. Building stratigraphic groups involves the grouping of individual contexts based on lithological homogeneity of sediments, and is one crucial strategy archaeologists can use to understand the wider stratigraphic landscape of a site. For this legacy study, SG designations were additionally informed by stratigraphic relationships, original excavator interpretations, and summary information provided in Heath’s 1989 site report. 

The following section includes descriptions for each SG and a proposed chronology supported by ceramic ware type data (see Table 1). Mean ceramic and terminus post quem (“date after which”) dates for respective strata are calculated using a weighted method that aims to discount outliers in an assemblage that may have been introduced by natural processes or excavation error. Blue (or “Best Linear Unbiased Estimate”) MCDs represent adjusted mean ceramic dates that weigh ware types with narrower manufacturing dates ranges more heavily relative to those with longer periods of production. TPQ 90 and TPQ 95 are terminus post quem values calculated based on the 90th and 95th percentile of the beginning manufacturing dates for all sherds in the assemblage (Wheeler and Sattes 2024). 

SG04: c. 1930-40s Buried A-Horizon

SG04 is here interpreted as a layer of buried A-horizon dating to reconstruction work in the late 1930s and early 1940s (Footnote 1). While absent from units to the north, this stratum was identified in both southern excavation zones. By virtue of their proximity to the North Wing, these areas suffered the most disturbance related to Grigg’s restoration efforts. In the southeastern zone, it occurs in units west of the privy vent tunnel as well as those directly incorporating this feature. Where uncovered, the layer was consistently sealed by one or more 20th century fill deposits and terminated on a layer of 19th century plowzone. While MCD and TPQ values for this layer chart relatively early, the scores represent some of the latest among all contexts in what is a heavily time-averaged area of the yard. Excavators also noted the presence of intrusive plow scars in at least one unit, perhaps associated with intermittent plow activity in the late Levy period.

SG03: Plowzone

SG03 is interpreted as a layer of 19th century plowzone and occurs across the North Yard in all excavation zones (Figure 14). It was typically sealed either by a layer of mid-century buried A-horizon (SG04), or an “A-Layer” that likely represents an extension of the modern A-horizon. With few exceptions, SG03 overlaid a layer of Jefferson-era landscaping fill. MCDs and TPQs for this stratum are heavily time averaged, reflecting the influence of earlier ceramic wares introduced by repeated plowing activity. This stratum yielded the largest proportion of ceramic material among stratigraphic groups included in this study.

SG02: Monticello II Fill

SG02 is interpreted as a layer of redeposited subsoil or “terracing fill,” likely associated with the processes of North Dependency construction and associated East Lawn leveling. This stratum underlies 19th century plowzone (SG03) and seals a buried A-Horizon interpreted as Jefferson period. Excavators frequently noted disturbance at the interface of this layer, mostly in the form of intrusive plow scars. This SG is unique to the southeastern third of the site, which encompasses an area adjacent to the subterranean Covered Passage as well as part of the East Lawn subject to Jefferson’s construction and leveling campaigns. If originally present in the northern and southwestern zones, evidence for this layer may have been erased by 19th century plowing or subsequent 20th century restoration and utility work in this area. In the southeast, the absence of this stratum from several units in the northeast is notable and may represent a northern limit to this landscaping fill (Footnote 2). The topography drops steeply in elevation in this area along an east-west trajectory in line with the northern terminus of the privy tunnel (Figure 15). It is equally possible that a shallower, northern edge to this fill was simply erased from these units by 19th century plowing. Weighted MCDs and TPQs for the stratum support a deposition date roughly contemporary with North Wing construction (Footnote 3).

SG01: TJ Buried A-Horizon

SG01 is interpreted as a layer of Jefferson period buried A-horizon. This layer appears isolated to the southeastern zone, where it was preserved by the Jefferson-era fill deposits that sealed it (i.e., SG02) (Figure 16; Footnote 4). The stratum was only fully excavated in a small number of units, and contamination in the form of intrusive plow scars was observed in three contexts. Although the sample size is small, both traditional and adjusted MCDs and TPQs nevertheless support the hypothesis that this surface was buried during the period of Monticello II construction. All contexts with ceramic assemblages for which dates could be calculated have a terminus post quem of 1775, including contexts for which no evidence of disturbance was noted.

Correspondence Analysis

One method that allows us to further evaluate the chronology of the southeastern zone and test the validity of our proposed stratigraphic groups is correspondence analysis. Drawing from contextual and ceramic ware type data, correspondence analysis is a multivariate statistical method that is used to pinpoint the position of individual assemblages along an underlying dimension of variation or gradient based on their relative type frequencies (O’Connor and Neiman 2024). Similarities and differences between context assemblages are gauged according to their relative proximity to one another on the resulting plot – in other words, points that cluster together are more similar than those with scores that situate them farther apart on the CA plot. 

The CA plot in Figure 17 shows Dimension 1 scores plotted against Dimension 2 scores for all contexts in the southeastern zone. In the left-hand plot, we see a linear cluster of similar contexts concentrated at the center right of the plot, while contexts with the most variability are more widely distributed to the left of the vertical dash line. The right-hand plot in Figure 17, which represents the same plot now applied to ware types, suggests that Dimension 1 on both plots is closely associated with time. It is clear, for example, that 18th century ceramics are largely grouped to the right of the image, while later 19th century wares are more prominent on the left. The ware type plot also highlights which types predominantly influence the position of contexts on the first plot. The role of time is more evident in this next image, which plots Dimension 1 scores against adjusted MCD scores for contexts (Figure 18). The regular, linear arrangement denotes a correlation between the two variables and supports the hypothesis that Dimension 1 represents time. 

This plot also functions as a useful tool for evaluating the temporal distribution of our four stratigraphic groups. Here, contexts with assigned SGs maintain the same position as on our original plot but are now color-coded by their respective SG designations (Figure 19). Contexts without assigned SGs have been eliminated from the image for visual clarity. The result offers a finer-grained picture of chronological relationships by breaking stratigraphic groups down to the context level. On the refined plot, the relative position of scores associated with SG01 and SG02 (Jefferson Buried-A and Monticello II Fill) show that some degree of vertical stratigraphy is preserved in the area, despite the level of disturbance noted in the field records. This suggests that time is at least partially expressed in the vertical stratigraphy of the southeast zone, if only in lower-level deposits. On the other hand, the simultaneous clustering of contexts from different SGs on the plot indicates the assemblage is still substantially time-averaged, with most contexts aggregating around an MCD of approximately 1800. Time averaging of post-Jefferson strata may be attributed to 19th century plowing and 20th century reconstruction work in the area, processes that naturally generate more homogenized assemblages. 

Having established the basic parameters of our CA plots, it’s possible to synthesize some of this information and consider how it might influence our understanding of yard space usage over time and space. Overall, the large proportion of scores at the bottom right of the Dim 1 x Blue MCD plot (Figure 18) denotes a concentrated period of ceramic deposition in the Jefferson era followed by a steep decline in the later 19th century. The same trend is reflected on this histogram plotting context Blue MCD by ceramic count density, which here simply represents a different method for visualizing temporal peaks of deposition (Figure 20). Again, it’s clear the highest peaks in ceramic density roughly coincide with the transition to Monticello II, when the North Wing was constructed, and the North Yard space came into de facto being. The sheer weight of 18th and early 19th century ceramic material is evidence the yard was intensively utilized in the Jefferson era, if only as a practical repository for domestic refuse. That later 19th century ceramics make up a smaller portion of the overall assemblage is perhaps not surprising, given Barclay’s short tenure on the property and the sporadic periods of occupation that characterized Levy ownership, during which time the wing itself eventually fell into disrepair. However, the outliers on our plots, contexts with scores associated with greater variability, may offer a more detailed picture of the North Yard after Jefferson’s death.

Detailed context data informs us that the most variable scores on the original Dim 1 x Dim 2 plot encompass a variety of different strata and assemblage sizes, implying that neither deposit type nor ceramic count are primary factors uniting these outliers (Figure 21). More significant here, perhaps, is that nearly all outlier contexts represent units that incorporate or lie adjacent to the privy tunnel feature. This pattern suggests the CA plot may additionally be showing us an aspect of time that is expressed in horizontal space, rather than strictly in vertical stratigraphy. 

Our ware type and Blue MCD plots have previously illustrated that one measure of variability that sets these outlier contexts apart is the larger proportion of later 19th century ceramics that make up their assemblages (Figure 22). A comparison of ware type counts for this subset of units with total counts for the southeastern zone reinforces this point (Table 2). The raw counts demonstrate that while Jefferson-era ceramic material is more equally distributed across the southeastern zone, later 19th century wares are disproportionately concentrated in the area of the North Privy tunnel. While Blue MCDs for privy tunnel area contexts still chart quite early, this is likely due to the mixed nature of the 19th and 20th century fill deposits that characterize this feature, which has resulted in substantial time averaging of these strata.

One way to further examine the spatial aspect of our data is to consider what factors specific to the privy tunnel area may contribute to the variability observed on our plots – and, by extension, what patterns of human behavior might be driving these trends. The temporal pattern observed above, reflecting a shift from a wider distribution of artifacts in the Jefferson period to a more concentrated locus of deposition in the later 19th century, may also be indicative of a change in yard space usage that occurred after Jefferson’s death.

The most obvious development to the area of the privy vent in the post-Jefferson period is that the masonry tunnel itself suffered collapse and ceased to function. Excavations in the 1980s confirmed the northernmost 14’ of the structure had likely collapsed by the late 19th or early 20th century (Heath 1989). The resulting depression was heaped with sediment and household refuse from the Levy period, debris layers later sealed by additional fill deposits during 20th century restoration work (Figure 23). That the collapse of the tunnel created a convenient repository for household refuse is not surprising, and this event may largely explain the greater number of later 19th century ceramics that comprise these assemblages. 

Another major change affecting the larger landscape after Jefferson’s death occurred with the advent of plowing. While Barclay undertook plowing for agricultural purposes, the continuation of the practice under Levy ownership seems to have been primarily in the interest of land clearance and yard maintenance (Fraser Neiman, personal communication 2025). In the vicinity of the privy tunnel, however, excavation records suggest part of this area may have been uniquely exempt from 19th century plow activity. While ubiquitous elsewhere, the plowzone stratum was found to terminate before the eastern and western limits of the feature in units south of ER 1212. Excavators believed this segment of the tunnel masonry was either shallowly buried or exposed above the historic ground surface, for which reason the area may have been strategically avoided by the plow share. If interpreted correctly, then the privy tunnel area was in some ways spatially differentiated from the agricultural and bushhogging activities that took place in the yard throughout the 19th century, a functional distinction that likely grew more pronounced in the aftermath of collapse. The lack of evidence for plowing also implies this part of the yard was unlikely to have been the focus of associated yard maintenance in the Levy era. Furthermore, photographs from the 1930s show the area obscured by a tangle of small trees and brambles, supporting the idea that it was neglected by late Levy period land clearance (Figure 24). Much of the overgrowth likely dates to the period after collapse but may have formed earlier if exposed masonry impeded plowing efforts.

This quality of functional isolation likely only contributed to the area’s appeal as a locus for trash disposal. Zooming in, this fact may also partially explain the disproportionate impact of Yellow Ware and Ironstone on the CA plot for ware types in the southeastern zone (see Figure 18). Returning to this plot, it is evident that these two ware types exert the most influence on the position of outliers on the context plot (Table 3). Yellow Ware and Ironstone both have manufacturing date ranges that begin in the mid-19th century, which aligns with our temporal understanding of the CA. However, it is notable that Whiteware and Porcellaneous—wares with similar manufacturing date ranges—are not as spatially isolated on the plot and appear more closely aligned with a majority of context assemblages. While time may still be a factor here, another attribute that might distinguish Yellow Ware and Ironstone is that these ware types tend to be associated with thicker-walled, bulkier vessels. Previous spatial analyses of yard spaces at Monticello and elsewhere have shown that larger artifacts tend to accumulate in peripheral areas as a result of clean-up and yard maintenance efforts over time. Smaller artifacts, in contrast, are more likely to amass in central areas of the yard space (Neiman 2020). This is likely both because smaller objects present less of an obstacle to activity spaces in the yard and because these fragments are naturally more difficult to collect and remove. It seems possible that the concentration of Yellow Ware and Ironstone observed in the area of the privy tunnel reflects a similar pattern of deposition that occurred in the Levy period. In this interpretation, larger refuse items may have been intentionally discarded in an area that, if not strictly “peripheral” in the spatial sense, was nevertheless functionally isolated from the activity of the larger yard space. The wider distribution of Whiteware and Porcellaneous, in contrast, may be because these thinner-bodied wares tend to fracture into smaller sherds and were less likely targets for yard clean-up.  

Conclusion

This study, while preliminary, highlights the research potential of applying modern analytical tools to the reassessment of legacy assemblages such as the North Yard. Reanalysis indicates the southeastern zone of the yard space functioned as a repository for household waste at Monticello from the time of its inception in the Jefferson period and continuing throughout the 19th century. While the rate of deposition steeply declined in the post-Jefferson era, it is notable that the yard continued to function in the same capacity well into the Levy period, even as it appears the North Wing itself fell into disrepair. Ceramic ware type and correspondence analyses also suggest the existence of a spatial and temporal component to the pattern of deposition in the southeastern zone. This pattern was characterized by a relatively wide dispersal of ceramic material in the Jefferson period, followed by a more isolated concentration of post-Jefferson artifacts in the area of the North Privy tunnel. This observation, while closely linked to the tunnel’s collapse in the late 19th or early 20th century, may also speak to differential yard space usage in the Barclay and Levy periods.

Future research should prioritize more comprehensive stratigraphic analysis that integrates the northern and western excavation zones, artifact cataloguing for which is nearly complete. The North Yard assemblage is perhaps most remarkable for its ceramics, to date constituting 21,382 sherds and roughly 20% of the total collection. Because of the relative isolation of the North Yard space, it is likely that much of this ceramic material originated in the mansion house and, as such, may speak to the particular dining habits of the Jefferson and Levy households. In this regard, the assemblage represents a promising subject for comparative analysis with other Monticello sites—the home sites and quarters that housed the majority of the plantation’s occupants, enslaved and free. More specifically, future study of detailed ceramic attributes such as pattern and decoration may help to establish the precise character of the North Yard ceramic assemblage. Such analysis has the potential to illuminate what attributes, if any, objectively distinguish the presumed “elite” ceramic refuse of the North Yard from other household assemblages. 

Acknowledgements

Thanks so much to the lab team - Corey Sattes, Chris Devine, and Miranda Leclerc. For all the math, thank you Fraser Neiman, Corey Sattes, and Derek Wheeler. Also thanks to Crystal O'Connor, and the field crew. Thanks to past catalogers, including but probably not limited to Allison Mueller and Camille Louis. Finally, thank you to Barbara Heath and the 1980s crew for their detailed notes, even under what seem to have been extenuating circumstances.

Footnotes

[1] It should be noted that original excavator interpretations often describe the stratum as “Levy period topsoil,” although a minority of records reference a later deposition date. In support of a mid-20th century date, it is noted that fill deposits overlying this layer contained modern artifacts such as foil and plastic and were themselves predominantly interpreted by excavators as “1930s-40s reconstruction fill.” Furthermore, the layer only occurs in areas heavily impacted by Grigg’s reconstruction work.

[2] ER units 1299, 1300, 1304, 1298, and 1131, respectively. Note that this stratum was also absent from units east of ER 1194—however, excavation records for this field season are sparse and it is possible the presence of this layer was simply not recorded, or was unrecognized by excavators at the time.

[3] While recent excavations on the mountaintop have identified fill deposits associated with Monticello I era landscaping, available evidence suggests SG02 fill exclusively dates to the period of Monticello II construction. This is supported by mean ceramic and terminus post quem dates for this stratum. Furthermore, no sediment change within this layer was noted in the field records, which might otherwise indicate the existence of multiple overlying fill deposits. 

[4] It is possible that some remnant of SG01 was originally present in the southwest, as the landscape in this area was also impacted during the period of Monticello II construction. If so, any evidence was likely eradicated by 19th century plowing and/or subsequent disturbance from 1930s reconstruction work. More recent excavations along the western edge of the North Yard space in 2014-15 similarly found no evidence for this stratum (O’Connor and Neiman, unpublished draft report on file with the Monticello Archaeology Department).

References

Armstrong, Mary, Elliot Alvey, and Josephine Schreiber. 2025. “Preliminary Analysis of Archaeology Findings from Monticello's Mountaintop Accessibility East Lawn Project.” Paper presented at the Archaeological Society of Virginia Conference, Staunton, Virginia, October 24-26, 2026. https://www.monticello.org/monticello-archaeology-news/armstrongetal. 

Bear, James A., and Lucia C. Stanton. 1997. Thomas Jefferson’s Memorandum Books: Accounts, with Legal Records and Miscellany, 1767-1826. Two volumes. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Second Series. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Heath, Barbara J. 1989. “A Report on the Archaeological Excavations at Monticello, Charlottesville, Virginia. 1985-1989: The North Yard.” On file at the Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Jefferson, Thomas. 1768-1770. Monticello: dependencies (study plans). N30; K8. Thomas Jefferson Papers: Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, Massachusetts. https://www.masshist.org/thomasjeffersonpapers/doc?id=arch_N30&query=N30&tag=text&arch ive=all&numRecs=718&num=10&rec=1. Accessed March 11, 2026. 

Jefferson, Thomas. 1768. Monticello: mountaintop layout (plan), before May 1768. N61; K34. Thomas Jefferson Papers: Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, Massachusetts. https://www.masshist.org/thomasjeffersonpapers/doc?id=arch_N61. Accessed March 11, 2026.

Jefferson, Thomas. 1783-1784. Miscellaneous Buildings: house and service areas (study plans), probably 1783- 1784. N449; K108. Thomas Jefferson Papers: Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, Massachusetts. https://www.masshist.org/thomasjeffersonpapers/doc?id=arch_N449&query=N449&tag=text&ar chive=all&numRecs=645&num=10&rec=1. Accessed March 11, 2026.

Jefferson, Thomas. 1802a. Letter to James Dinsmore, 19 March 1802. Founders Online, National Archive. Thomas Jefferson to James Dinsmore, 19 March 1802. Accessed March 11, 2026.

Jefferson, Thomas. 1809. Monticello: mountain (plat). N225; K169. Thomas Jefferson Papers: Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, Massachusetts. https://www.masshist.org/thomasjeffersonpapers/doc?id=arch_N225. Accessed March 11, 2026.

Trist, Nicholas P. 1828. Letter to Thomas Mann Randolph, 10 March, 1828. Nicholas P. Trist Papers, Library of Congress.

Mesick Cohen Waite Architects 1992. Monticello Historic Structure Report. Volume IV. Description and Analysis of Cellars and Dependencies. Prepared for Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation.

Neiman, Fraser D. 2008. “The Lost World of Monticello: An Evolutionary Perspective.” Journal of Anthropological Research 64, no. 2: 161–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20371222.

Neiman, Fraser D. 2020. “The Organization of Enslaved Householes at Site 6: Clues from Monticello and… Australia?” Monticello Archaeology News. October 21, 2020. Accessed March 7, 2026. The Organization of Enslaved Households at Site 6: Clues from Monticello and… Australia? | Monticello

Neiman, Fraser D. 2025. “The East Lawn Privy Tunnel: Insights from Geology.” Monticello Archaeology News. October 31, 2025. Accessed March 12, 2026.  https://www.monticello.org/monticello-archaeology-news/privyvent 

North Yard Project Excavation Records. 1987, 1988. On file with the Monticello Department of Archaeology. 

O’Connor, Crystal and Fraser D. Neiman. 2022. Archaeological Investigations of Monticello’s North Wing (44AB89). On file with the Monticello Department of Archaeology.

O’Connor, Crystal and Fraser D. Neiman. 2024. “Distinguishing Boundaries Among Households on Plowzone Sites: An Example from Monticello.” Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference in Williamsburg, Virginia, November 14-16, 2024. https://www.monticello.org/monticello-archaeology-news-2024/seac2024-oconnorneiman. 

Randolph, Martha J. Letter to Ellen Coolidge, 27 March, 1833. Founders Online, National Archive. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0383. Accessed 11 March, 2026.

Urofsky, Melvin I. 2001. The Levy Family and Monticello 1834-1923: Saving Thomas Jefferson’s House. Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Wheeler, Derek and Corey Sattes. 2024. “Reassessing the Chronological Boundaries of Monticello’s Mulberry Row, Charlottesville, Virginia.” Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference in Williamburg, VA, November 13-16, 2024. https://www.monticello.org/monticello-archaeology-news-2024/seac24-wheelersattes