Ivor Noël Hume
Index 113
Papers 52-54
On Archeology
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY:
PAPER 52
EXCAVATIONS AT CLAY BANK
IN GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, 1962-1963
_Ivor Noël Hume_
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 4
ARCHEOLOGICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL EVIDENCE 8
METHOD OF EXCAVATION 10
ARCHEOLOGICAL STRATIGRAPHY 11
THE ARTIFACTS 12
CONCLUSIONS 14
[Illustration: Figure 1.--DETAIL FROM AUGUSTINE HERMAN'S MAP OF
VIRGINIA which was published in 1673.]
_Ivor Noël Hume_
Excavations at
CLAY BANK
in Gloucester County, Virginia, 1962-1963
_This paper describes and analyzes artifacts recovered from
the Jenkins site at Clay Bank, Gloucester County, Virginia.
The building which overlay the excavated cellar hole does not
appear on any known map. Among the number of interesting objects
recovered was a large stem and foot from an elaborate drinking
glass or candlestick of fine quality English lead metal. It was
found in association with crude earthenwares, worn out tools,
and broken and reused clay tobacco pipes, suggesting that this
material was derived from various sources._
THE AUTHOR: _Ivor Noël Hume is director of archeology at Colonial
Williamsburg and an honorary research associate of the Smithsonian
Institution._
Early in January 1962 a brick foundation was discovered at Clay Bank
in Gloucester County following the removal of a walnut tree beside the
residence of Mr. William F. Jenkins. The tree was of no great antiquity
but the foundation beneath it was thought by Mr. Jenkins to be worthy
of archeological examination. The author, therefore, visited the site
late in the same month and found that the brick footings were certainly
of colonial date. From the small collection of ceramics and other
artifacts also exposed by the tree, there was reason to suppose that
the building had ceased to exist late in the 17th or perhaps early in
the 18th century.
The site lay on the north bank of the York River on rising ground
immediately west of Clay Bank landing. Little or nothing was known
about the property in the colonial period and it was apparently
identified on no known maps or land plats. However, the fact that it
was adjacent to part of the 18th-century Page family plantation (whose
mansion house had been included in previous archeological work[1])
and because the Clay Bank site gave promise of yielding information
regarding domestic life in the late 17th century, the author decided to
undertake limited excavation in the area of the structure.
With the assistance of local volunteer labor and the archeological
staff of Colonial Williamsburg, two trenches were dug, one exposing a
larger area of the brick foundation, and the other parallel to it some
11 feet to the west in the direction of the river. The first cutting
revealed the remains of a massive brick chimney measuring 10 feet 2
inches by 6 feet using oystershell mortar and laid in English bond. The
brickwork was not bonded to, or abutting against, any wall foundation
and it was therefore presumed that the building to which it belonged
had stood on piers.
The second trench cut through mixed strata of sand, black soil, and
scattered oystershells extending downward to a depth of at least 3 feet
9 inches, at which level a thick layer of shells was found. In the top
of the shell stratum were fragments of glass wine bottles of the late
17th century and parts of an iron can. It was clear that the trench
was not wide enough to enable the artifacts to be studied in situ or
removed in safety, and consequently work was halted until the project
could be developed into an area excavation.
Both the stratigraphy and the similarity in date of artifacts from top
to bottom of the test trench strongly indicated that we were cutting
through one deposit, probably the filling of a cellar belonging to
the same building as the large brick chimney to the east. Remembering
the huge quantities of artifacts that had been recovered from a
single hole at neighboring Rosewell, it was hoped that yet another
significant contribution would be made to the archeology of colonial
Virginia. But in the final analysis the Clay Bank site was to prove
less rich and less historically important (owing to a lack of adequate
documentation) than had been anticipated. On the credit side, however,
it did contribute new facts relating to building construction in
17th-century Virginia, as well as yielding a series of closely dated
tools and miscellaneous artifacts, plus one piece of glass that is not
only without parallel in America, but which is of sufficient importance
to merit a place in the annals of English glass. For this one object
alone, the Clay Bank project would have been eminently worthwhile.
Historical Background
Archeology may be termed the handmaiden of history in that it is truly
the servant of the historian, providing information that is not to
be gleaned from documentary records. At best it is a poor substitute
for the written word, but when the two are used together the pages of
history may acquire an enlivening new dimension. This is particularly
true of American colonial history where the documentation often is
extremely full.
Unfortunately Gloucester County was one of those whose Court Records
were destroyed during the Civil War, and it is difficult and often
impossible to establish property histories over an extended period
of time. However, it is debatable just how much of the blame can be
laid at the doors of war, as many of the county's colonial records
had already been destroyed in a fire at the clerk's office of the
Gloucester courthouse in 1820.
No acceptable evidence has been found to definitely identify the
original owner or the name of the building revealed by the 1962
excavations, though it has been supposed that the adjacent "Ardudwy"
(the present home of Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins) was originally named "New
Bottle" and was built by Robert Porteus at the beginning of the 18th
century. It was hoped that artifacts found on the site might provide
evidence to support the Porteus association, but nothing conclusive
was forthcoming. The only conceivable shred of evidence, thin to the
point of transparency, was provided by a handsome 17th-century latten
spoon bearing a thistle as its touchmark, suggesting, perhaps, that
it was made by a Scots craftsman. As the family of Edward Porteus,
the emigrant and father of Robert Porteus, came from New Bottle
in Scotland, it might be argued that the spoon was among Edward's
possessions when he arrived in Virginia. Such a deduction is readily
assailable, but it is no more so than much other "documentation"
relating to the Porteus family in Virginia.
The distinguished Gloucester County historian, Dr. William Carter
Stubbs undertook considerable research into the history of the
Porteus family, the results of which may be summarized as follows:
Edward Porteus was living in Gloucester County by 1681 in which year
he married the widow of Robert Lee. He died in 1694 leaving a widow
and one son, "Capt." Robert Porteus who became heir to "New Bottle"
plantation. Robert married the daughter of John Smith of "Purton" and
after her death he married a daughter of Governor Edmund Jennings of
"Rippon Hall" in York County. His two wives bore him 19 children, the
best known of whom was Beilby Porteus who was born in 1731 after Robert
had returned to England (in about 1727) to live at York. Beilby Porteus
became Bishop of Chester and then of London, and died in 1808. Robert
lived on in York until his death in 1758.[2]
The location of "New Bottle" has been the subject of dispute for many
years, and as the recent excavations have done nothing to resolve
the matter, it is not necessary to explore the conflicting opinions
and evidence in detail. It is enough to recall that the _Vestry Book
of Petsworth Parish_[3] clearly places Robert Porteus in the Second
Precinct which extended from Bennit's Creek up the York River to Jones'
Creek. The First Precinct had begun at Clay Bank Creek and had reached
to Bennit's Creek. Today most of these names have been changed; Clay
Bank Creek is marked as Aberdeen Creek, the creek at Clay Bank which
was apparently originally known as Bennit's Creek now has no name at
all, and only Jones' Creek remains the same.
The only extant map that shows both Clay Bank Creek and Bennit's Creek
is the Augustine Herman map of Virginia and Maryland published in 1673
(fig. 1). But this shows Bennit's Creek as being as long as the present
Jones' Creek, while the latter is omitted from the map altogether.
However, as the parish records delineating the bounds of the precincts
in 1709 refer to both Bennit's Creek and Jones' Creek there cannot
have been any confusion between them. It is therefore reasonably well
established that the Porteus property lay between those creeks, which
would place it north of the modern community of Clay Bank and south of
Jones' Creek. Although it has not been proved that the Porteus land
included the York River frontage, it is reasonable to suppose that it
did. Thus, if that conjecture is accepted, it becomes highly probable
that the present "Ardudwy" and the adjacent early foundation are on
what were once Porteus acres.[4] The Porteus family continued to own
this or other land in the Second Precinct until at least 1763 as the
bounds of that precinct were ordered to be processioned in 1751,
1755, 1759 and 1763 beginning "on the Land of Robt Porteus Esqr."[5]
As Robert Porteus never returned to Virginia after 1727 and died in
1758, it must either be assumed that the plantation was taken over by
a son or that it was operated by a tenant or manager on "Capt." Robert
Porteus' behalf. In the absence of any other documentation indicating
the presence of any members of the Porteus family in Gloucester after
October 1725,[6] the latter construction seems most reasonable. The
continuing references to Robert Porteus' land in the Second Precinct
until 1763 may be explained as referring to the estate of the late
Robert Porteus.
[Illustration: Figure 2.--PLAN OF EXCAVATIONS in relation to the
existing house.]
[Illustration: Figure 3.--PLAN OF EXCAVATED AREAS and structural
remains.]
Even if the modern Jenkins property is accepted as having been part
of the Porteus plantation it does not necessarily follow that either
the excavated foundation or the much modernized "Ardudwy" represent
the remains of the Porteus house. However, there may be some grounds
for arguing that the foundation and cellar hole were part of the house
of Edward Porteus the emigrant. According to legend, Robert Porteus'
property had once belonged to a Dr. Green at whose house Nathaniel
Bacon died in 1676.[7]
Clues to the appearance of Robert Porteus' house are provided by an
entry in the _Petsworth Parish Vestry Book_ for November 12, 1704.
There it was recorded that the churchwardens drew up an agreement "...
wth Ezra Cotten for ye building of a gleebhouse & a kitchen ye Sd house
to be of ye Same Dementions as Mr Robt Pourtees. & to be framed on
Good white oak Sills and to Stand upon blocks & to be lathd. wth Goo[]
oak lathes and Shingled wth Good Siprus Shingles The Sd house to be 36
foot in Length & 20 foot wide, ye Roof to be 18 Inches Jet and to have
two outside Chimnies and two Closets adjoyning to them, and all things
Ells pertaining according to ye Dementions of ye above Sd Robt Pourtees
house, Viz, ye above Sd Kitchin to be foot Long & foot wide"[8]
The two important features of these instructions are the measurements
of the building and the fact that it was raised on blocks and,
therefore, did not have a walled basement beneath it. But while the
measurements are stated to be those of the Porteus House, it does not
necessarily follow that the elevation of the glebe house on blocks also
drew its precedent from that source.[9] However, if it did, then the
modern "Ardudwy" could not have been the Porteus home as this building
not only measures 47 feet 3 inches by 15 feet 10 inches, but it is also
built over a substantial brick-walled basement. On the other hand, the
excavated cellar hole (though apparently having ended its life prior to
about 1700) was almost certainly part of a building built on blocks or
piers.
It seems reasonable to suggest that Ezra Cotten was assumed by the
churchwardens to know more about the Porteus House than was given
in their specifications, in which case it might be supposed that he
had actually built that house. By extension it might also be assumed
that the job had been completed a comparatively short while before
the building of the glebe house was proposed. Therefore, if it can
be established that Robert Porteus built himself a new house not too
long before November 1704, it would probably follow that he had lived
in his father's old house until that time. If Edward's house was then
destroyed, it would certainly add further support to the theory that
the excavated remains are part of that building.
Unfortunately, there seems little likelihood of obtaining any
additional information regarding either the site of, or the appearance
of Robert Porteus' house. The glebe house does not survive, having
been abandoned in 1746,[10] and the only other potential source of
information has seemingly been lost. The Reverend Robert Hodgson in his
_The Life of the Right Reverend Beilby Porteus_[11] stated that the
bishop possessed "... a singular picture which, though not in the best
style of coloring, was yet thought valuable by Sir Joshua Reynolds, as
a specimen of the extent which the art of painting had reached at that
time in America: and he himself very highly prized it, as exhibiting a
faithful and interesting representation of his father's residence."
This last statement is assumed to be hearsay as Beilby Porteus was born
in England in 1731 and did not, as far as we know, ever visit Virginia.
Attempts to find the picture have met with no success[12] and in all
probability it has long since been destroyed or at best, robbed of its
identity.
Archeological and Architectural Evidence
It is not within the purpose of this paper to include an architectural
study of "Ardudwy." Neither the building's measurements nor its
basement lend credence to the belief that it was once the home of
Robert Porteus. In addition, the 1704 specification called for exterior
chimneys while those of "Ardudwy" are interior. The basement walls use
shell mortar and include bricks of widely varying sizes, but although
many of them have an early appearance, they may well have been reused
from elsewhere. Interior details such as mantels and doors would seem
to date from the early 19th century. What little of the framing that is
visible is pegged but is liberally pierced with both wrought and cut
nails. All in all, it seems probable that "Ardudwy" was built in the
very late 18th or early 19th century. Archeological evidence supports
this belief in that the property is richly scattered with artifacts
of the late 17th century and of all dates after about 1800, but has
yielded very few items that can be attributed to the 18th century.
All appearances point to the abandoning of the immediate area as a
habitation site after the destruction of the excavated building around
1700. The subsequent building of "Ardudwy" so close to the early house
may be assumed to be coincidental, though the site is certainly a
desirable and obvious location for a residence.
Little information as to the above ground appearance of the
17th-century structure was forthcoming, partly because it had almost
certainly stood on piers or blocks, and partly because the excavations
were restricted by limitations of time, labor, and the desire of the
owners to retain at least something of their garden. Neither extensive
probing nor a soil resistivity survey revealed evidence of a second
chimney, nor did they give any clues as to the total length or breadth
of the cellar hole. The back wall of the chimney had been deliberately
dismantled and only a thin skin of brickbats and mortar on the bottom
of the robber trench survived to mark its position. It is therefore
quite possible that another chimney was dismantled with sufficient
completeness to elude discovery by either of the exploratory methods
used.
[Illustration: Figure 4.--THE CHIMNEY and underhearth foundation.]
The jambs of the partially surviving chimney (fig. 4) were laid in
English bond and were 1 foot 7 inches thick and 4 feet 4 inches
long.[13] The interior width of the fireplace measured 7 feet, which
was large by 18th-century domestic standards, but not uncommon in the
17th century before separate kitchens became the rule.[14] Both jambs
were built into the side of the cellar hole and were seated on a bed of
small rocks, but the robbed back-wall had rested only on the natural
sandy clay at a depth of 2 feet 3 inches below the modern grade. In
front of the chimney, and rising from the cellar floor, was a massive
brick-walled underhearth 7 feet 6 inches wide and projecting out from
the fireplace to a distance of 5 feet.
A curious and still unexplained feature of the underhearth was a 4-by
3-inch channel running across the top of the surviving foundation for a
distance of 6 feet 9 inches, starting at the south face and terminating
9 inches short of the north. This channel had been bricked over and the
remaining bricks had dropped into it (fig. 5) presumably after a wooden
beam, which once occupied the space, had rotted or burned out. Traces
of burned or carbonized wood lay on the clay bottom of the channel, but
the bricks over it displayed no evidence of fire. The only conceivable
explanation for the presence of the wood must be that it was part of
a frame used to hold the block of natural sandy clay together while
the underhearth wall was being erected around it. As the underhearth
foundation would have originally risen at least another 2 feet 6 inches
above the timber to the floor level of the house, the wood would not
have been in danger of igniting from the heat of the domestic fire. But
if the house ultimately burned, it is possible that the exposed end of
the timber might have caught fire and slowly been consumed along its
entire length.
The cellar hole had been cut into natural sandy clay to an average
depth of 5 feet 3 inches below the modern grade. Its backfilling was
predominantly of the same sandy clay and, consequently, the exact edge
of the cellar hole was sometimes hard to determine. It was probably
because of this similarity between the natural subsoil and the cellar's
fill that the feature failed to show up in the soil resistivity survey.
Owing to previously mentioned limiting factors, only the southeast
corner of the cellar hole was found and only parts of the south and
east walls were traced out. Consequently, it can merely be said that
the cellar exceeded 27 feet in east/west length and 11 feet 2 inches in
width (fig. 3).
Three post holes were found against the south face, while the rotted
remains of another vertical post were found north of the chimney
supporting a much-decayed horizontal board that had served to revet the
east face. A broad-bladed chisel (fig. 14, no. 6) was found behind the
board where it had probably been lost while the timbering was being
installed.
Further slight traces of horizontal boards were found along the south
face, suggesting that the soft sides of the large cellar hole had been
supported in this way. But it was not possible to determine whether
the boards had been placed only on sections of the wall that seemed in
danger of sliding in or whether the entire interior had been sheathed
with planks. The south side of the cellar hole sloped outwards at an
approximate 65 percent angle and the traces of boards lay against
it.[15] However, it was not possible to tell whether the vertical posts
had been similarly sloped, but it is reasonable to assume that they
would have done so.
[Illustration: Figure 5.--DETAIL OF COLLAPSED BRICKS in the
underhearth. (_Photo courtesy of E. DeHardit._)]
Parts of the cellar's wooden floor still survived (figs. 6 and 7)
and comprised boards ranging in width from 5 to 7 inches laid over
sleepers or joists 4 to 6 inches wide. The height of the underlying
timbers could not be determined as the weight of the cellar fill might
be assumed to have pressed the floorboards down as the wood of the
sleepers decayed. Only occasional floorboards survived and the channels
left by decayed sleepers did not extend across the full width of the
excavated cellar. From these facts it was deduced that the boards had
been cut from woods of different types, some of which had decayed more
completely than others, and that the sleepers were made from short and
sometimes roughly cut lengths of timber. These sleepers may, in fact,
have served only as a base for anchoring the ends of floorboards, as
was certainly the case northwest of the underhearth where the nails
from the ends of five boards had dropped through into the channel
left by the decayed sleeper. It may be supposed, therefore, that the
sleepers' location would have been dictated by the vagaries of board
length rather than by the design of a planned, measured foundation and
that they served as ties for the floor, rather than joists raising it
off the natural clay beneath.
In addition to the remains of the carefully laid floor, another
much-decayed board, 10 inches wide, and of uncertain thickness, was
found running north/south immediately west of the underhearth. This
board was partially covered by mortar, suggesting that it had been set
on the dirt during the building of the brick structure.
The filling of the cellar in the vicinity of the chimney and
underhearth comprised a single massive deposit of sandy clay, scattered
through which were numerous iron nails, isolated oystershells and
occasional fragments of pottery, glass, and tobacco-pipe stems. A
similar unified filling was encountered at the western end of the
excavation, but towards the middle a large and irregular deposit of
oystershells was sealed within the sand at a depth of 4 feet 6 inches
sloping upward to 3 feet 6 inches towards the south wall. The shell
layer averaged from 6 to 9 inches in thickness and was found to contain
many of the more important artifacts.
[Illustration: Figure 6.--REMAINS OF WOODEN FLOOR BOARDS in the cellar.
(_Photo courtesy of E. DeHardit._)]
On the wooden floor of the cellar lay a thin 1/2-to 1-inch layer of
wood ash, mortar, and occasional brickbats. Had this accumulation been
considerably thicker it might have suggested that the building above
had been destroyed by fire. But although the presence of this skin of
debris could not be explained, it was far from sufficient to support
such a conclusion.
The topsoil over the entire area had been disturbed to a depth of at
least 1 foot, presumably by deep plowing. Over the cellar fill, humus
and a sandy loam extended to a depth of 1 foot 8 inches at the south
edge and to 2 feet 1 inch in the middle. The bottom of this stratum
contained nothing but late 17th-or early 18th-century artifacts,
including an important and well-preserved latten spoon.[16] A small
19th-century disturbance cut into the south cellar edge towards the
west end of the excavation, but caused little disturbance to the main
fill. Another, much larger, late 19th-century trash deposit had been
dug into the fill to the northwest of the chimney and this had reached
to a depth of 3 feet 6 inches below the modern grade. The removal of
the walnut tree had created a similar disturbance immediately south of
the refuse deposit, while a trench for a 20th-century water pipe had
cut yet another slice through the same area. None of these disturbances
had caused any damage to the lower filling of the cellar.
DATING EVIDENCE FOR THE CELLAR
The majority of the excavated artifacts were scattered throughout
the cellar fill and were of similar types from top to bottom of
the deposit. These objects included wine-bottle and drinking-glass
fragments, potsherds of English and perhaps Portuguese tin-enamelled
earthenware, and more that 600 tobacco-pipe fragments, all of them
indicating a terminal date of about 1700. A quantitative analysis of
the tobacco-pipe stem fragments using the Binford formula[17] provided
a mean date of 1698.
Method of Excavation
Digging was initially confined to the immediate vicinity of the chimney
foundation (Area B on fig. 3) and to the previously described test
trench (A). An east/west trench (D) was next dug to link the two and to
isolate the disturbed areas of the tree hole and 19th-century pit in
Areas C and G.
Owing to a shortage of labor and the rigors of the weather, it
was necessary to confine the digging to small areas which could be
completed in a single day's work. Consequently, it was not possible
to clear the whole area, as one part would be back-filled during the
digging of the next. Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins, the owners of the property,
were extremely tolerant of the damage that was done to their gardens,
but after the clearance of the large area E, they indicated that the
project had gone far enough. Nevertheless, they were persuaded to
permit the cutting of another smaller test area to the west (F), but
when this, too, failed to find the westerly extremity of the cellar,
the project was abandoned. Subsequently, relatives of the owners
cut into the exposed north face of area E and extracted a number of
potsherds and other fragmentary objects from the sand filling.[18] The
undercutting of the bank extended to a distance of 1 foot 6 inches
without encountering the north edge of the cellar, thus showing that
the total width was in excess of 14 feet.
Extensive probing all around the total area of excavation failed to
produce any further traces of the building, though the 1 foot 8 inches
of topsoil and sandy loam was found to be bedded on numerous small
deposits of oystershells and scattered brickbats. Test holes found that
all the located deposits north and west of the existing house had been
laid down or disturbed in the 19th century. Five test traverses with a
soil resistivity meter west and south of the excavation area produced
numerous anomalies which, when checked out, all failed to be associated
with the 17th-century cellar. It seemed that the misleading readings
were caused by variations in the density and moisture-retaining
qualities of the natural sandy clay subsoil.
Early in 1963, while planting a small tree to the south of the
existing house, Mr. Jenkins encountered a stratum of oystershells at
approximately 8 inches below the present grade. (Fig. 2, Area K.)
A series of small test holes was subsequently dug to the south and
southeast of the house, and showed that the layer of shells (average
thickness 4 inches) overlay the subsoil and was spread over an area at
least 15 by 10 feet. A small number of 19th-century pottery fragments
were found mixed into the stratum, but the vast majority of the
artifacts comprised bottle glass and earthenwares of similar types to
those encountered in the cellar hole excavation.[19] The most important
item was a pewter spoon handle of late 17th-century character (fig.
15, no. 27) stamped with the initial "M." The presence of this obvious
domestic refuse was not satisfactorily explained, but it is concluded
that it was originally deposited on the land surface and later
disturbed by cultivation.
[Illustration: Figure 7.--REMAINS OF DECAYED BOARD on floor in front of
underhearth. (_Photo courtesy of E. DeHardit._)]
Landscaping work towards the York River west of the house had yielded
a few widely scattered fragments of colonial and Indian pottery as
well as numerous 19th-century sherds. The colonial material was
predominantly of late 17th-or early 18th-century date, but two sherds
of Staffordshire combed dishes were of a type unlikely to date before
about 1720. No archeological digging was undertaken in these areas.
Archeological Stratigraphy
Each excavated area was given an identifying letter (fig. 3) and
each stratum a number. Thus an artifact marked "B2" was found in the
archeological area that contained the chimney and was recovered from
the top stratum of sandy loam and clay. It should be noted that not
all layers and deposits tabled below were encountered in any one
excavation area, while some were confined to single locations.
1. Topsoil and brown loam to 1 foot 8 inches over cellar hole.
2. Sandy loam merging into top of sandy clay fill or silting,
spreading over edges of cellar hole and sealing the chimney
remains. About 1690-1700 with some top disturbance.
3. Main sandy clay fill, extending to oystershell deposit in
central areas. About 1690-1700.
3A. Sandy clay fill extending to within 6 inches of floor in Area
B, against wall north of chimney. The same as Strata 3-5 but
without the oystershell layer that divided them elsewhere.
About 1690-1700.
3B. Sandy clay as above, but from areas where Stratum 4 was absent.
About 1690-1700.
4. Oystershell deposit in Areas A, C and E, sealed by sandy clay
Stratum 3. About 1690-1700.
5. Sandy clay under oystershell layer, reaching to cellar floor.
About 1690-1700.
6. Ash and sand layer on remains of cellar floor; principal
artifacts concentrated against south face of cellar hole in
Areas D and E. About 1690-1700.
6A. Similar layer to Stratum 6, confined to Area B north of the
chimney and underhearth foundation. About 1690-1700. (The same
number is given to a chisel found behind a horizontal wall
board at this level, but which may have been deposited when the
cellar was built rather than at its date of abandonment. Fig.
14, no. 6.)
7. Objects lying in slots left by rotted-floor sleepers. About
1690-1700.
8. Late disturbance at southwest corner of excavation, Area E.
19th century.
9. 3-inch layer of light-grey soil beneath Stratum 2 extending
down to top of oystershell layer (4) from southwest; confined
to Areas E and F. About 1690-1700, possibly disturbed at upper
west edge.
10. Unstratified material from all areas of the cellar-hole
excavation, derived from frost disturbances and the results of
removing the walnut tree.
11. Finds from oystershell and artifact layer beneath topsoil
southeast of the existing house. About 1690-1700 with a few
much later intrusions. (Area K, fig. 2.)
12. Surface finds recovered from field west of existing house.
The Artifacts
The collection of objects from the Clay Bank cellar hole is important
for a small number of rare items and because the deposit provided
accurate dating for a much larger group of less impressive artifacts.
Unfortunately, neither category included pieces that were of much help
in establishing anything of the history of the property.
A small cannonball of the 3-pound type used by light fieldpieces of the
minion class was found in the top of the sand stratum (D3) against the
south face of the cellar. Guns of this caliber may well have been used
during Bacon's Rebellion, and there might be some who would care to use
the excavated ball to support the legend that Bacon died at Clay Bank.
The ball, it has been argued, could have been left behind by Bacon's
forces when they vacated the site in the fall of 1676. However, such a
conjecture, based on so little evidence, can hardly be taken seriously.
The single clue pointing to a Porteus family association, the latten
spoon with its presumed Scottish mark, hardly merits any more serious
consideration than the cannonball. Somewhat more tenable, however, may
be the suggestion furnished by two artifacts, that the cellar hole was
in the vicinity of a cooper's workshop. The objects in question were
a "chisel" (fig. 14, no. 7) used specifically for driving down barrel
hoops, and a race knife (fig. 12, no. 3), a tool frequently used by
coopers to mark the barrels. No documentary evidence has been found to
indicate the presence of a cooper in the Second Precinct of Petsworth
Parish in the late 17th century though the Vestry Book does contain an
entry for October 4th, 1699, ordering an orphan to be indentured to a
cooper in King and Queen County.[20]
Other tools from the Clay Bank cellar included spade and hoe blades,
a large wedge, and a carpenter's chisel, a range of items that did
nothing to support a coopering association, but which did tend to
indicate that the artifacts might have come from a variety of sources.
The pottery included a high percentage of coarse earthenwares, among
which were fragments of two, or possibly three, lead-glazed tygs and
a similarly glazed cup (fig. 15, nos. 7, 8, and 9), all objects that
would have been best suited either to a yeoman's household or to a
tavern. The large quantity of tobacco-pipe fragments present might
support the latter construction but the dearth of wine-bottle pieces
does not. Numerous fragments of English delftware were found scattered
through the filling from top to bottom, most of them in very poor
condition. While none of the pieces was of particularly good quality,
a medium-sized basin with crude chinoiserie decoration in blue, is
of some importance. The vessel (fig. 15, no. 1) is of a form that
is extremely rare from the 17th century, but which clearly was the
ornamental ancestor of the common washbasins of the 18th century.[21]
In marked, and even staggering contrast to the assemblage of cheap and
utilitarian earthenware, was the presence of a massive lead-glass stem
from a "ceremonial" drinking glass or candlestick, a form undoubtedly
made in London in the period 1685-1695 (fig. 10). Although the
double-quatrefoil stem units and central melon knop are paralleled by
existing glasses, the heavily gadrooned foot is seemingly unknown.
This last feature gives the foot such weight that it has led Mr. R. J.
Charleston, Keeper of Ceramics at the Victoria and Albert Museum in
London, to suggest that the stem may come from a candlestick (fig. 11)
rather than from a large, covered glass. However, no parallels for such
a candlestick are known.
One might be tempted to believe that a glass candlestick would be
more likely to have been brought to 17th-century Virginia than would
a seemingly pretentious, covered, "ceremonial" drinking-glass. But in
1732, Thomas Jones[22] of Williamsburg made a settlement upon his wife
in case of his death, and among the possessions listed were "6 glass
decanters, 6 glasses with covers...."[23] Covered glasses ceased to
be popular after about 1720 when fashions in glass were turning from
the icy sparkle of mass towards more delicate and lighter designs. It
is possible, therefore, that the Jones' glass might have been of the
general type indicated by the Clay Bank stem. But be this as it may,
there is no doubt that the excavated stem is the finest piece of glass
of its period yet discovered in America, and that it is sufficiently
important to be able to add a paragraph to the history of English glass.
Other glass objects included the powdered remains of a small
quatrefoil-stemmed wineglass, a form common in the period
1680-1700.[24] Like so many glasses of its type, the metal was
singularly impermanent when buried in the ground, and little or nothing
could be salvaged of it. Also present were fragments of at least seven
wine bottles of the short-necked, squat-bodied forms of the late 17th
century, as well as one fragment of a short-necked and everted-mouthed
case bottle. A few fragments of cylindrical pharmaceutical bottles
were also found as was a well-preserved bottle of similar metal but
in wine-bottle shape (fig. 9 and fig. 15, no. 19). Such bottles are
thought to have been used for oils and essences, and their manufacture
seems to have been confined to the period about 1680-1720.
Tobacco-pipe fragments (fig. 16) were plentiful throughout the cellar
fill and provided a useful range of bowl forms as well as a key to
the dating of the deposit. All the bowls were of types common in the
last years of the 17th century, a period in which the two English bowl
styles of the second half of the century (one evolving with a spur and
the other with a heel) merged together into the single spurred form
of the 18th century.[25] In addition, the Clay Bank cellar contained
examples of bowls with neither heel nor spur, a style never popular in
England, and which seems to have been developed specifically for the
American market initially copying the shape favored by the Indians.
No fewer than 648 stem fragments were recovered from the cellar
and their stem-hole diameters, using J. C. Harrington's chart,[26]
indicated a manufacture date in the period 1680-1710. Because pipes
are considered to have had a short life, it is generally assumed that
the dates of manufacture and deposition are not far apart. Other
artifacts from the deposit, notably the large glass stem, the wine
bottles, small wineglass and, of course, the pipe bowl shapes, together
suggested a terminal date for the group within the period 1690-1700.
Using the Binford formula,[27] the 648 stem fragments suggested a
mean date of 1698. Experience has shown that the formula is likely to
be accurate to three or four years either way on a sampling of that
size.[28]
The presence of the same maker's initials, I·F, on pipe bowls at
different levels of the cellar fill strongly pointed to a homogeneity
of deposition. Although it is impossible to identify the owners of
the initials with any certainty, it is worth noting that there was
a Josiah Fox making pipes in Newcastle-under-Lyme in and after 1683
whose initials are the same as those most common in the Clay Bank
cellar. The I·F mark was somewhat unusual in that it was impressed
between two X's across the top of the stem (fig. 16, no. 11). All other
marks, save one, were in the normal position, to left and right of the
heels. These comprised W F (William Ferry, Marlborough, about 1700?),
or perhaps W.P., II I (Henry Jones, London, 1688?)[29] and V R. The
remaining mark, S A (fig. 16, no. 14) occurred on the bases of two
bowls with neither heels nor spurs. From the oystershell layer south of
the existing house came a bowl fragment ornamented with the name of a
well-known Bristol pipe-making family, I TIPPET, in a raised cartouche
on the side. This was probably Jacob Tippett whose name appeared in the
Bristol Freedom Rolls in 1680.[30]
In addition to the few marked bowls, two stems were of interest in
that they had been ground or pared down to enable the pipes to be used
again, one being only 2-1/4 inches in length (fig. 16, nos. 12 and 13).
Such frugality might be construed as being associated with a household
of small means. Also present were a few brown stem fragments and part
of one decorated bowl (fig. 8, no. 9) of Virginia, possibly Indian,
manufacture.
Conclusions
The importance of the Jenkins site cellar hole lies solely in its
provision of a valuable group of closely dated artifacts. The
excavations failed to reveal either the size of the building or any
indication of its original ownership and purpose. The structure
does not appear on any known map nor can it be equated with any
specifications contained in the _Vestry Book_ of Petsworth Parish or
any other documentary source now available. Much local legend and
speculation has been considered and regretfully rejected in the absence
of any supporting evidence. The site does lie in the Second Precinct of
Petsworth Parish and it has been established that the Porteus family
did own land therein. Consequently it is quite possible that the
Jenkins site was once part of that tract. But it does not necessarily
follow that the cellar hole was part of the Edward Porteus family
residence.
A _terminus post quem_ of about 1700 for the filling of the cellar hole
has been well established on the archeological evidence. The structure
itself is represented by the large cellar hole which had been floored
and walled with boards and vertical posts, and by the massive chimney
at the east end. The absence of any abutting walling, coupled with our
inability to find any traces of other foundations, strongly suggests
that the building stood on piers or wooden blocks.
The artifacts include a number of extremely interesting objects; but
the curious juxtaposition of the large glass stem (figs. 10 and 11)
with crude earthenwares, worn-out tools and broken and reused clay
tobacco pipes makes it probable that the refuse was derived from
different sources. Whereas the iron objects resting on the cellar floor
may have been in the building when it was destroyed, it is clear that
the large oystershell deposit (and therefore, the glass stem that it
contained) must have been brought from elsewhere. It might therefore be
deduced that the excavated structure had been a kitchen building or,
perhaps, an overseer's house rather than the home of the owner of the
glass stem.
The dearth of 18th-century colonial artifacts on the Jenkins property
seems to indicate, at best, a less intensive occupation after the
destruction of the building that overlay the excavated cellar hole.
It seems improbable, therefore, that the existing "Ardudwy" was in
existence before the late 18th century.
Illustrations
The objects illustrated in figures 8 through 16 are representative
of the principal artifacts found in the Clay Bank excavations. The
dating given below refers to the objects' period of manufacture;
their terminal or throwaway date is determined by their archeological
contexts, which are indicated by area and stratum designations. (See p.
11, Archeological Stratigraphy, and fig. 3.)
FIGURE 8
1. Marly fragment from small plate, English delftware, decorated
in blue with chinoiserie design, probably of Chinamen, rocks,
and grasses. The background color has a very pale-blue tint,
unlike the pure whites and pinkish whites that are generally
associated with London pieces of the period. The closest
parallel for this sherd is in the Bristol City Museum in
England[31] and is attributed to Brislington. An example of
the style, attributed to Lambeth and dated 1684 is illustrated
by F. H. Garner in his _English Delftware_;[32] but unlike the
Clay Bank fragment, the central decoration does not reach to
the marly. About 1680-1690. E4. (Fig. 15, no. 6.)
2. Handle fragment from chamberpot or posset pot, English
delftware, decorated with irregular horizontal stripes in blue.
The handle is pronouncedly concave in section, and lacking
ornament on its edges (as usually occurs on posset pots)[33] a
chamberpot identification seems most likely. The form ranges
from the late 17th century at least through the first quarter
of the 18th. E2.
3. Mug or jug, lower body and base fragment only, English
delftware, white inside, with manganese stipple on exterior.
Probably Southwark, first half of the 17th century. E4. (Fig.
15, no. 4).
4. Basin, English delftware, wall fragments only illustrated (for
full reconstruction see fig. 15, no. 1), the glaze, pale blue,
ornamented with central chinoiserie design of similar character
to no. 1. The wall was decorated with narrow horizontal bands
and a wide foliate zone below the everted rim. The bowl is
important in that it is one of the earliest extant examples of
the simple washbasin form that was to become common throughout
the 18th century. About 1680-1690. Illustrated sherds A3, C3,
F2.
5. Basal fragment of plate, tin-glazed earthenware, decoration
of uncertain form in two tones of blue outlined in black.
Portuguese? 17th century. C4.
6. Base fragment from globular jug, English brown salt-glazed
stoneware, probably from same vessel as no. 7. Late 17th or
early 18th century. C3.
7. Neck fragment from bulbous mug or jug, decorated within
multiple grooving,[34] ware and date as above. A3.
8. Tyg fragments, black lead-glazed, red-bodied earthenware
(sometimes called Cistercian ware), the body decorated with
multiple ribbing. (For reconstruction see fig. 15, no. 7.) Such
drinking vessels were made with up to six or eight handles,
but two was the most usual number and those were placed close
together as indicated here. The form was prevalent in the
period 1600-1675, though taller examples were common during the
preceding century.[35] A3, C3.
9. Tobacco pipe bowl, pale-brown ware, burnished, and decorated
with impressed crescents and rouletted lines, local Indian
manufacture?[36] Second half of 17th century. E4.
10. Body fragment of cord-marked Indian cooking pot, Stony Creek
type,[37] light red-tan surface flecked with ocher and with a
localized grey core. Middle Woodland. B1.
11. Projectile point, buff quartzite, broad stem and sloping
shoulders. Late archaic. E9.
[Illustration: Figure 8.--FRAGMENTS OF ENGLISH DELFTWARE, stoneware,
earthenware, and Indian objects.]
[Illustration: Figure 9.--BOTTLE OF GREEN GLASS in the form of a
miniature wine bottle.]
FIGURE 9
A small glass bottle in wine-bottle style but probably intended for oil
or vinegar, and fashioned from a pale-green metal comparable to that
used for pharmaceutical phials and flasks. The base has a pronounced
conical kick, but is not appreciably thicker than the walls of the
body. The mouth is slightly everted over a V-sectioned string rim. On
the yardstick of wine-bottle evolution such a bottle is unlikely to
have been manufactured prior to 1680 or later than about 1720. E5. (See
also fig. 15, no. 19.)
FIGURES 10 and 11
Stem and foot fragment from an elaborate drinking glass or candlestick,
English lead metal of splendid quality. The solid stem is formed from
two quatrefoil balusters between which is a melon knop with mereses
above and below. The stem terminates in two mereses of increasing size
and is attached to an elaborately gadrooned foot, only part of which
survives. Any suggestion that the foot is actually part of the base of
the bowl is negated by the presence of a rough pontil scar inside it,
as well as by the fact that the surviving fragment spreads out at so
shallow an angle that no other construction is possible.
[Illustration: Figure 10.--AN ELABORATE STEM of English glass, London,
about 1685-1695.]
The stem form is most closely paralleled by two goblets illustrated
in W. A. Thorpe's _History of English and Irish Glass_,[38] one of
which contains within its stem an English fourpenny piece of 1680.
Because no known goblet exhibits the high, gadrooned foot of the Clay
Bank example, it has been suggested that the stem may be that of a
candlestick.[39] While this is certainly a reasonable supposition, it
must be added that neither have examples of candlesticks been found
in this form. (For conjectural reconstruction see fig. 11.) Although
it is extremely unfortunate that no upper fragments were found, there
is no doubt as to the date of the surviving section, nor is there any
denying that it is on a par with the best English glass of its period.
London, about 1685-1695. Height of fragment 5-1/4 inches. E4.
[Illustration: Figure 11.--THE CLAY BANK STEM RECONSTRUCTED as both a
drinking glass and a candlestick. Height of fragment is 5-1/4 inches.
About 1685-1695.]
FIGURE 12
1. Spoon, latten, tinned, the bowl oval and the handle flat
with a trilobed terminal. The back of the bowl possesses an
extremely rudimentary rat-tail that is little more than a solid
V slightly off-center at the junction of stem and bowl. The
maker's mark inside the bowl bears the initials W W flanking a
thistle, perhaps suggesting a Scots origin for the spoon. Last
quarter of 17th century. E2.
2. Cutlery handle, bone, roughly round-sectioned at its junction
with the iron shoulder but becoming triangular towards the top.
A4.
3. Race knife, steel, a tool used by coopers and joiners to
inscribe barrels and the ends of timbers. At one end is a
tapering, round-sectioned tang to which a wooden handle was
attached; beside this, and probably originally recessed into
the wood, is a rectangular-sectioned arm, terminating in a
small blade curved over at the end. The arm is hinged at the
shoulder of the tool and could be folded back to inscribe large
arcs and to be used as an individual cutting instrument. At
the other end is a small blunt spike with spiral grooving and
raised cordons, and a small fixed knife with a curved blade
that could be used to cut in the opposite plain to that of
the moveable arm. The arm is stamped with the maker's name
WARD. Attempts to identify an English toolmaker of that name
working in the second half of the 17th century have been
unsuccessful. The tool is well made and possesses a surprising
amount of decoration on the shoulders, in the shape of faceting
at the corners and sculpturing of the flat surfaces.[40] E4.
(See also fig. 15, no. 22.)
[Illustration: Figure 12.--LATTEN SPOON and other small finds.]
[Illustration: Figure 13.--CHEEKPIECE FROM BIT, saw set, and other
iron objects.]
4. Gimlet, iron, the shaft drawn out at the top to grip the wooden
handle, the spoon-shaped blade is badly distorted but the
terminal worm still survives in part. B6A.
5. Tack, brass, probably from trunk or upholstery, convex head
roughly trimmed, diameter 1/2 inch. C3.
6. Boss, cast brass, from cheekpiece of bridle; the slightly
dished edge and central nipple appear to have been ornamental
devices more popular in the 17th than in the 18th century.[41]
This object overlay the robbed rear-chimney foundation at its
northeast corner. B2.
7. Strainer fragment, brass or bronze; the edge flat and therefore
not part of a colander, probably originally attached to an iron
handle. Diameter approximately 8-1/2 inches. E2.
FIGURE 13
1. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, the pointed "blade" without
cutting edge and 1/8 inch in thickness, the tang drawn out,
rectangular in section and clenched at the end. A2.
2. Object similar to the above,[42] but heavier, the tang wider
than the thickness of the "blade," 3/8 inch and 3/16 inch
respectively. E4.
3. Knife blade, iron, small flaring shoulders and round-sectioned
tang. The blade is of unusual shape and may have been honed
down to its present size. C4.
4. Saw wrest or saw set, iron, used to grip and bend the teeth of
saws sideways to enlarge the width of the cut and thus prevent
the blade from binding.[43] C2.
5. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, comprising a flat strip 5/8
inch in width at one end and tapering to 9/16 inch at the other
which exhibits a small right-angled flange before turning
upwards and back on itself, narrowing to a thinner strip
measuring 5/16 inch in width, and forming a loop. The base
strip has a small notch at its broad end.[44] C3.
6. Cramp(?), iron, perhaps intended to be set in mortar and used
to join masonry; rectangular in section and drawn down almost
to a point at either end. E4.
7. Cheekpiece from snaffle bit, iron, incomplete, angular knee
with hole for linking element between rein and bit. This is a
17th-century characteristic common at Jamestown[45] but rare
among the many bits from Williamsburg. E2.
8. Staple, iron, both points broken and the back somewhat bowed,
probably as a result of having been driven. C3.
FIGURE 14
1. Eye of hoe, iron, possibly a grub hoe similar to no. 2, in an
advanced state of decay with the blade represented only by the
narrow triangular spine; no trace of a maker's mark. C3.
2. Grub hoe, iron, the eye and part of the blade surviving, the
spine thick and narrow, no maker's mark. The form has no
published parallel either from Jamestown or Williamsburg. An
example with similar shoulders, but with a V-shaped blade edge,
was found on the Challis pottery kiln site in James City County
in a context of about 1730. [C.S.21F; unpublished.] E4.
3. Broad hoe, iron, with eye and part of the originally D-shaped
blade surviving; the spine shallow, short and flat, with
clearly impressed maker's initials I H within an oval. Circular
and oval marks are common in the 17th century but are rare in
the 18th.[46] E4.
4. Hoe blade, iron, from which the eye and spine appear to have
been removed. It cannot be ascertained whether the blade is
part of a cut-down broad hoe or whether it was always roughly
square in form. The latter shape was well represented in
a cache of agricultural tools of uncertain date found in
excavations at Green Spring in James City County.[47] E4.
5. Stirrup, iron, rectangular footplate with its surface hammered
to increase the grip, the sides round-sectioned but flattened
towards the leather-loop which is drawn out into ornamental
ears. The style was common in the late 17th century. E4.
6. Forming chisel, iron, socketed for attachment to a wooden
handle, the socket and shaft square-sectioned, the blade 2-1/4
inches wide and the cutting edge improved by a welded plate
of superior metal extending 1-7/8 inches up the blade. Found
behind a wallboard at floor level. B6A.
7. Cooper's chisel, iron, the blade 1-3/4 inches in width and with
a groove running the length of the 1/8-inch broad edge to grip
the edge of the hoop while hammering it into place. The shaft
is round-sectioned and spreads into a flat mushroom head. C4.
8. Wedge, iron, of large size, rectangular head measuring 2-3/8
inches by 1-7/8 inches, length 7-3/8 inches and weight
4 pounds. The head shows no evidence of heavy usage and
consequently there is no clue as to why such an object should
have been thrown away. A close parallel (7-1/4 inches in
length) was found at Ste Marie I in Canada on the site of the
early Jesuit settlement of 1639-1649.[48] B3A.
9. Spade, iron edge from wooden blade, the upper edge of the
metal split and the extended sides possessing small winglike
projections, and nails at the ends which together served to
attach the iron to the wood. Iron edges for wooden spades are
not included in the artifact collections from 18th-century
Williamsburg, but were plentiful in various sizes in
mid-17th-century contexts at Mathews Manor in Warwick County.
[Unpublished.] C3.
10. Projectile, solid iron, cast in a two-piece mold, diameter
2-3/4 inches, weight 3 pounds 1 ounce. This is possibly a ball
from a minion[49] whose shot weight is given in Chambers'
_Cyclopaedia_ (1738) as 3 pounds 4 ounces, the difference
possibly being occasioned by the Clay Bank specimen's decayed
surface. D3.
FIGURE 15
1. Basin, English delftware, reconstruction on basis of rim, body
and base fragments, about 1680-1690. (Fig. 8, no. 4) A3, B1,
B3, C3, C4, E2, F2, H3.
2. Basin as above, lower body fragments.
3. Basin as above, base fragment.
4. Mug or jug, lower body fragment, manganese stippled. First half
of 17th century(?). (Fig. 8, no. 3.) E4.
5. Plate, English delftware, rim and base fragments (also
section), decoration in two tones of blue, the fronds outlined
in black. London(?). About 1670-1700. A3, E3.
6. Plate, English delftware, about 1680-1690. (Fig. 8, no. 1.) E4.
7. Tyg, black lead-glazed red ware, double handled; height
conjectural. 17th century. (Fig. 8, no. 8.) A3, B3, B6A, C3,
C4, E3, E9, F3, G2, G3A, H3, 10.
8. Tyg, rim sherd only, brown lead-glazed red ware, thinner than
no. 7 and its ribbing not extending as close to the mouth;
diameter approximately 4-1/2 inches, 17th century. B1.
9. Mug, black lead-glazed red ware, thin-walled bulbous body;
handle conjectural. The form's closest published parallel is
a red ware example which was exhibited at the Burlington Fine
Arts Club, London, in 1914, and bore the legend MR. THOMAS
FENTON in white slip below the rim. The piece was identified
as Staffordshire, about 1670.[50] A comparable mug was found
in 1964 in excavations at Mathews Manor in Warwick County in a
context of the second quarter of the 17th century. [W.S.199;
unpublished.] A3, G3A, H3.
10. Rim sherd from large pan, red body liberally flecked with
ocher, thin lead glaze, the rim folded and flattened on the
upper edge. This fragment is of importance in that it is almost
certainly made from the local Tidewater Virginia clay, yet the
rim technique has not been found on any of the pottery kiln
sites so far located. Date uncertain. K11.
[Illustration: Figure 14.--IRON TOOLS, STIRRUP, and cannon ball.]
[Illustration: Figure 15.--DRAWINGS OF POTTERY, glass, and metal
objects.]
11. Rim sherd from pan or wide bowl, red ware with greenish-brown
lead glaze, the rim thickened and undercut. This form, and
variants on it, were common from the mid-17th century and on
through the 18th, and they are therefore impossible to date on
stylistic grounds alone. Probably English. C4.
12. Rim sherd from large shallow pan, red ware with yellowish-green
lead glaze; the rim thickened, folded and undercut, the upper
surface flattened and with a pronounced ridge at its angle
with the bowl; diameter approximately 1 foot 6 inches. Dating
considerations as no. 11. Probably English. E4.
13. Rim sherd from storage jar, red ware with brown lead glaze,
the rim thickened, folded, and flattened on the top; diameter
approximately 10-1/2 inches. The form was common from about
1650 to 1750. Probably English. E2.
14. Storage jar or pipkin, pale-pink ware flecked with ocher and
occasional granules of quartz, a clear lead glaze imparts an
orange color to the surface, and is locally streaked with
green. The rim is heart-shaped in section, having a groove
along its upper surface, and the body is extremely finely
potted. There is good reason to suppose that this vessel is of
Virginia manufacture, in which case the 17th-century colony
possessed a potter of greater ability than any of those whose
kilns have yet been found. Another fragment of this pot, or one
identical to it, was found to the southeast of the existing
house. C4, E4, 10, K11.
15. Rim sherd from wide bowl of Colono-Indian[51] pottery,
grey shell-tempered ware with stick-or pebble-burnished
reduced surface, the rim everted and flattened. The ware is
contemporary with the European artifacts from the site and is
the earliest datable fragment yet recovered. A3.
16. Rim sherd from bowl of Colono-Indian pottery, buff
shell-tempered ware with stick-or pebble-burnished oxidized
surface, the rim everted, flattened and very slightly dished.
K11.
17. Wine bottle, olive-green glass in an advanced state of decay,
the neck short and broad and the mouth slightly everted over a
roughly applied string rim, the body squat and slightly broader
at the shoulder than at the base, a domed basal kick and no
obvious pontil scar. This is a composite drawing illustrating
the shape typical of the bottles from the Clay Bank site cellar
hole. The two fragments cannot be proved to be part of the same
bottle. About 1680-1700. Neck A2. Body F3.
18. Wine bottle, half-bottle size, olive-green glass in an advanced
state of decay, the form similar to the above but slightly
weaker in the shoulder. About 1680-1700. C4.
19. Bottle, in form of miniature wine bottle, the glass a pale
green similar to that used in the making of pharmaceutical
phials. (Fig. 9.) About 1680-1720. C4.
20. Base of pharmaceutical bottle, pale-green glass with pronounced
conical kick and rough pontil scar, the metal very thin. The
principal dating characteristics of these bottles are the
shapes of the mouths and the slope of the shoulders; in the
absence of those, no close dating is possible.[52] C4.
21. Ring, iron, round section, considerable evidence of wear at
one point on the inside edge suggesting that this object had
been attached to a link of chain or perhaps has been held by a
staple or eye. Such rings are frequently to be found attached
to stalls in stables. B6A.
22. Race knife, the dashed outline indicating the angle of the
hinged blade in its open position. (See fig. 12, no. 3.) E4.
23. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, slightly convex on the upper
face, flat behind, and with a small, flat tongue projecting
from the rear. A much rusted lump adhering to the front may
conceal a similar projection or it may have simply attached
itself in the ground. C3.
24. Collar, iron, four unevenly spaced nail holes for attachment to
a wooden shaft having an approximate diameter of 3-1/2 inches.
D6A.
25. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, rectangular-sectioned bar
narrowing to a small blade-like ear at one end and flattened
into the opposite plain at the other, apparently for
attachment. E4.
[Illustration: Figure 16.--DRAWINGS OF TOBACCO-PIPE BOWL SHAPES
from Clay Bank and Aberdeen Creek.]
26. Staple or light handle for a small box, the narrow ends perhaps
originally clenched and since broken. C3.
27. Handle of spoon, pewter, a heart-shaped terminal above two
small lobes, the letter M stamped with a well-cut die close
to the edge, and a roughly incised cross below it. A late
17th-century terminal form. K11.
FIGURE 16
1. Tobacco-pipe bowl, clay, white surface and grey core, the bowl
heavy and bulbous, large flat heel, rouletted line below the
mouth, stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch. (See no. 19 for possible
parallel.) About 1650-1690. E7.
2. Tobacco-pipe bowl and incomplete stem, clay, white surface and
grey core, cylindrical bowl form with shallow heel extending
from the fore edge of the bowl, initials V R on either side
of heel, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch. About 1680-1700. E4.
Another example from B6A.
3. Tobacco-pipe bowl, clay, white surface and grey core, form
similar to No. 2, but the heel slightly more pronounced and
with rouletted line below the mouth, stem-hole diameter 6/64
inch. About 1680-1700. A3.
4. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, form similar to no. 2, but more
slender and the heel smaller, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch.
About 1675-1700. E7.
5. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, evolved form of no. 2, the bowl
at a more pronounced angle to the stem, stem-hole diameter 6/64
inch. About 1690-1720. A3.
6. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, the bowl shape a cross between
no. 2 and the more elegant and slender style of no. 7,
pronounced and somewhat spreading heel with maker's initials
H I on either side, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch. About
1670-1700. A3.
7. Tobacco-pipe bowl, clay, white surface and grey core, narrow
"swan-neck" form with small heel that is almost a spur,
rouletted line below the mouth, stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch,
about 1680-1700. E4.
Another example (not illustrated) bears the maker's initials WP (or
R) on the sides of the heel,[53] stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch.
A3.
8. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, form similar to no. 7 except
that the bowl is not quite as long and the fore edge of the
heel is less pronounced, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch, about
1680-1700. A3.
9. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, the bowl broader and at a
sharper angle to the stem than in the preceding examples, the
heel shallow and its fore edge extending from the bowl as
in nos. 2-5, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch, about 1690-1720.
A3. This example is significant in that it represents the
evolutionary merging of the cylindrical and bulbous bowl forms,
with their varying heels and spurs, into a single bowl shape
that persisted through the 18th century. It should be noted
that the illustrated bowl retains the thin-walled circular
mouth common to most examples of its period. The mouth often
becomes more oval and the walls thicker in specimens dating
later into the 18th century.
10. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, more or less cylindrical
rouletted line below the mouth, and with neither heel nor
spur. The absence of these last features is thought to have
been dictated by English pipemakers catering for the American
Indian market and initially copying aboriginal forms. Stem-hole
diameter 7/64 inch, about 1680-1700. H3.
11. Fragment of tobacco-pipe bowl and stem, clay, white surface and
pink core to bowl, but burnt white through stem; bowl shape
apparently similar to no. 10, stamped initials across top of
stem at the fracture, I·F flanked on either side by a period
and a cross,[54] stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch. E4.
12. Tobacco-pipe bowl and stem fragment, white clay, the form very
similar to no. 10 but without rouletting below the mouth. The
pipe is of interest in that the stem fracture has been pared
down after breaking to create a new mouthpiece and a stem only
approximately 2-1/4 inches in length. Stem-hole diameter 7/64
inch, about 1680-1700. C4.
13. Tobacco-pipe stem fragment, white clay, broken off at
junction with bowl and pared down at the other end as no. 12
thus creating a 3-inch stem. Hole diameter 6/64 inch, date
indeterminate. B6A.
14. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, bowl shape similar to no. 2
but without heel; maker's initials on the base of the bowl,
almost certainly SA though the companion initial has been lost
from the other side.[55] Stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch, about
1680-1700. C4.
15. Tobacco-pipe bowl, clay, white surface and grey core, slightly
more evolved than no. 10 being more sharply angled at its
junction with the stem as well as being slightly longer and
narrower in the bowl. Note that this pipe still possesses the
rouletted line below the mouth that tends to be characteristic
of 17th-century examples. Stem-hole diameter 5/64 inch, about
1690-1710. A3.
16. Tobacco-pipe bowl, clay, white surface and grey core,
essentially similar to no. 15, but longer in the bowl and even
more angled at its junction with the stem. Stem-hole diameter
6/64 inch, about 1690-1710. B3A.
(Nos. 17-21 are surface finds from an as yet unexcavated site on
farmland owned by Miss Elizabeth Harwood, approximately a mile
and a quarter south of Clay Bank, and north of Aberdeen Creek.
They are included here as examples of earlier 17th-century
occupation in the Clay Bank area, and because one of the stem
fragments from this site bears the same X·I·F·X mark as appears
on five examples (no. 11) from the Jenkins site cellar hole.)
17. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, flat broad heel, the bowl
somewhat bulbous in the mid section, neat rouletted line below
the mouth. Stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch, about 1630-1670.
18. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay with slipped surface, the bowl
shape characteristic of the mid-17th century, flat heel, and
roughly applied rouletted line below the mouth; maker's mark VS
stamped on upper surface of stem. Stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch,
about 1650-1690.
19. Tobacco-pipe bowl, fragment only, clay, white surface and grey
core, the bowl extremely bulbous and with a pronounced flat
heel. Maker's mark VS stamped on the upper surface of the
stem; dies different to those used for no. 18, but undoubtedly
the same maker. This is important in that it illustrates
the wide difference in bowl shapes produced, apparently
contemporaneously, by a single maker. Stem-hole diameter 7/64
inch, about 1650-1690.
20. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, the bowl and early form of
no. 3 ornamented on the sides with six molded dots in high
relief,[56] the heel similar to no. 17 though slightly deeper.
Stem-hole diameter 8/64 inch, about 1640-1670.
21. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay with slipped surface, heavy
bulbous bowl and flat heel with the maker's mark M B on the
base; a narrow rouletted line around the bowl mouth. Stem-hole
diameter 7/64 inch, about 1650-1680.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am greatly indebted to Mr. and Mrs. William F. Jenkins for
drawing the Clay Bank site to my attention, for permitting me to do
considerable damage to their garden in the course of its excavation,
and for generously presenting the illustrated artifacts to the
Smithsonian Institution. I also owe much to their daughter Mrs.
William DeHardit for valuable historical information as well as for
her constant and vigorous assistance with the actual digging. I am
equally grateful to my wife, Audrey Noël Hume, and to Mr. John Dunton
of Colonial Williamsburg for their part in the excavation, also to Mr.
A. E. Kendrew, senior vice president of Colonial Williamsburg, and Mr.
E. M. Frank, its resident architect, for their comments on both the
chimney foundation and on the age of the existing house. I am also
indebted to Mrs. Carl Dolmetsch of Colonial Williamsburg's research
department for her pursuit of cartographic evidence.
In addition I wish to express my thanks to Mr. R. J. Charleston,
keeper of ceramics and glass, Victoria and Albert Museum, London,
for examining and commenting on the glass, and to Mr. W. D. Geiger,
director of craft shops, Colonial Williamsburg, for similar assistance
in identifying the tools.
Finally, I am indebted to Miss Elizabeth Harwood of Aberdeen Creek for
permission to illustrate examples of tobacco pipes found on her land,
and to Colonial Williamsburg for subsidizing the preparation of this
report.
_May 1965_
I. N. H.
U.S. Government Printing Office: 1966
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402
Price 30 cents
FOOTNOTES:
[1] IVOR NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell, Gloucester County,
Virginia 1957-1959" (paper 18 in _Contributions from the Museum of
History and Technology: Papers 12-18_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin
225, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1963),
pp. 153-228. Hereafter cited as _Rosewell_.
[2] DR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARTER STUBBS, _Descendants of Mordecai Cooke
and Thomas Booth_ (New Orleans, 1923), p. 14 (footnote).
[3] _Vestry Book of Petsworth Parish, Gloucester County, Virginia
1677-1793_, annotated by C. G. Chamberlayne, The Library Board
(Richmond, 1933), p. 97. Hereafter cited as _Vestry Book_.
[4] _Records of Colonial Gloucester County Virginia_, compiled by Polly
Cary Mason (Newport News, 1946), vol. 1, p. 86. The Gloucester rent
roll of 1704 showed Robert Porteus owning 892 acres and Madam Porteus
(presumably his widowed mother) with 500 acres. The latter may have
been situated elsewhere in the parish and have been property inherited
by her at the death of her first husband, Robert Lee.
[5] _Vestry Book_, pp. 284, 295, 304, 318.
[6] _Vestry Book_, October 6, 1725, pp. 186-187. "Petso Parish Detter
this Year in Tobacco ... To Robert Portuse Esqr for Keeping Two
barsterd Children vizt John & Watkinson Marvil 01333 1/2."
[7] _William & Mary Quarterly_ (1896), ser. 1, no. 5, p. 279. "Oldmixon
says that Bacon died at Dr. Green's in Gloucester, and Hening describes
this place in 1722 as 'then in the tenure of Robert Porteus Esq.'" But
as Robert Porteus purchased additional land in 1704, Dr. Green's home
site may not have been the same as that of Edward Porteus.
[8] _Vestry Book_, p. 85. The kitchen measurements are absent.
[9] _Vestry Book_, pp. 74-75. At a previous vestry meeting on 28th
June, 170[2?] details of the proposed glebe house were given as
follows: "Six & thirty foot Long & twenty foot wide with two Outside
Chemneys two 8 foot Square Clossetts planckt above & below, with two
Chambers above Staires and ye Staires to Goe up in ye midst of ye house
with 3 Large Glass windows Below Stair [] Each to have 3 Double Lights
in ym with a Glass window in Each Chamber above Staires Each to have
3 Lights in ym & Each Clossett to have a window in it and Each window
to have 3 Lights." There is no evidence that these specifications were
derived from Robert Porteus' house.
[10] _Vestry Book_, p. 273. May 28, 1746: "Ordered this Present Vestry,
have thought it Better to Build a New Glebe house rather then to Repair
the old one...." Then follow specifications for the new building.
[11] ROBERT HODGSON, _The Life of the Right Reverend Beilby Porteus
D.D._ (London, 1823) pp. 3-4. Hodgson describes Newbottle in the
following terms: "It consisted chiefly of plantations of tobacco; and
on one of these, called Newbottle (from a village of that name near
Edinburgh, once belonging to his family, but now in the possession of
the Marquis of Lothian), he usually resided. The house stood upon a
rising ground, with a gradual descent to York river, which was there
at least two miles over: and here he enjoyed within himself every
comfort and convenience that a man of moderate wishes could desire;
living without the burthen of taxes, and possessing, under the powerful
protection of this kingdom, peace, plenty, and security."
[12] A request for information was published in the English magazine
_Country Life_ (May 24, 1962), vol. 131, no. 3403, p. 1251. This
yielded a reply from the Reverend W. B. Porteus of Garstang Vicarage,
Mr. Preston, Lancashire. He noted that Bishop Beilby Porteus was buried
at Sundridge in Kent and that prior to the Second World War family
connections of the Bishop's wife named Polhill-Drabble still lived in
that village and were deeply interested in their lineage. The Rev.
Porteus feared that Mr. and Mrs. Polhill-Drabble were now dead, and as
I have been unable to trace them, I assume that this is the case.
[13] Seven courses surviving, top at 2 ft. 2 in. below modern grade.
Shell mortar. Specimen bricks: 9 in. by 4-1/8 in. by 2-7/8 in. (salmon)
and 7-1/2 in. by 4-1/4 in. by 2 in. (dark red).
[14] A late 17th-or very early 18th-century house at Tutter's Neck in
James City County, measuring 42 ft. 3 in. by 19 ft. 1 in., possessed a
chimney at either end with dimensions of 9 ft. 11 in. by 4 ft. 11 in.
and 9 ft. 9 in. by 5 ft. The jambs varied in thickness from 1 ft. 6 in.
to 1 ft. 11 in. See footnote 22.
[15] ALBERT C. MANUCY, "The Fort at Frederica," Notes in _Anthropology_
(Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1962), vol. 5, pp. 51-53. An
excavated powder magazine of 1736 exhibited similar construction.
[16] E2. Figure 12, no. 1.
[17] See footnote 27.
[18] The undercutting is shown on the plan (fig. 3, area H) as a
straight-edged unit. This has been done for the sake of neatness, but
it should be noted that there was actually a series of holes that
presented an extremely ragged appearance.
[19] An unusual lead-glazed earthenware rim sherd from a jar was
probably from the same pot as other fragments (fig. 15, no. 14) found
in the cellar hole.
[20] _Vestry Book_, p. 56. "Necholas Lewis" indentured to "Henry Morris
of Straten Major in ye County of King and Quine ... to Learn ye said
orphant ye art of Coopery."
[21] _Rosewell_, fig. 26, nos. 1-4.
[22] Thomas Jones was the younger brother of Frederick Jones, whose
James City County home site at Tutter's Neck was excavated in 1961. See
IVOR NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Tutter's Neck in James City County,
Virginia, 1960-1961" (paper 53 in _Contributions from the Museum of
History and Technology_; U.S. National Museum Bulletin 249; Washington:
Smithsonian Institution), 1965, fig. 20, no. 8. Hereafter cited as
_Tutter's Neck_. A fragment of a lead-glass gadrooned Romer of the same
period as the Clay Bank stem was found on the Tutter's Neck site.
[23] MARY STEPHENSON, "Cocke-Jones Lots, Block 31" (MS., Research
Dept., Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, 1961), p. 6.
[24] _Tutter's Neck_, fig. 17, no. 17; also I. NOËL HUME, "Some English
Glass from Colonial Virginia," _Antiques_ (July 1963), vol. 84, no. 1,
p. 69, figs. 4 and 5.
[25] IVOR NOËL HUME, _Here Lies Virginia_ (New York: Knopf, 1963), fig.
105.
[26] J. C. HARRINGTON, "Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth and
Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes," _Archeological Society of
Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin_ (September 1954), vol. 9, no. 1.
[27] Mathematical formula based on Harrington's chart, prepared by
Lewis H. Binford, University of Chicago. See LEWIS H. BINFORD, "A
New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples,"
_Southeastern Archaeological Newsletter_ (June 1962), vol. 9, no. 1,
pp. 19-21.
[28] AUDREY NOËL HUME, "Clay Tobacco-Pipe Dating in the Light of Recent
Excavations," _Archeological Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin_
(December 1963), pp. 22-25.
[29] ADRIAN OSWALD, "The Archaeology and Economic History of English
Clay Tobacco Pipes," _Journal of the Archaeological Association_
(London, 1960), ser. 3, vol. 23, pp. 40-102.
[30] ADRIAN OSWALD, "A Case of Transatlantic Deduction," _Antiques_
(July 1959), pp. 59-61.
[31] W. J. POUNTNEY, _Old Bristol Potteries_ (Bristol, 1920), pl. 3
(lower left), and p. 37.
[32] F. H. GARNER, _English Delftware_ (London, 1948), pl. 26B.
[33] For a posset pot with these handle characteristics attributed to
Brislington, 1706-1734, see W. M. WRIGHT, _Catalogue of Bristol and
West of England Delft Collection_, (Bath: Victoria Art Gallery, 1929),
pl. 3.
[34] For shape parallel (but not body) see _Tutter's Neck_, fig. 18,
no. 21.
[35] BARNARD RACKHAM, _Mediaeval English Pottery_ (London: 1948), pl.
94. BARNARD RACKHAM, _Catalogue of the Glaisher Collection of Pottery
and Porcelain_ (Cambridge, 1935), no. 20, pl. 3A.
GRISELDA LEWIS, _A Picture Book of English Pottery_ (London, 1956),
fig. 23.
[36] J. C. HARRINGTON, "Tobacco Pipes from Jamestown," _Archeological
Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin_ (Richmond: June 1951), fig. 4.
[37] I am indebted to Dr. B. C. McCary of the Archeological Society of
Virginia for the identification of the prehistoric Indian artifacts.
CLIFFORD EVANS, "A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archeology," (Bureau of
American Ethnology Bulletin 160; Washington: Smithsonian Institution,
1955), p. 69.
[38] W. A. THORPE, _A History of English and Irish Glass_ (London,
1929), vol. 2, pl. 29 and 31, no. 2.
[39] See p. 13.
[40] HENRY C. MERCER, "Ancient Carpenters' Tools," _Bucks County
Historical Society_ (Doylestown, Pa., 1951), p. 51 and fig. 49.
JOHN L. COTTER, "Archeological Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia,"
_U.S. National Park Service Archeological Research Series_, no. 4
(Washington, 1958), p. 174, pl. 72 top.
[41] COTTER, no. 1, p. 176, pl. 74 top.
[42] These objects are extremely common on 18th-century sites.
_Rosewell_, p. 224, and fig. 36, no. 8. _Tutter's Neck_, fig. 16, no.
12.
[43] MERCER, op. cit., p. 295ff.
[44] Two larger examples were found in a cache of metal objects
deposited in about 1730 and found on the Challis pottery kiln site in
James City County. Two more were encountered in excavations on the Hugh
Orr house and blacksmith shop site on Duke of Gloucester Street in
Williamsburg where they apparently dated from the mid-18th century.
[45] CARL GUSTKEY, "Sir Francis Wyatt's Horse," _The National Horseman_
(April 1953), [no pagination] fig. 2.
[46] The majority of marked 18th-century hoes excavated in Virginia
exhibit rectangular stamps, while postcolonial marks tend to be stamped
on the blades rather than the raised spines and without any die edge
being impressed.
[47] LOUIS R. CAYWOOD, "Green Spring Plantation," _Archeological
Report_, Virginia 350th Anniversary Commission (Yorktown: United States
National Park Service, 1955), pl. 9 (bottom).
[48] KENNETH E. KIDD, _The Excavation of Ste Marie I_ (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1949), p. 108 and pl. 24b.
[49] See p. 12 for a consideration of the ball's possible significance.
[50] _Catalogue of Exhibition of Early English Earthenware_, Burlington
Fine Arts Club (London, 1914), p. 29 and fig. 41.
[51] IVOR NOËL HUME, "An Indian Ware of the Colonial Period,"
_Archeological Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin_ (September
1962), vol. 17, no. 1, p. 5.
[52] IVOR NOËL HUME, "A Century of London Glass Bottles, 1580-1680,"
_The Connoisseur Year Book_ (London, 1956), p. 102, fig. 14 right.
[53] A William Partridge was named in the Bristol Freedom Roll for
1689, cf. OSWALD, op. cit. (footnote 30), p. 88.
[54] _Ibid._, p. 70. Perhaps Jacob Fox, Bristol Freedom Roll for
1688, or John Fletcher, Chester Freedom Roll 1673, or Josiah Fox of
Newcastle-under-Lyme who was working in 1684. Other examples with this
mark occur in groups A3 and A4, also on the Harwood property (surface
find) close to the north bank of Aberdeen (Clay Bank) Creek. See p.
14. A single unstratified example has been found in Williamsburg,
coming from disturbed topsoil behind Capt. Orr's Dwelling on Duke of
Gloucester Street.
[55] Oswald lists no maker with these initials in the appropriate
period. However, a bowl impressed on the back with the initials S A
over the date 1683 was found in the river Thames at Queenhithe (London)
and is in the author's collection. See also D. R. ATKINSON, "Makers'
Marks on Clay Tobacco Pipes Found in London," _Archaeological News
Letter_ (London, April 1962), vol. 7, no. 8, p. 184; no. 24; and fig.
2, no. 24. See also _Rosewell_, p. 221 (footnote 96).
[56] A pipe with similar ornament is in the author's collection of
examples from the river Thames at London.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY:
PAPER 53
EXCAVATIONS AT TUTTER'S NECK
IN JAMES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA, 1960-1961
_Ivor Noël Hume_
LOCATION OF THE SITE 32
HISTORY OF THE SITE 32
THE EXCAVATION 42
THE RESIDENCE 43
THE KITCHEN 45
THE REFUSE PITS 46
ANIMAL REMAINS 51
THE ARTIFACTS 52
CONCLUSIONS 55
[Illustration: FIGURE 1.--_Top_: HYPOTHETICAL ELEVATIONS based on
foundations discovered on Tutter's Neck site. _Bottom_: Conjectural
reconstruction based on elevations of the Tutter's Neck site, about
1740. Elevations by E. M. Frank, director of architecture, Colonial
Williamsburg; conjectural drawings by R. Stinely.]
_Ivor Noël Hume_
Excavations at
TUTTER'S NECK
in James City County, Virginia, 1960-1961
_Land clearance for reforestation of property leased from
Williamsburg Restoration, Inc., resulted in the exposure of
numerous fragments of early 18th-century pottery and glass.
Partial excavation of the site, known as Tutter's Neck, revealed
foundations of a small colonial dwelling and outbuilding, both of
which had ceased to exist by about 1750._
_This paper describes and analyzes the artifacts recovered from
refuse pits on the site. These artifacts, which have been given
to the Smithsonian Institution, are closely dated by context
and are valuable in the general study of domestic life in early
18th-century Virginia._
THE AUTHOR: _Ivor Noël Hume is director of the department of
archeology at Colonial Williamsburg and an honorary research
associate of the Smithsonian Institution._
In the summer of 1959 the Chesapeake Corporation undertook
land-clearance operations prior to reforestation on property leased
from Williamsburg Restoration, Inc., lying to the east of College
Creek, which runs into the James River below Jamestown Island (see fig.
2). In the course of this work the foundations of a small and hitherto
unrecorded colonial residence were bulldozed and largely destroyed. In
the spring of 1960, Mr. Alden Eaton, director of landscape construction
and maintenance for Colonial Williamsburg, while walking over the
razed area, picked up numerous fragments of early 18th-century pottery
and glass which he later brought to the writer for identification. As
the result of this find a survey of the site was undertaken, and two
colonial foundations were located and partially excavated.[57]
The area available for study was limited by the need to cause as
little disturbance as possible to the newly planted seedlings, by a
shortage of time and labor, and by the remarkable speed with which the
ground became overgrown with locust trees and infested by mayflies and
mosquitoes. The location of the excavation area, nearly a mile from the
nearest road, and off a track pitted with mud-filled depressions, made
access impossible during most of the winter months; consequently, work
was possible only in the spring and fall of 1960. By the summer of 1961
both the approach and the site itself had become completely overgrown.
Regardless of these limitations it was possible to obtain full details
of the surviving remains of both the dwelling and its associated
kitchen, as well as recovering a number of informative groups of
domestic artifacts from trash pits under and around the latter
structure. Fortunately, the presence of seal-adorned wine bottles in
two pits provided data that led to the identification of one of the
owners of the property, and thence to a reconstruction of the history
of the site in general.
It should be noted that whereas the colonial artifacts that have been
excavated from Marlborough and Rosewell provide a useful range of
household items of the middle and third quarters of the 18th century,
respectively, the Tutter's Neck material belongs only to the first 40
years of that century, with the emphasis largely upon the first decade.
This last is a phase of Tidewater archeology about which little is
known, falling as it does after the end of the Jamestown era and at the
beginning of the Williamsburg period. Although, of course, Williamsburg
was already being built at the turn of the century, so intensive
was the occupation in the following 75 years that few archeological
deposits of the city's early days have remained undisturbed. The fact
that the Tutter's Neck site was abandoned before 1750, and never again
occupied, consequently enhances its archeological importance.
Location of the Site
The site lies on a steeply sloping promontory at the junction of
Kingsmill and Tutter's Neck Creeks, which flow as Halfway Creek into
College Creek approximately 1,050 yards to the west. The house stood on
the crown of the slope facing west, some 260 yards from the junction
of the creeks, and thus possessed a commanding position. Perhaps, at
that time, there was a clear view of all vessels passing up College
Creek--the main waterway to Williamsburg from the James River. As the
crow flew, the house stood approximately three miles from Williamsburg,
but by road the route was close to four miles to the eastern edge of
the town.
While the largest ships generally unloaded their cargoes at landings
on the James, the smaller vessels would often carry their cargoes up
College Creek to College Landing, about a mile and a quarter from
Williamsburg. It seems reasonable to suppose that Halfway Creek was
also navigable for these vessels on the high tide. In view of the fact
that the curve of the creek's main stream today touches the southern
edge of Tutter's Neck, it is likely that a landing existed there in the
18th century. However, no traces of such a landing are now visible.
History of the Site
There was no known record of the existence of the houses when the
Chesapeake Corporation stripped the site in 1959. The only colonial
map of the area, the so-called Desandrouin map of 1781 (fig. 4),
shows the neck covered by thick woodland, but indicates two or more
buildings some distance to the east. These sites also lay within the
bulldozed area, but, paradoxically, no traces of these have been found.
Comparison of the Desandrouin map with the aerial photograph (fig. 3)
will show that a small, marsh-flanked stream flowed across the back of
the Neck in the 18th century and emptied into Kingsmill Creek. This
stream has since silted up and has cut a new channel that causes it to
open into Tutter's Neck Creek to the north of the house site.
[Illustration: FIGURE 2.--THE TUTTER'S NECK SITE in relation to College
Creek and the James River.]
[Illustration: FIGURE 3.--AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH of Tutter's Neck taken soon
after bulldozing and before the Jones site (arrow) was found. Photo
courtesy City of Williamsburg.]
The Desandrouin map suggests that the buildings on Tutter's Neck had
ceased to exist by 1781, and this conjecture is supported by the
artifacts from the site, none of which date later than mid-century.
Considerable difficulty in establishing the lifespan of the house and
outbuilding has resulted in part from the fact that any evidence for
a terminus ante quem had been stripped away by the bulldozing and in
part from the absence of any maps that identify this promontory as
Tutter's Neck. Indeed the entire premise is built upon the discovery
of wine-bottle seals in one refuse pit beneath the kitchen chimney
and in another approximately 125 feet southeast of the house. These
seals, bearing the initials "F I," were identified as having belonged
to Frederick Jones, who later became Chief Justice of North Carolina.
The identification was arrived at on the evidence of the will of David
Bray, of James City County, that was contested in 1732. In the legal
action, reference was made to "... one messuage,[58] plantation, piece
or parcel of land," known as Tutties Neck, or "three hundred acres,
more or less, lying and being in the parish of Bruton." This land was
stated to have been purchased by Bray's mother, Judith Bray, from
Frederick Jones; it then was obtained by John Randolph and passed by
him in exchange to Thomas Bray.[59]
[Illustration: FIGURE 4.--DETAIL OF COLONEL DESANDROUIN'S MAP of 1781.
Arrow indicates Jones site.]
Thus we know that Frederick Jones had owned a 300-acre tract known
as Tutties Neck. Consequently, the discovery of bottle seals bearing
the initials "F I" in the vicinity of a "messuage" at the mouth of
Tutter's Neck Creek was not without significance. Further corroboration
was provided by a letter of 1721 from Frederick Jones to his
brother Thomas, in Williamsburg, regarding the incorrect marking of
merchandise on the former's account "marked by mistake F I."[60] It
was common practice for plantation owners to use the same shipping
marks that they used for their wine-bottle seals, and therefore it may
be assumed that Jones also owned bottles bearing the initials "F I."
Having established with reasonable certainty that the site in question
was the "Tutties Neck" that had been purchased by Judith Bray from
Frederick Jones, the next step was to attempt to piece together
the history of the site both before and after that transaction.
Unfortunately, during the Civil War the James City County records were
removed for safekeeping to Richmond where they were destroyed. This
loss makes any research into the early documentary history of the
county extremely difficult, and in many cases well nigh impossible.
Source material must be drawn from family papers and from passing
references in the records of other counties. Although the history of
Tutter's Neck has many significant facts missing, it is surprising that
the record is as full as it is.
The first reference occurs in 1632 (or 1642) when mention is made of
"great neck at the barren neck, next adjoining to Tutties neck, a
branch of Archers hope creek."[61] Similar references to "Tutteys" neck
and "lutteyes" neck occurred in 1637[62] and in 1646.[63] Later, in
1679, a deed of sale from Edward Gray to William South of Gloucester
County refers to a parcel of land at "Tuttis Neck."[64] The same
spelling was used in 1682 in the will of Otho Thorpe, of the Parish
of All Hallows at the Wall in London, who left to his cousin John
Grice and Grice's two elder children his plantation in Virginia called
"Tuttis Neck."[65] John Grice is recorded as having been a justice in
James City County in 1685 and 1694.[66]
No further references to Tutter's Neck are to be found until 1711 when
Frederick Jones obtained 100 acres commonly called "Lutties neck,"[67]
escheated land,[68] from one Mathew Brown. It is at this point that
we run into trouble, for the contents of the pits in which the Jones
bottles were found included many items of the late 17th century and
none dating later than the first decade of the 18th century. The pit
beneath the kitchen chimney also contained a bottle bearing the seal
of Richard Burbydge and dated 1701.[69] The inference, therefore, was
that Frederick Jones was on the site during the first years of the
18th century. Jones came from England in 1702,[70] having inherited
considerable estates from his father, Capt. Roger Jones. In 1704 he is
shown in the Virginia Quit Rent Rolls as possessing 300 acres in James
City County, 500 acres in New Kent County, and 2,850 acres in King
William County.[71] Were it not for the purchase of 1711, it would be
reasonable to assume that the 300 acres in James City County were the
same that Jones sold to Judith Bray at some unspecified date prior to
1722, the year of his death.
[Illustration: FIGURE 5.--Plan of excavated features.]
We know that as early as 1703 Frederick Jones had interests in North
Carolina, because it was in that year that one Jeremiah Goodridg
brought suit against him and he was then described as "late of
London."[72] In 1707 Jones received a grant of 4,565 acres in what
are now Jones and Craven Counties in North Carolina.[73] At that time
he was living in or near Williamsburg--presumably on his 300 acres in
James City County; in 1705 he was a vestryman of the Parish of Bruton
with its church in Williamsburg,[74] and in the same year both he and
David Bray were listed as being among the directors for the building of
Williamsburg.[75] It would seem that he was a man of consequence in the
county at that time.
Among the papers of the Jones family are indentures dated 1708
transferring property in both King William and New Kent Counties from
Frederick to his brother Thomas Jones,[76] and it may well be construed
that this transfer occurred at the time that Frederick moved to North
Carolina. In the same year his plantation in Chowan Precinct, North
Carolina, described as "land whereon the church now stands" was chosen
as the site for a glebe.[77] This is presumably the same Chowan County
plantation on which Jones died in 1722.
[Illustration: FIGURE 6.--FREDERICK JONES' WINE-BOTTLE SEALS showing
matrix variations: 1, initials from single matrix, with right side of
"I" poorly formed (same die as fig. 7, left); 2, initials from separate
matrices, with large serifs on "F" and small serifs on "I"; 3-5,
initials from separate matrices, with small serifs on both letters; 6,
7, initials from separate matrices, with heavy serifs on both letters.
Seal 5 came from Pit A; all others from Pit B. The use of single-letter
matrices suggests a 17th-century date for the bottles' manufacture,
while the presence of various die combinations makes it probable that
the bottles were not all made at the same time. It is likely that the
bottles were among Jones' possessions when he emigrated to Virginia in
1702.]
In 1711 Frederick Jones and others residing in North Carolina appealed
to Governor Spotswood of Virginia for help against the Indians.[78]
In the same year his name again occurs on an address to Spotswood
concerning Colonel Cary's rebellion.[79] Almost a year to the day
later, he is recorded as applying at a council meeting for the
return of salt carried from his house ostensibly for "Supporting ye
Garrisons."[80] In July 1712 Jones acquired an additional 490 acres
in North Carolina.[81] All of this evidence points to his being well
settled in his new home by 1712.
[Illustration: FIGURE 7.--WINE BOTTLES of Frederick Jones and Richard
Burbydge, from Pit B. For scale see figure 19.]
The colony of North Carolina developed more slowly than did Virginia.
The first permanent English settlement in North Carolina was on the
Chowan River in about 1653, with the population being drawn from
Virginia. In 1663 the settled area north of Albemarle Sound became
Albemarle County, when Charles II granted the territory to eight
proprietors, in whose families it remained until an act of Parliament
in 1729 established an agreement with seven of them (the eighth
refused to sell) and thus turned the territory into a royal colony.
Consequently, when Jones moved south, North Carolina was still in its
infancy, a haven for piracy and beset by private feuds and troublesome
Indians. In the years 1711-1712 occurred an Indian uprising of
proportions comparable to those that had threatened the life of the
Virginia Colony 90 years before.[82] It was this massacre of 1712 and
its effect on the Jones family that occasioned the foregoing apparent
digression into the early history of North Carolina.
The war with the Tuscarora Indians had begun in 1711 at about the
time that Jones and his neighbors had appealed to Virginia for aid,
and it was not to end until 1713 when the greater part of the defeated
tribe moved north to New York to become the sixth part of the Iroquois
Confederation. In October 1712 Jones' plantation was attacked; but in a
letter from the president of the council, Pollock, to the Governor of
South Carolina, it was stated that the attackers were "... beat off,
none killed of our people."[83] Although there was no loss of life, it
would appear that the effect on Jones' plantation was considerable.
In the Journal of the House of Burgesses at Williamsburg it was
recorded that on November 5, 1712, "Frederick Jones, who some years
ago removed two slaves out of this colony into North Carolina, his
plantation having been totally ruined by the hostilities there;
asks permission to bring his said negroes back again without paying
duty."[84] Although the petition was granted, there is no indication
that Jones did, in fact, return. The important phrase in this notice of
petition is the "who some years ago," for it seems probable that this
refers to the time when Jones left James City County to settle in North
Carolina. Working on the assumption that "some years ago" would be
unlikely to refer to a period of time short of three or four years, it
can be construed that the date of removal fell in 1708 or 1709 at the
latest.
However the evidence is interpreted, it still remains curious that
Jones should have purchased the 100 acres of "Lutties Neck" in 1711 and
that he should sell a 300-acre tract known as "Tutties Neck" to Judith
Bray, when in fact he appears to have possessed a total of 400 acres in
James City County, only one of which is known to bear a name resembling
Tutter's or Tutties' Neck. The only reasonable construction must be
that Mathew Brown's escheated acres adjoined 300 acres that already
constituted Tutter's Neck. But even then there remains the problem of
why only "by estimation, three hundred acres, more or less"[85] were
sold to Mrs. Bray. No evidence has been found to show what became of
the remaining 100 acres, and the only Virginia property mentioned in
Frederick Jones' will of April 9, 1722, was described as "lying in King
William County in Virginia, commonly called Horns Quarter."[86]
It is unfortunate that the direst gap in the documentary evidence spans
much the same period as does the archeological data. However, the
genealogy of the Bray family is of some assistance, providing clues
even if it cannot offer direct answers. When Thomas Bray died on August
2, 1751, he was described as "Col. Thomas Bray, of 'Little Town,' next
to 'Kingsmill,' on James River."[87] That property, lying to the east
of the Kingsmill tract, can be traced back as far as 1636, and it is
known to have been owned by the Pettus family in the latter part of the
17th century.[88] In about 1697 James Bray, son of James Bray, Sr.,
of Middle Plantation (later Williamsburg) married Mourning, widow of
Thomas Pettus, Jr., and so acquired the "Little Town," or "Littletown,"
tract.[89] This James Bray had three children, of whom Thomas was the
eldest and thus became heir to his father's estate.
James Bray, Jr., had two brothers (as well as a sister). The eldest
son, Thomas, died intestate. David, the youngest of the three, married
Judith (b. 1679, d. Oct. 26, 1720), by whom he had one son, David,
Jr.,[90] who married Elizabeth Page (b. 1702, d. 1734) and had no heir.
The previously discussed transaction of 1732 following the death of
David Bray, Jr., whereby Thomas Bray obtained the "Tuttie's Neck" acres
that had been purchased at an unspecified date by Judith Bray,[91]
would suggest that Frederick Jones retained the title until 1717. This
may be deduced on the grounds that Mrs. Bray would have been unlikely
to have purchased land while her husband, David Bray, Sr., was still
alive. Thus Jones would seem to have sold Tutter's Neck between 1717
and 1720 when Judith Bray died.
Thomas Bray, as stated above, lived at Littletown, and there is
no likelihood that he ever resided at Tutter's Neck. He married
Elizabeth Meriwether and by her had one child, a daughter named
Elizabeth who married Col. Philip Johnson.[92] The daughter died in
1765, and when her husband followed her in 1769 "six hundred acres,
with the appurtenances, called and known by the name of Tutty's neck"
were offered at auction.[93] It was presumably at this time that the
Tutter's Neck land was added to the neighboring Kingsmill plantation
of Lewis Burwell. William Allen, of Surry County, purchased Littletown
in 1796, and in 1801 he added Kingsmill to his holdings along, one
supposes, with Tutter's Neck; for in the inventory made at Allen's
death in 1832 the latter property was listed as comprising 923 acres
and valued at $2,330.00.[94]
As the archeological site under consideration was not occupied beyond
the colonial period, there is no need to pursue its history through
the 19th century. It is enough to note that Tutter's Neck is included
in parcel no. 4 of the Kingsmill Tract now owned by Williamsburg
Restoration, Inc. Part of this parcel is leased to the Chesapeake
Corporation through whose courtesy excavation was made possible.
CAPTAIN ROGER JONES AND FREDERICK JONES
The discovery of the Tutter's Neck site and its artifacts associated
with Frederick Jones arouses interest in the man himself and his place
in colonial America. While those facets of his career directly relating
to Tutter's Neck have been outlined above, a few additional facts may
serve to round out our picture of the man.
In 1680 Capt. Roger Jones of London came to Virginia with Lord Culpeper
and was given the task of suppressing piracy in Chesapeake Bay. His
efforts in this direction resulted in considerable personal gain and
he was able to amass extensive Virginia property. Eventually Roger
Jones' activities caused so many complaints that he relinquished his
office and returned to London. In 1692 a letter of petition from the
Council of Virginia to the Earl of Nottingham, King William's principal
Secretary of State, complained bitterly about the ravages by pirates
to ships carrying supplies to the colony and in particular about the
conduct of Roger Jones. This petition, signed by Francis Nicholson and
others of the Council, contained the following enlightening passage:
".... Capt Roger Jones, some time an Inhabitant of this Country,
but at present residing in London. A man that, from noething,
pretends in a few years to have gained a great Estate, & since he
has declared his disaffection to yr Maty before his leaveing this
Country, by refuseing to serve in any office, or take the usuall
Oaths wee pray yor Lordshps leave to give you his true caracter.
He came into this Country a souldier under the L Culpeper; was
by his Ldsp made Captaine of a small sloope wh was to have been
furnished with twelve men, & was ordered to cruise in our great
Bay, to look out for & seize all unlawfull Tradrs, &c. But ye
Captaine having learnt to cheate ye King very early, never had
above 8 men, altho he constantly received pay for 12 men, for wh
ye Lord Culpeper endeavoured to call him to Acct., as well as
for his adviseing, trading with & sheltering severall Pyrates &
unlawfull Traders, instead of doeing his duty in seizing them. By
which means ye sd. Jones laid ye foundation of his p'sent great
Estate, as he gives out he is master of."[95]
In 1701 Roger Jones died in Stepney, London, and was buried at
Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, the home of his wife Dorothy (née Walker)
by whom he had two sons. The elder son, Frederick, inherited the larger
share of the estate,[96] and both he and his brother Thomas arrived in
Virginia in 1702. Thomas remained in the colony throughout his life,
but, as already shown, Frederick decided that North Carolina was more
to his liking. In about 1708 Frederick disposed of most of his Virginia
holdings and moved south, taking with him at least two Negro slaves and
his wife Jane, whom he had married while in Williamsburg.[97]
There is no doubt that Frederick Jones prospered in North Carolina, and
in 1717 he was appointed Chief Justice for the colony,[98] replacing
the previous Secretary and Chief Justice, Tobias Knight, who had
resigned in disgrace. The latter had made the mistake of being too
open an accomplice of Edward "Blackbeard" Teach, the pirate. There
is reason to suppose that even if Governor Eden did not personally
profit from Teach's activities, he was fully aware that the pirate made
his winter quarters in a North Carolina inlet. Teach was not finally
cornered until November 22, 1718, in the famous exploit of Lieutenant
Maynard off Ocracoke Inlet.[99] Jones had by then been in office for at
least a year and he was doubtless aware of the Governor's sympathies.
Indeed, with his own father's example to guide him, Jones was clearly
an excellent choice for Chief Justice if leniency towards piracy was
a prerequisite for the job. Although there is no evidence that Jones
profited from Blackbeard's operations, the records show that he was
quite prepared to turn the trust of his office to his own advantage.
In the end it was a comparatively small manipulation that proved his
undoing.
In 1721 one Daniel Mack Daniel murdered, by drowning, a certain
Ebanezar Taylor and carried off his goods and money to a total of
£290.0.0d. When Mack Daniel was apprehended the money was passed for
safekeeping to Frederick Jones, who apparently pocketed it. On April 4,
1722, the following entry appeared in the _Colonial Records of North
Carolina_:[100]
It's the Opinion of this Board that the money lodged in the said
Collo ffredk Jones hands late Cheif Justice for the appearance
of Robert Atkins and Daniel Mackdaniel at the Genl Court ought
to have been deliverd to the present Cheif Justice with the Genl
Court Papers & Records.
Orderd that the said Collo ffredrick Jones late Cheif Justice doe
immediately pay to Christopher Gale Cheif Justice or his Order
whatever moneys he has in his hands lodged as aforesaid ... in
case of failure hereof the Attorney Genl is hereby Orderd to take
proper measures for the recovery thereof.
At the session of July 31 to August 4, 1722, Jones was due to appear to
answer the charge that he had failed to relinquish the money. But when
the session opened, it was reported that Colonel Jones was dead.[101]
He had made his will only five days after the initial order of April 4
had been issued.[102]
Frederick Jones was in many respects a worthy and upright member of
the North Carolina Council, or so one would gather from the opinion of
Hugh Jones (no relation), who wrote: "Col. Frederick Jones, one of the
Council, and in a good post, and of a good estate in North Carolina,
before his death applied to me, desiring me to communicate the
deplorable state of their Church to the late Bishop of London."[103]
Frederick Jones presumably thought no better of the state of education
in the colony, for we know that in the period 1719-1721 two of his sons
were at school in Williamsburg.[104]
The Excavation