excavations were limited by time and prevailing local conditions.
Being aware of these restrictions from the outset, no attempt was made
to undertake the total clearance of either the residence or kitchen.
Instead, carefully restricted cuttings were made across the foundations
to obtain the maximum information with the minimum effort, at the same
time retaining sufficiently large undisturbed areas to merit total
clearance of the site at some future date. As the area is now covered
by fast-growing trees it is unlikely that such an operation would be
feasible within the next 15 or 20 years. In the meantime, however,
Colonial Williamsburg has erected concrete markers (see fig. 5) to
record the positions of both buildings.[105] No excavation of any sort
would have been undertaken at this time had not the foundations been
so extensively and irreparably mutilated by the 1959 bulldozing. The
loss of all the topsoil and the scooping of the upper courses of the
foundations into banks to serve as windbreaks had done such damage that
it was essential that something be done before the new growth took
hold.[106] The operation should be correctly described, therefore, as
a rescue project rather than an archeological excavation in the classic
manner.
Initial work on the site was confined to a survey of the area and the
recovery of artifacts such as ceramics, glass, and brickbats scattered
on the top of the disturbed clay. The principal concentration of
artifacts was encountered in the brick-strewn vicinity of the residence
and kitchen, though neither feature was immediately discernible. This
scatter was flanked on the west by a windbreak of humus, clay, and
fallen trees, and had run out before reaching a parallel windbreak
to the east. Finds extending in the direction of the latter break
included English white salt-glazed sherds as well as bottle fragments
of the second quarter of the 18th century. A similar scatter of later
artifacts was found extending down the southern slope of the neck at
that extremity of the two breaks. In no instance were any fragments of
white salt glaze found in stratified deposits, and it must be assumed
that they emanated from the disturbed topsoil.
To the southeast of the eastern windbreak on ground sloping towards
the secondary stream was found a scatter of brick dust extending over
an area approximately 12 ft. by 14 ft., in the center of which was
a concentration of large over-burnt brick fragments with reddened
clay beneath. No evidence of any laid bricks was encountered, and it
is possible that this was the site of brickmaking rather than of a
structure. The only datable artifact found in the vicinity was the
base of a wine bottle of the first quarter of the 18th century that
was lying in the silted bottom of a nearby rain-washed gully running
towards the stream.
Close to the southern extremity of the east windbreak was found a
refuse pit (Pit A) containing a quantity of late 17th-century or early
18th-century wine-bottle fragments, among them one with the seal "F
I." Some 70 feet northwest of this pit was located an area of laid
brickbats that measured 4 ft. 6 in. by 4 ft. 6 in.; around the edges
of this area were found a few fragments of early 18th-century wine
bottles and one bottle base of the mid-century. This last was the
latest fragment found on the site. No explanation for the presence
of the brickbats was forthcoming, and no further brick deposits were
encountered in the vicinity.
Beyond the west windbreak and in line with the residence were found
numerous glass and pottery fragments of the first and second quarters
of the 18th century, none of them in situ. It was presumed that they
stemmed from the vicinity of the residence and were spread about by
the bulldozing before the windbreaks were pushed up. Over and above
the artifacts and features listed above, no other evidence of colonial
occupation was discovered except in the immediate vicinity of the two
buildings.
The location of the structures was at once apparent on the evidence
of large quantities of disturbed bricks and mortar scooped into
east-west furrows by the bulldozers. Careful probing in the two largest
concentrations of brickbats soon located sections of the foundations
of both buildings. It was then a simple matter to trace out the plans
of each building before any digging was undertaken. This done, test
cuttings were made at the corners and across the chimney foundations.
Subsequently, additional cuttings were made within each building to
determine whether or not either possessed a cellar. In the course
of this work on the smaller of the two structures, numerous refuse
pits were located that helped to provide a terminus post quem for its
construction. Each of these pits was treated as an individual feature
and will be discussed in detail in its proper place.
The Residence
The house, as previously stated, was built on a north-south axis with
its west face looking toward College Creek. It looked eastward along
the track that led to the road linking Williamsburg with Burwell's
Ferry (Kingsmill) on the James River. The residence possessed exterior
measurements of 42 ft. 3 in. by 19 ft. 1 in. with a chimney foundation
at the south measuring 9 ft. 9 in. by 5 ft. and another, at the north,
measuring 9 ft. 11 in. by 4 ft. 11 in. These chimneys had sides of
varying thicknesses: 1 ft. 7 in., 1 ft. 9 in., 1 ft. 6 in., 1 ft. 11
in., 2 ft., and 1 ft. 6 in. The east and north foundations of the
house itself were a brick and a half (1 ft. 1 in.) in thickness, but
the south wall was only one brick thick (9 in.), although the two
foundations were bonded into one another at the southeast corner.
An even more curious situation was provided by the west wall which
extended south from the northwest corner at a thickness of 1 ft. 1
in. and for a distance of 24 ft. 3 in., whereupon it stopped. At this
point the three surviving courses were stepped back, indicating that
although there was no flush end, the bond had not been intended to
continue. At a point 9 in. farther south, one brick and two bats
were found continuing on the same line. No further trace of a west
wall was found until a point was reached 8 ft. from the southwest
corner. Here, stepping down as did the northern section, the foundation
continued to the corner, rising to a height of four courses, but only
one brick in thickness.[107] Neither the break in the west foundation
nor the curious variation in the thickness of the foundations has been
explained.
It was suspected that the building might have possessed a porch chamber
extending to the west, but no westerly projecting foundations abutted
against the stepped ends of the west wall. The presence of the west
windbreak made any further excavation in that direction impossible, and
it could be argued that a porch chamber might not have had foundations
as deep as those of the house proper. If this were so, then it is
conceivable that they were dismantled along with the rest of the
building in the mid-18th century and that any remaining traces have
been destroyed by the bulldozing.
A single fragment of a polychrome Bristol delftware charger, with
nails and window-glass fragments, was found in the builder's trench at
the southern extremity of the northern section of the west foundation
(deposit T.N. 27).[108] The sherd is attributed to the period about
1680-1700, and it is the only clue as to the construction date of the
residence. In loose fill inside the foundation in the same general area
as the above find were located part of a lead-glass tumbler and the
front of an iron padlock. The tumbler fragment could not date before
the first quarter of the 18th century, and might be later.
Two test cuttings were made inside the building in the hope of locating
a cellar, but none was found. However, a neck of a wine bottle dating
no earlier than about 1740 was discovered amid the debris of the house
(T.N. 28). It should be noted that this debris showed no indication of
burning.
It was apparent that the house had been of frame construction resting
on brick foundations laid in English bond. It was a little over twice
as long as it was broad, and appeared even longer when seen with its
massive exterior chimneys at either end. Such a house would probably
have been a story and a half in height, having an A roof with dormers
probably facing both east and west.[109] Fragments of small panes and
lead window cames found in the excavations suggest that the windows
were leaded and therefore of casement type. On the first floor there
probably were two rooms, a hall and chamber--perhaps divided by a
central passage with exterior doors at either end. Prior to the
building of the separate kitchen, the hall may have been used for
cooking. Above, there were probably two rooms approached by a staircase
leading from the passage. This reconstruction assumes, of course, that
no porch chamber existed on the west side.
Since no evidence of a dirt or brick floor was encountered, it is
assumed that the floors were of wood. Beyond establishing, from
foundation widths, that the building was of frame construction, it
must be noted that no archeological evidence of the above-grade
appearance of the building was forthcoming. Mr. E. M. Frank, director
of architecture for Colonial Williamsburg, whose conjectural elevation
provides the frontispiece to this paper, points out that the roof
may have been made from lapping oak strips some four feet in length,
as were found at the Brush-Everard House in Williamsburg. He further
suggests that the weatherboards could also have taken the form of
similar split-oak strips, precedent for which survives in the west wall
of the John Blair House, also in Williamsburg.
A house of the above proportions and character was a little better
than many a yeoman's home in England, although it owed its origins to
those same homes. It was larger than the smaller houses of Jamestown,
but only just as large as the smaller houses of Williamsburg, whose
sizes were regulated by an Act of Assembly in 1705. The Tutter's Neck
residence differed from most of the Williamsburg houses in that it had
no cellar. While it was a perfectly adequate house for a Williamsburg
citizen of average means and status, one might be tempted to assume
that it would not long have sufficed as the home of Col. Frederick
Jones who, in North Carolina, aspired to 6 children and 42 slaves.[110]
On the other hand, it may be noted that the Carters of "Corotoman" on
the Rappahannock, one of the wealthiest families in Virginia at the
beginning of the 18th century, had lived in a rather similar house
prior to the building of an imposing and larger brick mansion. The
latter burned in 1729, whereupon Robert "King" Carter moved back into
the old 17th-century house. Carter's inventory made at the time of his
death in 1732, and now in the possession of the Virginia Historical
Society, identifies the rooms in the "Old House" as comprising a dining
room, chamber over the dining room, lower chamber, chamber over the
lower chamber, and a porch chamber. This last strongly suggests that
the "Old House" was of 17th-century date. As other buildings named in
the inventory are noted as being of brick (probably advance buildings
for the burnt mansion), it may be assumed that the "Old House" was of
frame construction and so might well have been of the same class as the
Tutter's Neck residence. A further similarity is to be found in the
fact that the Carter inventory lists no cellars beneath the "Old House."
The Kitchen
Like the residence, this subsidiary building was not without its
unusual features, the most obvious being the position of the massive
chimney standing against the main east-west axis of the building
instead of at one of the ends, the normal position. Thus, instead of
being supported by the A of the roof, the chimney was freestanding
above the first floor with the pitch of the roof running away from it.
The building possessed external measurements of 25 ft. 4-1/2 in. by 16
ft. 7-1/2 in.; the foundations, laid in English bond, were one brick
(9 in.) thick. The chimney abutted against the north wall, measured
10 ft. by 5-1/2 ft.; its sides were 11 ft., 1 ft. 9 in., and 11 in.
thick.[111] Such a building would have stood to a height of a story
and a half with one room on the first floor and a rude attic above,
probably approached from a ladder.
Cuttings across the foundations showed that the bricks were unevenly
laid. At one point in the south wall the bricks jogged out to a
distance of two inches, as though the foundation had been laid from
both ends and failed to meet correctly in the middle. There was no
possibility that this unevenness could have been caused by settling or
root action after building, for the builder's trench was filled with
clearly defined burnt clay that also followed the jog.
The same red clay was packed in the builder's trench all around the
kitchen building. It was also used to span soft depressions resulting
from refuse pits dug and filled with trash before the building was
erected. For some unexplained reason the kitchen was constructed
over an area that previously had been set aside for the burying of
domestic refuse. The largest and earliest of the five pits excavated
was situated partially beneath the massive kitchen chimney, whose
foundation, not surprisingly, had settled into the pit. Another
rectangular pit in the middle of the building was not only topped with
a pad of red clay but was partially covered by a cap or pier of laid
brickbats that perhaps served as a support for floor joists.
The presence of the pits sealed beneath the kitchen provided two pieces
of information: that the site had been occupied for some time before
its construction, and that it was not built before about 1730 or
1740--this on the evidence of a wine bottle found at the bottom of Pit
D. If this was the first separate kitchen building erected on the site,
it must be assumed that the cooking was originally carried on in one
of the first-floor rooms of the residence. However, the fact that the
archeological excavations were so limited makes any conjecture of that
kind of dubious value.
The unusual construction of the kitchen and its situation in the
trash area at a skew with the residence might prompt the conclusion
that it was built without much consideration for the beauty of the
whole. It is probable that the kitchen was erected after the house had
ceased to be the residence of the owner or a tenant of the Tutter's
Neck acres, and that the dwelling was then a slave quarter. Such a
conclusion is supported by the presence in Pits D-F, of numerous
fragments of Colono-Indian pottery, a ware produced by Tidewater
Indians in pseudo-European forms and probably intended for the use
of the slave population. The construction date of the kitchen in the
decade 1731-1740 would place it in the ownership of Col. Thomas Bray,
who resided at Littletown (see p. 40). Thus the Tutter's Neck residence
is at best unlikely to have been any more than the quarters of an
overseer, or, at worst, communal housing for slaves working in that
area.
Such a conclusion would help to explain the fact that the majority
of artifacts found in the site's later deposits were of dates much
earlier than their contexts would suggest. Many items of pottery and
cutlery were of late 17th-century date, though found in refuse pits
of about 1730-1740. This would not be so surprising were it not for
the fact that few, if any, such items have been found in excavations
at Williamsburg, a town that was firmly established throughout the
period covered by the Tutter's Neck occupancy as determined by the
excavations. But if the kitchen site was used as a slave quarter, it
would be logical to expect that such things as pottery and cutlery
would have been old before being relegated to that location. A graphic
example is provided by the latten spoon from Pit D that dates from
the period about 1660-1690 (fig. 15, no. 13) and which had seen such
service that it had been worn down to half its bowl size before being
discarded.
The Refuse Pits
A total of six refuse pits were excavated, five of them entirely or
partially sealed beneath the foundations of the kitchen. All five
consequently predated that structure, though Pit B (see fig. 5) was
probably 20 years earlier than the others. Pits C-F, on the other hand,
were probably all dug within a short time of each other. They were
approximately the same size and depth and were situated within a few
inches of one another, although none overlapped its neighbor. It may
be deduced, therefore, that the pits were dug in such close succession
that the outlines of the preceding pits were still visible to the
digger. It is possible that they may have been privy pits. Concrete
evidence indicating the close relationships between these pits was
provided by fragments of the same Colono-Indian bowl found in both Pit
D and Pit E.
PIT A
This deposit (T.N. 31) was located farthest from the buildings,
being situated, as previously noted, about 125 feet southeast of the
residence on the south slope of the neck. As elsewhere on the site,
the topsoil over the pit had been removed, leaving only the lower
portions of the dirty yellow clay deposit intact. This pit measured
8 ft. by 5 ft. and extended to a depth of only 1 ft. 2 in. into the
surrounding natural yellow clay. A tree stump obscured a small part of
this oval pit, but it is believed that its presence prevented few, if
any, artifacts from avoiding recovery. The finds comprised two or three
sherds of coarse pottery of no identifiable form, part of the base of
an English delftware mug ornamented with sponged manganese, one clay
pipe of about 1700, and fragments of at least 18 wine bottles of the
period about 1690-1710. One of these fragments bore an "F I" seal from
the same matrix as another found in Pit B.
The location of Pit A so far from the house and in a totally different
area from the only other pit of the same date (Pit B) suggests that
there was little consistency in the deposition of trash in the early
years of the century. It is possible that the pits were created when
tree stumps were removed and were filled with trash no matter where
they happened to be. The fact that modern tree roots invariably sought
the richer soil of the pits' contents makes it quite probable that
there are numerous other pits on the site that are still hidden beneath
standing trees or cut stumps.
Dating: There is little doubt that Pit A was filled during the first
decade of the 18th century.
PIT B
This pit (T.N. 30) was approximately circular, with a diameter of 9 ft.
4 in. and a maximum depth of 2 ft. 8 in. It was covered by part of the
kitchen's north wall and by the whole of the east side of the kitchen
chimney. It was apparent that the builders knew that the pit was there,
for a considerable number of brickbats were laid under the foundation
of the chimney's northeast corner in an entirely abortive attempt to
prevent it from settling. It is probable that the pit was initially a
stump hole, there being a large quantity of dirty, greenish-gray clay
at the bottom from which no artifacts were recovered (see fig. 8.) It
is probable that this clay was redeposited when the stump and attached
roots were dug out. Subsequently, the remaining concavity served as a
rubbish pit into which more than 120 broken wine bottles were thrown.
All these bottles belonged to the same period (1690-1710) as those in
Pit A, and among them were five seals marked "F I" and one seal bearing
the legend "Richard Burbydge 1701."[112]
[Illustration: FIGURE 8.--Section through the filling of Pit B.]
Other finds included fragments of English delftware, among them a very
large polychrome charger that had been intended as a wall or dresser
ornament, and a most unusual saucer-shaped vessel, ornamented with
splashes of blue, that resembles a reversed form of the London copies
of Nevers faïence.[113] Additional finds included North Devon[114] and
other coarse earthenwares, a millefiori bead, and an English wineglass
in the Hawley Bishop style dating about 1690.
Dating: The evidence of the bottles indicates a filling date in the
first decade of the 18th century.
PIT C
Covering the top of this pit was a layer of reddish clay, the same type
of clay that was used in the backfilling of the builders' trench around
the kitchen foundations. The clay was directly covered by brick rubble
from the building's destruction stratum. From between the clay and
rubble (T.N. 15) came fragments of an iron saw some 17 in. long and a
brass harness fitting of unusual form. Set into the clay level was the
base of a brick pier made from brickbats and intended to provide added
support over the soft filling of a pit measuring approximately 6 ft.
by 4 ft. 3 in. and having a total depth of 2 ft. 6 in. The walls were
carefully trimmed and the bottom was flat, leaving no doubt that this
cavity was dug as a refuse pit and was not a converted stump hole.
The red clay described above gave way to a yellow clay beneath the
brick pier from which level (T.N. 16) came a few unimportant pottery
fragments, a shoulder fragment from a wide-mouthed jar, and an iron
harness buckle. Beneath this stratum was encountered the main pit
filling, comprising a thick stratum of wood ash (T.N. 17) which blended
towards the corners of the pit into pale clay (T.N. 18) that has
probably silted in from the sides. From the ash deposit came part of
a sickle, the bowl of a much-decayed pewter spoon, objects of turned
bone, tobacco pipes, and a silvered-brass harness ornament. Somewhat
surprisingly, the stratum also contained part of a plate comparable to
the delftware charger from Pit B, though the date of the deposit was
probably 20 or more years later.
The silted clay at the bottom of the pit included numerous clay-pipe
fragments whose stem holes, following the Harrington theory, pointed
to a date in the period about 1735-1750. Other finds included coarse
earthenwares from Yorktown, delftware, and part of a pewter spoon
handle.
Dating: About 1740.
PIT D
This was a rectangular rubbish pit measuring approximately 5 ft. 10
in. by 4 ft. and having a maximum depth of 2 ft. 8 in.--measurements
closely resembling those of Pit C, which was situated only one foot
to the east. Stratigraphy also followed much the same sequence: Four
inches of brick rubble on the top (T.N. 26), then 6 inches of red clay
(T.N. 22) overlying the main fill of wood ash and becoming mixed with
silted clay at the bottom (T.N. 23). The red clay had mixed with the
top of the pit fill and a number of artifacts spanned the division of
the strata, among them a rim sherd from a polychrome delftware charger
(about 1670-1690) and part of an inverted baluster wineglass stem of
the beginning of the 18th century.
[Illustration: FIGURE 9.--BOWL OF BUFF-COLORED EARTHENWARE with a
brown lead glaze and with "ELIZABETH GOODALL 1721" inscribed in slip.
Probably Staffordshire. Height, 7-1/2 in. This bowl parallels one
of similar ware found at Tutter's Neck (fig. 19, no. 9). Colonial
Williamsburg, Department of Collections, no. 1960-430.]
The primary ash deposit, which proved to be the richest on the site,
included delft drug-jar fragments, porringers and bowls, Westerwald
tankard sherds, brown stoneware, Yorktown coarse wares, and much
Colono-Indian pottery. Small finds included pewter spoons, scissors,
part of a sword guard, iron dividers, and a sickle and table knives of
late 17th-century character. Tobacco-pipe fragments pointed to a dating
in the third decade of the 18th century, as also did a single wine
bottle found at the bottom of the pit.
Dating: About 1730-1740, on the above evidence.
PIT E
This deposit lay some 3 feet to the west of Pit D, and it was found on
the last day of excavation. Consequently time only permitted a test
hole (measuring 1 ft. 9 in. by 1 ft. 9 in.) to be made into the pit at
its northwest corner, from which point horizontal probing indicated
that the pit measured 4 ft. by 2 ft. 8 in. and was shown by the test
cut to be 2 ft. 9 in. deep. Unlike the other pits in this series, the
contents consisted of a single brown-soil deposit (T.N. 24) containing
brickbats, oystershells, and a small quantity of ceramics, notably the
base of an ornamental delftware cup and a large part of a Yorktown
earthenware bowl. Of significance was a fragment of Colono-Indian
pottery that joined onto a bowl found in Pit D, indicating that
both deposits were of the same date. Additional finds included pipe
fragments and an iron horseshoe.
Dating: About 1730-1740, principally on evidence of matching sherds of
Indian pottery.
PIT F
This was an oval pit situated 2 feet north of Pit C. Being only
partially within the area of excavation and owing to its close
proximity to the poorly preserved north foundation of the kitchen,
this deposit was only partially excavated, i.e., an area 4 ft. 2 in.
by 3 ft. 9 in. The pit had a depth of 1 ft. 10 in. and contained a
deposit of ash mixed with dirty clay (T.N. 19). From this filling came
several pieces of Colono-Indian pottery, polychrome delftware, Yorktown
earthenwares, Chinese porcelain, part of a heavy wineglass knop, and
one minute sherd of white salt glaze on which the pit's terminal dating
is based.
Dating: About 1730-1740.
OTHER DEPOSITS YIELDING ARTIFACTS ILLUSTRATED
Deposits T.N. 1, T.N. 2.--Deposit T.N. 1 was in a 6-inch stratum
of rich black soil outside the northwest corner of the kitchen and
partially covered by a large tree stump. While some of the black dirt
overlay the corner foundation, its looseness suggests that it was
pushed there during the bulldozing. No traces of the stratum extended
inside the kitchen, and the artifacts were consistently of dates prior
to the construction of the building. Finds included a pewter spoon
handle, brown stoneware with a rare white interior, a tobacco-pipe bowl
with maker's initials "H S," a wineglass stem comparable to that from
pit B, and panes of window glass measuring 2-1/8 in. by 1-7/8 in. and
1-5/8 in. by 2-7/16 in.
Deposit T.N. 2 was a 2-inch layer of burnt clay flecked with wood ash.
It lay beneath the black soil level and probably was deposited when
the kitchen was built. Consequently, the upper level can only have
been laid down after that time. Finds included one sherd of Spanish
majolica and a fragment of a tobacco-pipe bowl bearing the name of
Tippet, a family of Bristol pipemakers in the late 17th and early 18th
centuries.[115]
Dating: It is assumed that the clay (T.N. 2) was contemporary with the
construction date of the kitchen (about 1730-1740) and that the black
fill (T.N. 1) was deposited soon afterward.
Deposit T.N. 3.--A continuation of the red clay inside the kitchen
chimney. Finds include one Rhenish "Bellarmine"[116] sherd and a pewter
spoon handle.
[Illustration: Figure 10.--FRAGMENTS OF SIMILARLY ORNAMENTED
17TH-CENTURY DELFTWARE from Tutter's Neck, London, and Holland: 1,
with blue and orange decoration, from Tutter's Neck, Pit B; 2, with
blue decoration, from Tutter's Neck, Pit D; 3, bowl waster with blue,
orange, and green decoration, from Toolley Street kiln site, London; 4,
plate with blue decoration from Toolley Street site; 5, plate decorated
in blue, orange, and green, from Dutch Limburg. The Netherlands dish,
earlier than the English examples, clearly indicates the source of the
border design.]
[Illustration: Figure 11.--INTERIOR BASES OF DELFTWARE SALTS with
identical Carolian profiles. _Left_, from Tutter's Neck, Pit D;
_right_, from the Thames at London. Diameter of each base is 1-3/4 in.]
Dating: Same as T.N. 2, about 1730-1740.
Deposit T.N. 4.--A stratum of black soil overlying the red clay
outside the southwest corner of the kitchen foundation. Finds include
wine-bottle fragments dating about 1690-1710, brown stoneware, Yorktown
coarse earthenware, and English delftware sherds.
Dating: After kitchen construction, probably in the same decade, about
1730-1740.
Deposit T.N. 10.--Black humus mixed with plaster and brickbats
outside the west wall of the residence's north chimney. The only find
of importance is a well-preserved, two-tined, iron table fork.
Dating: The stratum represents the destruction level of the residence,
and the scant dating evidence recovered from T.N. 18, etc., suggests
that the building had ceased to exist by 1750, or possibly a few years
earlier.
Deposit T.N. 27.--The field number covers two deposits that blended
together in their upper levels. They comprise the back filling of
the builder's trench against the residence's west foundation (see
p. 44)--from which came a single delftware charger sherd of about
1680-1700--and a stratum of black humus mixed with mortar and plaster
representing the destruction layer of the house. The bulldozing had
caused considerable disturbance to both layers, but it can be safely
accepted that the delft sherd belonged to the construction date of
the residence and that a lead-glass tumbler base and an iron-padlock
fragment came from the destruction stratum.
Dating: The construction date for the house relies on the insufficient
evidence of the single delftware sherd mentioned above, i.e., after
about 1680. The destruction dating comes not from the items noted here
but from the bottle neck discussed under T.N. 28, after about 1740.
Deposit T.N. 28.--A test cutting inside the residence on the line of
the supposed central hallway that revealed 9 inches of humus mixed with
mortar and plaster resting on natural clay. From the above level came
one bottle neck of about 1740. On this evidence and on the evidence of
unstratified sherds found in the occupation area, it is assumed that
the complex had been abandoned by the middle of the 18th century.
Dating: After about 1740.
Animal Remains
Animal bones and marine items were largely confined to the refuse pits
previously discussed, although a few garbage bones and oystershells
had been spread around the site in the course of the bulldozing.
Bones from the pits comprised the usual range of ox, pig, and deer
remains that are to be found amid the garbage of most colonial
sites. A group of the less readily identifiable bones were submitted
to the Smithsonian Institution for examination and the following
identifications were provided:
Left humerus, wild duck, (white-winged scoter, _Melanitta
deglandi_). From T.N. 17.
Fibula of pig (_Sus scrofa_), domestic. From T.N. 17.
Shaft of humerus, domestic goose. From T.N. 22.
Mandible of possum (_Didelphis_ sp. _marsupialis_, subsp.
_virginiana_), edible. From T.N. 22.
Mandible of "marine gar," or needlefish, of the Belonidae family,
probably _Strongylura marina_ (Walbaum), a very common sea fish
in this area, which runs in fresh water, and is frequently eaten.
From T.N. 24.
[Illustration: FIGURE 12.--COLONO-INDIAN CUP excavated at Williamsburg
which is comparable to a fragment from Tutter's Neck (fig. 18, no. 17).
Height, 3-7/8 in.]
Also submitted for examination were specimens from a number of scallop
shells, which were plentiful in Pits C and D, and examples of mussel
and clam shells from Pit C. The identifications were as follows:
Fresh water mussel of a type eaten by the Indians, _Elliptio
complanatus_. From T.N. 18.
Fossil clam, _Glycymeris_ sp. From T.N. 18.
Fossil scallop of a variety no longer living in this area. From
T.N. 22.
The identification of the scallop as being fossil was somewhat
surprising in view of the prevalence of such shells in Pits C and D.
However, it should be noted that Pit E (T.N. 24) contained a fragment
of fossil whale rib. Such bones are plentiful in the Tidewater marl
beds and are frequently found on the shores of the James and York
Rivers.
The Artifacts
TOBACCO PIPES
Pipes (fig. 14) were not plentiful, no more than 100 fragments being
found in any one deposit. The datable bowls and fragments of pipes
closely followed the site's two periods as indicated by the various
refuse pits; that is, examples from Pits A and B date from around
1700-1720, and those from the rest of the pits are of types loosely
attributed to the period of about 1710-1780. On the evidence of
association and by the use of the Harrington system of stem-hole
dating, there is no reason to date any of the pipes later than the
first half of the 18th century.
A few deposits yielded a sufficient number of stem fragments to provide
tentative dating, as follows:
-------------------+--------+---------------------------+---------
|_No. of_| _Stem diameters_ |
_Deposit_ | _frag-_+---------------------------+ _Date_
| _ments_| 4/64" 5/64" 6/64" 7/64"|
-------------------+--------+---------------------------+---------
Pit B (T.N. 30) | 91 | 29% 60% 11% |1700-1720
Pit C (T.N. 17, 18)| 82 | 17% 78% 5% |1730-1750
Pit D (T.N. 23) | 49 | 16% 63% 21% |1730-1740
Kitchen (T.N. 1) | 55 | 57% 43% |1720-1740
-------------------+--------+---------------------------+---------
It should be noted that in all cases the samplings are too small for
accuracy and that they are based on Mr. Harrington's elementary chart
which he, himself, claims to be no more than a point of departure for a
new approach to the dating of tobacco-pipe fragments. Nevertheless, the
above results do follow fairly closely the dating of the groups arrived
at on the evidence of stratigraphy and on the study of associated
artifacts of all types.
Since this report was first written, Lewis Binford of the University
of Chicago has developed a mathematical formula based on Harrington's
chart which enables one to arrive at a mean date for the deposition
of a group of pipes. Audrey Noël Hume has subsequently demonstrated
that a sampling of approximately 900 fragments is needed to maintain
consistent results, and that the degree of accuracy rapidly falls off
when dealing with groups of pipes dating earlier than 1670 and later
than 1760.[117] Fortunately, the Tutter's Neck pipes, though few in
number, do fall within the period of greatest accuracy. The following
table illustrates the relationships between dates arrived at on the
basis of all artifactual and documentary evidence (I), by the use of
the Harrington chart (II), and by the Binford formula (III).
--------------------+-----------+-----------+-------
_Deposit_ | _I_ | _II_ | _III_
--------------------+-----------+-----------+-------
Pit B (T.N. 30) | 1702-1710 | 1700-1720 | 1709
Pit C (T.N. 17, 18) | ca. 1740 | 1735-1750 | 1745
Pit D (T.N. 23) | 1730-1740 | 1730-1740 | 1739
Stratum (T.N. 1) | ca. 1740 | 1720-1740 | 1724
--------------------+-----------+-----------+-------
The discrepancy in the dating of layer T.N. 1 must be explained by the
fact that the soil and its contents were dug from somewhere else and
redeposited outside the kitchen building. Had this stratum predated
the building, it would undoubtedly have been found on both sides of
the foundation and would not have overlaid the red clay level (T.N. 2)
which was similar and probably identical to that sealing pits C and D,
the latter containing a wine bottle of about 1740 (fig. 19, no. 18).
The following maker's marks were found on pipes:
[Sidenote: R M]
One initial on either side of the heel. Two examples (see fig. 14,
no. 3). The initials are not uncommon on pipes of the same shape
found at Williamsburg and Rosewell Plantation.[118] There were at
least seven pipemakers with these initials working in the late 17th
and early 18th centuries.[119] T.N. 30, Pit B.
[Sidenote: H S]
One initial on either side of the heel. One example (fig. 14, no. 5).
Other pipes with these initials have been found at Williamsburg and
Rosewell Plantation. Maker not known. T.N. 1.
[Sidenote: I S]
One initial on either side of the heel. One example (fig. 14, no. 6).
The mark is not recorded among previous finds from either Jamestown
or Williamsburg. At least five makers with these initials were
working in Bristol in the appropriate period. T.N. 17, Pit C.
[Illustration: FIGURE 13.--1, IRON SAW FRAGMENTS found under the
Tutter's Neck kitchen (T.N. 15); 2-5, iron sickle, padlock, scissors,
and dividers, respectively, from various deposits on the site (see
figs. 15, 16).]
[Sidenote: RICH
ARDS
AYER]
Richard Sayer. Two examples had the name stamped on bases of flat
heels; five others had the stamp on the upper sides of stems (see
fig. 14, no. 1). All seven stamps occur on glazed pipes of good
quality. No previous examples of his pipes have been found at
either Jamestown or Williamsburg. Possibly Richard Sayers who is
recorded by Oswald as having been working at Newbury in about 1700.
T.N. 30, Pit B.
[Sidenote: ...IP
...ET]
This fragmentary stamp on a molded cartouche on the side of a bowl
came from a context of about 1730-1740 (T.N. 2) and was presumably
made by the Robert Tippet of Bristol who became a freeman in 1713
and whose pipes have been found in Williamsburg contexts dating as
late as the mid-18th century.[120]
[Sidenote: RICH
TYLER]
Presumably Richard Tyler, but the last two letters of the surname are
unclear. The stamp appears on a stem fragment within an oval of
impressed square dots. Oswald lists a Richard Tyler who was working
at Bath in about 1700. Stem-hole diameter, 5/64 in. Unstratified.
[Sidenote: W]
Fragment from base of bowl of pipe with neither heel nor spur,
probably similar in shape to no. 4 of figure 14. The first of a
pair of initials molded on either side of the base.[121] Stem-hole
diameter, 7/64 in. Unstratified.
METAL OBJECTS
Metal items (figs. 15-17) from the site provide a valuable series of
common domestic and agricultural objects of a period that has as yet
received little study. The majority of the principal items came from a
single refuse pit beneath the kitchen (Pit D, T.N. 23) and although
deposited in the second quarter of the 18th century they are generally
of earlier date. The surprising preponderance of late 17th-century
items in this and other contexts tends to support the theory that the
house served as a quarter toward the end of its life and that the
furnishings, tools, and utensils consequently were already worn and
old-fashioned when provided for use by the slaves.
CERAMICS
Like the metal items, the ceramics are predominantly of the late 17th
and early 18th century, though frequently found in contexts of the
second quarter of the latter century. The quality and variety of the
wares is somewhat surprising, the finds including some items that are
today of considerable rarity. Notable among them is the saucer in
a reversed "Nevers" style that is seemingly without parallel (fig.
18, no. 8), a London delftware "charger" of massive proportions and
uncommon design (fig. 18, no. 10), a lead-glazed Staffordshire bowl
fragment (see fig. 19, no. 9), and part of a brown-surfaced white
stoneware jug that may have come from the factory of John Dwight of
Fulham near London.[122]
The majority of the delftwares have the appearance of London
manufacture, rather than that of Bristol or Liverpool. As a broad
generalization it may be claimed that the former trend in Virginia was
characteristic of the 17th century but was reversed in the 18th.
An unusually large percentage of Colono-Indian pottery was present,
predominantly in pits dating from the second quarter of the 18th
century. The same contexts also yielded a high proportion of
lead-glazed earthenware cream pans manufactured at Yorktown, presumably
at the factory of William Rogers that may have been operating as early
as 1725.[123]
Although all the items found on the Tutter's Neck site emanate from
contexts of 18th-century date, most of the delftwares and some of
the stoneware items are without parallel in nearby Williamsburg, the
18th-century cultural and economic center of Virginia that lay only
three miles away. Once again, therefore, the artifacts point to a
17th-century survival and perhaps, by projection, to a low standard of
living.
An indication of a terminal date for the life of the site is provided
by the total absence of English white salt-glazed stoneware from
all except one stratified deposit (Pit F), a ware that does not
seem to have reached the colonies before the third decade of the
18th century,[124] most of it arriving after about 1740. It must be
recorded, however, that fragments of this later period were found
scattered on the surface, but it was impossible to determine whence
they came.
GLASS BOTTLES
Wine bottles[125] provided the key to the entire excavation, first by
possessing seals (fig. 6) that identified the owner of the property
and secondly by providing dating evidence for the construction of the
kitchen; thus there was avoided an error of dating that would otherwise
have been inevitable. In addition, the group of bottles from Pit B
(T.N. 30) provided a valuable series of specimens of varying shapes,
all of which were in use together at the beginning of the 18th century.
(See fig. 19, nos. 11-20.)
A few small fragments of green pharmaceutical phials were also
recovered, but none was sufficiently large to merit illustration.
TABLE GLASS
Although wine-bottle glass was plentiful, table glass was comparatively
scarce. It was confined to the three wineglasses illustrated as nos.
16-18 of figure 17, a 17th-century wineglass-stem fragment similar to
no. 17 of figure 17 (see footnote 94), heavy tumbler-base fragments of
typical 18th-century type (from T.N. 24, 27), and a fragment from a
fine gadrooned Romer of late 17th-century date (fig. 20, no. 8).
Conclusions
The Tutter's Neck excavations represented the partial exploration of a
small colonial dwelling and outbuilding, both of which ceased to exist
by about 1750. On the basis of the excavated artifacts the intensity
of occupation seems to fall into two periods, the decade of about
1701-1710 and within the years about 1730-1740. Documentary evidence
indicates that these periods relate to the respective ownerships of
Frederick Jones and Thomas Bray.
While the groups of artifacts from refuse pits are closely dated by
context and are consequently valuable in the general study of domestic
life in early 18th-century Virginia, the history of the site is less
well served. The limited nature of the excavation, the loss of the
overburden through bulldozing, and the destruction of the James City
County court records during the Civil War serve to leave a number
of important gaps in the chronology. It is to be hoped that at such
time as the new trees have grown up and have been cut there will be
archeologists ready and waiting to complete the excavation of this
small but historically interesting site.
Illustrations
The illustrated items are confined to those that are sufficiently
complete or readily identifiable as to be of value to archeologists,
curators, and historians who may find comparable items elsewhere. In
the interest of brevity, repetitive or unstratified objects have been
omitted, although occasional exceptions have been made in the latter
category where it is considered that the objects are of significance
to the study of the structures or the possessions of Tutter's Neck
residents, whether or not they can be closely dated.
The drawn objects are divided by type and are arranged in chronological
order within each group where variations of date are apparent. In most
instances the archeological evidence of the date at which the artifacts
were deposited in the ground is more accurate than is the overall date
range of individual items. Thus the fact that a delftware form that
was developed about 1700 continued to be manufactured until about 1740
would give us, in the absence of archeological evidence, a manufacture
date of about 1700-1740, but there would be no indication of the length
of the object's actual life. On the other hand, the archeological
evidence tells us only when the object was discarded, and not when it
was made. To avoid confusion, the descriptions of the artifacts only
indicate the periods in which the objects were first made and/or were
most popular, and then only when such dates are clearly at variance
with the archeological termini. Each description ends with the Tutter's
Neck field number that indicates the source of the item and provides
the terminus post quem for its context. Table 1 provides a summary
of the foregoing report for use in conjunction with the artifact
illustrations.
TABLE 1.--_Location and terminal dates of deposits._
--------------+-------------------------+-----------------
_Field Number_| _Deposit_ | _Terminal Date_
(T.N.) | |
--------------+-------------------------+-----------------
1 | Kitchen | c. 1740
2 | " | c. 1730-1740
3 | " | c. 1730-1740
4 | " | c. 1740
8 | kitchen vicinity | Unstratified
10 | residence | c. 1740-1750
15 | kitchen | c. 1740
16 | " | c. 1730-1740
17 | Pit C | c. 1725-1735
18 | " " | c. 1725-1735
19 | Pit F | c. 1730-1740
22 | kitchen | c. 1730-1740
23 | Pit D | c. 1730-1740
24 | Pit E | c. 1730-1740
27 | residence | c. 1740_ff_1750
28 | " | c. 1740-1750
29 | slope south of residence| c. 1750-1760
30 | Pit B | c. 1702-1710
31 | Pit A | c. 1702-1710
32 | residence vicinity | Unstratified
--------------+-------------------------+-----------------
FIGURE 14. TOBACCO-PIPE PROFILES
1. Pipe with bowl shape reminiscent of the 17th century but with
the lip horizontal instead of sloping away from the stem as
characteristic of the earlier forms. Mouth somewhat oval; spur
small; the clay very white and glazed. Marked on the stem with
the name Richard Sayer. Stem-hole diameter 6/64 in. Oswald Type
9d.[126] T.N. 30.
2. Fragmentary bowl of cylindrical form, having a shallow heel
from which the fore-edge of the bowl springs forward. This is
a late 17th-century form. No mark. Stem-hole diameter 6/64 in.
T.N. 30.
3. Bowl of basic 18th-century form, but the narrow profile is
indicative of an early date within the period. Letters "R M"
molded on either side of the heel. Stem-hole diameter 5/64 in.
T.N. 30.
[Illustration: FIGURE 14.--TOBACCO-PIPE PROFILES. Same size.]
4. Bowl with neither heel nor spur, but the angle of the bowl
comparable to that of no. 2. No mark. Stem-hole diameter 5/64
in. T.N. 31.
5. Bowl apparently similar to no. 3, but with the lip missing;
smaller heel with molded initials "IIS," but the letters poorly
formed and almost illegible. Stem-hole diameter 6/64 in. T.N. 1.
6. Bowl slightly fatter than the above, initials "IS" clearly
molded on the small heel, the "I" very thick. Stem-hole
diameter 4/64 in. T.N. 17.
7. Bowl with neither heel nor spur, an evolved 18th-century form
in the style of no. 6 but somewhat larger. This is clearly a
later variation of no. 4.[127] Stem-hole diameter 5/64 in. T.N.
19.
8. Base of bowl and stem fragment, of red clay and of local
Virginia manufacture.[128] Apparently a 17th-century form, but
found here in an 18th-century context. Stem-hole diameter 10/64
in. T.N. 18.
[Illustration: FIGURE 15.--CUTLERY and other small finds. One-half.]
FIGURE 15. CUTLERY AND OTHER SMALL FINDS
1. Table knife, iron, with sway-backed and round-ended blade,
thin, winglike shoulders, the tang slightly turned over at the
end but originally 1-1/2 in. in length. A late 17th-century to
early 18th-century blade form.[129] T.N. 23.
2. Table knife, iron, smaller but similar form to no. 1, but with
the blade end less rounded. The tang is bent at right angles at
approximately its midsection, a presumably fortuitous feature
that has been omitted from the drawing. T.N. 23.
3. Table knife, iron, with incomplete blade and broken tang; the
blade narrow and somewhat sway-backed, the shoulders extending
into a double collar below a somewhat heavy tang. The closest
parallel is believed to have been made around 1700.[130] T.N.
23.
4. Table knife, iron, with the blade much worn and the tip
missing, long and heavy shoulders, possibly of octagonal form.
This knife is of a form typical of the 17th century.[131] T.N.
23.
5. Table fork, iron, two-tined, with the long octagonal
shank common in the 17th century,[132] terminating in a
rectangular-sectioned tang. T.N. 10.
6. Table knife, iron, with incomplete blade originally with
upswept and rounded end, but seemingly used after the end
was lost. Back of blade hipped and terminating in octagonal
shoulders and rectangular-sectioned tang. Early 18th century.
T.N. 28.
7. Terminal of pewter spoon handle, a weak form of the "split end"
or "trifid" terminal of the late 17th century.[133] Scratches
on the upper surface can be read as the initials "I H." Early
18th century. T.N. 1.
8. Terminal of pewter spoon handle, spatula form, the handle broad
and thin. A broad arrow mark (perhaps a rough, merchant's mark)
is rouletted onto the upper surface. On the reverse, an Arabic
figure 2, marked in a multiplicity of small scratched arcs, is
sufficiently large as to make use of the entire area of the
terminal. T.N. 18.
9. Pewter spoon handle, with spatula terminal, in an advanced
stage of decay and broken off at the junction with the bowl;
probably rat-tailed. T.N. 3.
10. Bowl and broken handle of pewter rat-tail spoon, the rat-tail
being unusually long and thin after sharply constricting at the
heel of the bowl. The handle is narrow and oval in section and
could very well have ended in a terminal section of the same
type and length as no. 9. T.N. 23.
11. Pewter spoon, normal rat-tail bowl, apparently with spatula
handle terminal. This spoon was intact when found, but was in
so advanced a state of decay that the weaker sections at both
ends lay powdered in the ground and could not be restored. T.N.
23.
12. Pewter spoon bowl and section of straight handle. Bowl is of
oval form with rudimentary rat-tail; the handle is rectangular
in section. The handle form is characteristic of the 17th
century.[134] The spoon is in an advanced stage of decay but
appears to have been crudely formed, the bowl being very
shallow. T.N. 17.
13. Latten or brass spoon bowl and section of handle, tinned; the
bowl oval but worn away by long use. Maker's mark in the bowl:
a spoon flanked by the initials "RS" within two rings between
which is the legend "DOVBLE WHITED."[135] The form is typical
of the second half of the 17th century. T.N. 23.
14. Blade sections of iron scissors. T.N. 23.
15. Blade and incomplete handle from pair of scissors. The blade
terminates at an angle of 30° in the manner of modern tailors'
scissors, a shape that was common in the 17th century and less
so in the 18th. The loop of the handle takes the form of a
broad but thin-sectioned band set at a right angle to the
blade, an early characteristic.[136] T.N. 23.
16. Pair of iron scissors with one blade broken, of similar type
to the above. The loop and shaft of the left section are much
more substantial than the right, suggesting that although the
components were found attached they were not originally made
for each other. T.N. 23.
17. Left side of iron casing for a fleam. An example of similar
shape and size was found in excavations at Jamestown. T.N. 23.
18. Pair of iron dividers with bulb terminal and tines somewhat
convex on the outside faces.[137] T.N. 23.
19. Iron key with round-sectioned loop: stem round-sectioned
and narrow at junction with loop and becoming much wider in
midsection, then tapering again as it approaches the web. The
pin is solid and terminates in a small nipple; the web is
divided and much decayed, with the fore-section represented by
only a small fragment that is much thinner than its companion.
It would appear that the key had been violently wrenched in a
lock, resulting in the breaking of the web and the twisting and
fracturing of the loop. T.N. 23.
20. Small tool of uncertain purpose, perhaps an awl. Broad and flat
at one end, in the manner of a screwdriver or drill shank, and
becoming round-sectioned and narrowing to a point at the other
end. T.N. 30.
21. Iron spoon bit with flattened shank terminal. Spoon
convexo-concave in section, saucered upwards at the lower end
to the same height as the walls of the trough, and terminating
in a worm or twist of two surviving revolutions.[138] T.N. 23.
22. Iron quillon and knuckle bow mounting from sword.[139] T.N. 23.
FIGURE 16. BUILDERS HARDWARE AND OTHER METAL ITEMS
1. An object of uncertain purpose, made from sheet iron rolled at
the sides over a wire to provide round-sectioned edges and more
roughly folded for the same purpose at the lower edge. The
central hole has been deliberately cut. The object, whose shape
resembles the terminal from a cheekpiece of a snaffle bit, has
been broken at the narrow end, suggesting that it was too light
in construction to have been intended for such a purpose. T.N.
19.
2. Tang and part of blade from an iron sickle. Blade is triangular
in section, and the cutting edge commences approximately 2-1/2
in. from the haft. T.N. 23.
3. Blade fragment from sickle of larger size than the above,
triangular in section, and bearing some indication that the
back has been hammered. T.N. 17.
4. Front plate and part of mechanism of bag-shaped padlock. The
keyhole cover is now missing but originally it was hinged, and
not pivoting as has been common on locks since the second half
of the 18th century.[140] The bolt, which survives, is fitted
with a spring at the rear and has two wards projecting from its
midsection. T.N. 27.
5. Chest or coffin handle, iron. Handhold is 1/2 in. in width at
its widest point and tapers at either end. The terminals, of
disk form, serve to hold the handle at right angles to the wood
of the chest. Such handles were attached by means of cotter
pins. The form was common in the 17th century.[141] T.N. 24.
6. Iron spike of large size, measuring 5-5/8 in. in (surviving)
length, 1/2 in. by 7/16 in. at the broken top, and
approximately 1/2 in. by 1/4 in. at the bottom. This was the
largest spike found on the site. T.N. 22.
7. Iron spike with heavy square head. Length 4-3/4 in.; shaft at
head measures 7/16 in. by 5/16 in. and is spatula-ended. T.N.
23.
8. Ring-headed bolt. Collar beneath the loop, with the shaft
round-sectioned and 1-13/16 in. of threading above the
pyramidical point. The nut measures approximately 7/8 in. by
5/8 in.[142] T.N. 17.
9. Iron bolt or rivet with large thin head 1-1/4 in. in
diameter; shaft end probably broken. T.N. 23.
[Illustration: FIGURE 16.--BUILDERS' HARDWARE and other metal
items. One-half.]
10. Iron rivet with large head approximately rectangular in
shape and measuring 1-3/8 in. by 1-3/16 in. Shaft originally
round-sectioned but now much decayed and showing evidence of
having spread at its flat terminal. T.N. 23.
11. Tube of sheet iron. Wider at one end than the other, having an
aperture of 3/8 in. at the narrow end and approximately 7/8 in.
at the other end. Possibly the nozzle from a pair of bellows
or, conceivably, a large ferrule; however, there seem to be
no holes for mounting the iron to wood. The object has been
hammered at its wide end, causing the metal to spread and roll
and the entire object to buckle and yawn at its midsection.
T.N. 23.
12. An object of uncertain purpose sometimes described as a door
or shutter latch. The blade section is neither pointed nor
sharpened, and the shank or tang is slightly spread at the
end.[143] T.N. 18.
13. Fragment of object of uncertain purpose. Sheet iron is folded
over at one edge to grip an iron strap, only a small section of
which survives. T.N. 23.
14. Iron hasp from trunk or chest lock; has rectangular keeper and
rolled terminal for lifting.[144] T.N. 18.
15. Iron strap with rectangular #T#-shaped terminal at one end
and pierced by a 7/8 in. rivet at the other end; of uncertain
purpose. T.N. 23.
16. Ward plate, possibly from large padlock, iron. T.N. 22.
17. Ward plate from large rimlock. Lugs at either end serve as
rivets that pass through iron supports extending back from the
front plate. T.N. 17.
18. Bolt, iron, from large rimlock. The head is approximately 1/2
in. thick. Two wards extending from the shaft show that, to
lock, the bolt moved from right to left. Unstratified.
19. Bolt, iron, from large rimlock. The head is approximately 1/2
in. thick. The remains of two wards extend from the shaft and
show that, to lock, the bolt moved from left to right. T.N. 18.
20. Harness buckle, iron. Almost square-sectioned, with the tang
round-sectioned, flattened at the top, and rolled around the
buckle. T.N. 16.
21. Harness buckle, iron. The tang side is round-sectioned, the
other sides flattened. The tang is pointed, square-sectioned in
the shaft, and possesses an ornamental ridge below the point at
which it rolls over the frame.[145] T.N. 23.
22. Harness buckle, iron, much decayed. Frame and tang apparently
square-sectioned, the former perhaps unintentionally
constricted at one side. T.N. 23.
FIGURE 17. OBJECTS OF IRON, BRASS, BONE, AND GLASS
1. Ring, iron, with evidence of wear at one side; possibly a
handle or a chain terminal. T.N. 23.
2. Loop, iron, with the ends perhaps originally meeting; possibly
a handle or a chain terminal. T.N. 19.
3. Horseshoe, iron. Rudimentary key-hold type, much decayed but
with slight traces of fullering, probably eight nail holes,
four on each side. The lug at left terminal would seem to have
been created by the loss of a fragment of the outer edge. This
is a typical 17th-century form, but one that continued into the
18th century.[146] T.N. 24.
4. Handle from scythe, iron. The wooden shaft was approximately
1-5/8 in. in diameter at point of contact. T.N. 24.
5. Part of snaffle bit, jointed mouthpiece lozenge-shaped junction
of bit and rein loop. T.N. 23.
6. Fragment of iron pot, with two molded cordons on the body. T.N.
30.
7. Leg from iron pot, five-sided and tapering to a point.[147]
Base of pot approximately 1/8 in. thick. T.N. 8.
8. Leg with trifid or cloven foot, from iron pot. Legs of this
type narrow above the foot and spread again towards the point
of junction with the pot base. It was at the narrow midsection
that the illustrated leg broke. The form was common in the 17th
century. T.N. 18.
9. Tapering iron strap of uncertain purpose. Two small nail holes
at the broad end and two larger holes down the length of strap.
T.N. 19.
[Illustration: FIGURE 17.--OBJECTS of iron, brass, bone, and
glass. One-half.]
10. Strap similar to the above. Slightly constricted at midsection
but otherwise without taper; positioning of nail holes as in
no. 9. The strap is bent in opposite directions at either end,
the bend at the right extremity passing through the line of
the nail holes, indicating that the bending occurred when the
object was used for a purpose other than that for which it was
originally intended. T.N. 23.
11. Shoe buckle, iron. Badly decayed, but traces of both iron tines
and back loop remain. The frame sides were probably originally
only 3/16 in. to 1/4 in. wide. T.N. 23. Shoe buckles of iron
are very rarely encountered.
12. Harness ornament, brass. Originally silver-plated or
tin-plated, of shell form; five tangs that protrude from the
back--four in the area of the shell and one at the tail--were
folded over to grip the leather, fragments of which still
survived when the fitting was found. The form was common in the
18th century,[148] but most examples found in Virginia are much
less angular than is this example. T.N. 17.
13. Harness fitting, brass, with rectangular loop at right angles
to the ornamental plate, probably a strap retainer. T.N. 15.
14. Bone tube or nozzle, possibly part of a syringe. Internal bore
spreads from 1/8 in. at the narrow, broken end, to 3/8 in. at
the other end. The increase in bore begins at a point 3/4 in.
from the wide end. The latter terminates on the exterior in a
collar above six encircling grooves, below which the tube is
trumpet-shaped and ornamented with two shallow incised rings.
T.N. 17.
15. Bone tube of uncertain purpose. Trimmed at the narrow end to
fit within a collar or extension; the wider end spreading and
convex, the interior of this end with spiral groove to create
threading to house a screw-ended plug or extension. T.N. 17.
16. Wineglass stem. Heavy and solid inverted baluster with small
fortuitous tear; the lead metal a smoky gray with an almost
frosted appearance resulting from surface decay.[149] The bowl,
though large, was comparatively thin at its junction with the
stem and probably, therefore, was of funnel form. Late 17th
century. T.N. 22.
17. Light wineglass. Pale straw-colored metal;[150] inverted
baluster stem is hollow and gently tooled into quatrefoil form
at its junction with the bowl,[151] the latter setting firmly
into the top of the stem. The conical foot with central pontil
mark is thin and was undoubtedly folded. This is an important
3-piece glass of a type sometimes attributed to Hawley Bishop,
George Ravenscroft's successor at the Henley-on-Thames
glasshouse.[152] About 1680-1700. T.N. 30.
18. Wineglass stem. Sparkling lead metal; the stem comprising a
solid, inverted baluster beneath a massive cushion knop, the
base of the bowl nestling firmly within the latter. Late 17th
century to early 18th century.[153] T.N. 4.
FIGURE 18
ENGLISH DELFTWARE
1. Bowl with everted rim ornamented with crudely overlapping ovals
and diamonds in blue; interior of bowl decorated with rings
of the same color. The conjectural base and foot are derived
from larger bowls of similar form found in excavations at
Williamsburg. The glaze is thick, and very white. Late 17th
century to early 18th century. T.N. 30.
2. Rim sherd from bowl of form similar to the above, but the blue
decoration on the interior of the bowl and the rim plain. T.N.
23.
3. Hemispherical bowl. The foot conjectural, decorated in blue on
the exterior with a stylized foliate border made up almost
entirely from groups of straight lines. There is a trellis
border above the missing foot, and the interior is decorated
with a double blue line at the same height, and with a single
line 5/8 in. below the rim. This last is decorated with red,
imitating the red-brown slipped line that frequently occurs on
Chinese export porcelain. Second quarter of 18th century.
T.N. 17; one sherd from T.N. 16.
[Illustration: FIGURE 18.--ENGLISH DELFTWARE, Indian pottery, and
stonewares. One-fourth.]
4. Drug jar. Flat and slightly everted rim, straight body section,
and spreading base; the bottom slightly domed and the glaze
thin. Ornamented in pale blue with groups of horizontal lines
and a body zone decorated with linked ovals created by the
drawing of two overlapping wavy lines. Probably of London
manufacture and of 17th-century date.[154] T.N. 30.
5. Porringer. Slightly everted rim and handle with heart-shaped
aperture; body slightly bulbous and incurving to a straight
foot; the glaze thick and gray. Probably of London
manufacture.[155] Late 17th century to early 18th century. T.N.
23.
6. Shallow ointment pot or jar. Rim flattened, undercut, and
slightly everted; base markedly domed, thick pinkish-white
glaze. Almost certainly of London manufacture and dating from
latter part of 17th century. T.N. 30.
7. Ointment pot. Thin, slightly everted rim over a bulbous body;
the foot slightly spreading beneath it and slightly conical
beneath; the glaze thick and gray. 18th century. T.N. 23.
8. Saucer. Conjectural reconstruction derived from base and rim
sherds. The base thick; the foot solid and only slightly
raised, but the rim thin and with a much more even finish. The
piece has a thick white glaze with a slight pink cast and is
haphazardly splashed with blue. The technique would appear to
be the reverse of the London copies of Nevers faïence whereon
white dots are splashed over a blue ground.[156] This object
appears to be without parallel in published sources, but may
tentatively be given the same dating as the London white on
blue, i.e., about 1680-1690.[157] T.N. 30.
9. Pedestal base from a small salt. Base conical within; glaze
thick and very white; bowl decorated internally with profile
portrait of a cavalier. This extremely unusual item was, by a
remarkable coincidence, paralleled by an identical fragment
found by the writer on the foreshore of the River Thames at
Queenhithe in London. The two are shown together in figure 11.
About 1660-1680.[158] T.N. 23.
10. Large dish or charger reconstructed on the basis of base and
rim fragments. Diameter approximately 1 ft. 3 in. The rim turns
gently downward beyond the wide marly, and the foot is squat
and slightly spread. The glaze is thick and white, and the rim
decoration takes the form of broad rings of blue enclosing a
marly zone ornamented with an alternating lozenge and diamond
motif created from two rows of interlocking arcs, the upper
painted in orange and the lower in blue. The decoration of the
center of the dish is uncertain, but was painted in the same
two colors, perhaps in a stylized pomegranate design. Such
dishes are frequently decorated on the rim edges with dashes
of blue that give them the name "blue dash chargers,"[159]
but there is sufficient glaze surviving on this example to
indicate that there was no such ornament. Another somewhat
unusual feature is that the back of the dish is tin-glazed;
the majority of such dishes were coated on the reverse with a
thin yellow or yellowish-green lead glaze. Such dishes were
frequently used as wall or dresser ornaments and not for use at
table; consequently, the footrings are generally pierced for
suspension. No suspension holes occur on the small sections of
the footring that survive on this example. The dish is believed
to be of London manufacture on the evidence of wasters found in
the Borough of Southwark,[160] London (see fig. 10), though the
style is clearly of Dutch origin.[161] About 1670-1690. T.N.
30.[162]
11. Rim fragment from plate. The glaze slightly pink, narrow marly
decorated with alternating lozenge and diamond motif in light
blue (see no. 10) bordered by a single and double line of the
same color. At least two concentric circles adorned the floor
of the plate, but no evidence of the central design survives.
Early 18th century. T.N. 23.
12. Pedestal foot and base of salt or cup. The foot conical and
shelved internally; the bowl flat-based and with the rolled
terminal of a small handle at one side; the glaze somewhat
gray. The foot decorated with three somewhat irregularly drawn
rings in light blue; the bowl ornamented with rudimentary
floral devices; and the handle terminal decorated with two
horizontal bars of dark blue, perhaps beneath a vertical,
stalked flower. Late 17th century(?). T.N. 24.
INDIAN POTTERY
13. Bowl with flattened and slightly everted rim.
Colono-Indian[163] pottery, pebble-or stick-burnished, with
pink surface; extensive tool marks on the exterior; the ware
flecked with red ocher and few traces of shell. T.N. 23, T.N.
24.[164]
14. Shallow bowl or pan with flattened and everted rim.
Colono-Indian pottery; the ware buff and heavily shell-tempered
and retaining traces of surface burnishing. T.N. 23.
15. Rim and wall fragment of bowl with roughly flattened and
everted rim. Colono-Indian pottery, the body pale buff and
finely shell-tempered. T.N. 19.
16. Rim sherd from bowl of local Indian pottery. Lip thickened
and slightly incurving; body pink to buff and coarsely
shell-tempered; the exterior stick-burnished. T.N. 19.
17. Rim and wall fragment of cup or small bowl, the rim slightly
everted by tooling beneath it. Colono-Indian pottery; body
pinkish buff with traces of red ocher in the clay; exterior
surface highly burnished. It is possible that the fragment came
from a vessel comparable to that shown in figure 12, which was
found in excavations at Williamsburg.[165] T.N. 23.
BROWN SALT-GLAZED STONEWARES
18. Body and handle terminal fragments from pint (?) tankard.
Mottled purplish-brown exterior and reddish-brown interior;
the rim conjectural and the lower body and basal section
modeled on no. 19. Probably of English manufacture, London or
Bristol.[166] T.N. 1, T.N. 4.
19. Basal and wall fragments of pint (?) tankard. Similar in form
to the above. Two fragments present, one with the beginning of
the red slip that becomes mottled brown in firing, a feature
that normally extends from the midsection upwards to the
rim. The lower body is gray, as is the interior; the foot is
ornamented with a ridge, cordon, and double ridge. T.N. 17.
20. Rim sherd of quart (?) tankard. Burnt; the rim thinned from the
inside and ornamented on the outside with a single groove; dark
purplish-brown mottling on the exterior, a little of the slip
from which extends over the interior of the rim. T.N. 23.
21. Jug or drinking pot. Bulbous body with good quality tooling at
the shoulder; handle with single groove down the spine; the
base and neck conjectural, but modeled after the forms produced
by Dwight of Fulham in the late 17th century.[167] The ware is
a pale gray and appears white beneath the internal salt glaze.
It is possible that this is an example of the use of the white
salt-glazed body conceived by Dwight, and that it may have
come from his factory. The refined clay enables the ware to be
thinly and finely potted. T.N. 1.
22. Neck, shoulder, and handle-terminal fragments of jug. The neck
ornamented with multiple grooving; the handle terminal pressed
into the body with one finger; the glaze a rich purplish brown,
reddish brown inside.[168] A common form manufactured in London
at the close of the 17th century and made elsewhere, including
Yorktown, certainly through the second quarter of the 18th
century.[169] T.N. 23.
GERMAN SALT-GLAZED STONEWARE
23. Large (Westerwald) tankard, base and lower body sherds only.
Stylized foliate and geometric ornament incised and filled with
cobalt on an extremely pale-gray body; multiple cordons and
grooves above the base; two concave bands filled with blue; the
base slightly rising and scored with haphazard lines before
firing. T.N. 23.
FIGURE 19
COARSE EARTHENWARES
1. Cream pan of Yorktown (?) earthenware.[170] The rim rolled;
spout conjectural, based on others from the same group; base
slightly rising; exterior of body above base displaying potting
rings and knife work; body containing small quantities of
quartz grit, pink-cored and yellow at the edges; exterior
unglazed but orange-pink slipped, and the interior lead-glazed
a ginger brown mottled with iron. T.N. 24.
2. Cream pan. The rim thickened, incurving and undercut; ware as
of no. 1, but the internal glaze a darker brown; approximate
diameter, 14 in. T.N. 18.
3. Cream pan. Similar to no. 1 but with spout (from which the
above was copied), and the exterior slip somewhat more orange
in color. T.N. 23.
4. Cream pan. With spout and rolled rim; the ware red-bodied,
flecked with quartz grit and red ocher; exterior a deep red
to black; internal glaze a dark greenish brown; approximate
diameter, 14-3/4 in. T.N. 23.
5. Cream pan. The rim thickened, incurving, and undercut; body
pale buff; exterior with pale-orange slip; internal glaze a
lustrous purple, presumably somewhat overfired. Fragments with
this colored glaze are among the many possible wasters from
Yorktown. Diameter approximately 14 in. T.N. 23.
6. Cream pan. Unusual, shouldered rim sherd, perhaps intended
to take a cover; red body with ginger-brown glaze; probably
English. T.N. 4.
7. Storage jar, body fragments only. Decorated with medial grooves
and applied trails pressed in piecrust style beneath the
missing rim; the body gray-cored and red at the edges, coated
with a light-brown glaze flecked here and there with pale
green. Presumably English. T.N. 30.
8. Rim fragment from small cup or pot. Hard yellow body coated
with a pale treacly glaze. Probably Staffordshire. T.N. 18.
9. Large cylindrical jar or bowl. The wall vertical, undercut
above the slightly spread foot. Hard yellow body as above,
coated with thick treacly and streaky brown glaze of a color
much later often associated with Bennington. A rim sherd from
the same deposit is slightly everted, but since the glaze is
much lighter the piece may not belong to the same vessel. Base
diameter approximately 10-1/2 in. Probably Staffordshire. An
example recently purchased by Colonial Williamsburg (fig. 9) is
dated 1721. T.N. 30.
10. Storage jar. The rim everted and ridged internally, probably to
seat a lid; gravel tempered, pale-pink earthenware; internal
dark apple-green glaze.[171] West of England manufacture. T.N.
30.
GLASS BOTTLES
11. Wine bottle of early short-necked form. Olive-green metal; flat
string-rim; the mouth everted over rim. About 1680-1700. T.N.
30.
12. Wine bottle with squat body, short and broad neck, and roughly
applied string-rim; olive-green metal. The body type may
normally be dated around 1700, but some examples are 10 or 15
years earlier.[172] T.N. 30.
13. Wine bottle of olive-green metal. Squatter than the above,
but the neck somewhat taller and the shoulder less angular;
probably little variation in date.[173] T.N. 30.
[Illustration: FIGURE 19.--COARSE EARTHENWARES and glass bottles.
One-fourth.]
14. Wine bottle of squat form, olive-green metal. The neck taller
than in no. 12 and the string-rim smaller and V-shaped.[174]
Seal, on the shoulder, bears the legend "Richard Burbydge
1701." T.N. 30.
15. Wine bottle of squat form, olive-green metal. Somewhat bulbous
and the shoulder weak, the string-rim broad and flat.[175] A
slightly earlier form than no. 14. The bottle has a seal on its
shoulder with the initials "F I" (Frederick Jones) stamped from
a single matrix.[176] T.N. 30.
16. Wine bottle of somewhat unusual form. The metal thin olive
green has turned black through decay which has almost entirely
destroyed the metal. The body round-shouldered, and bulbous in
the early manner; but the neck tall and the string-rim almost
round-sectioned rather than V-shaped as one might expect of a
bottle of this basic form. Were it not for the soft curve of
the body and the shape of the string-rim this bottle might be
attributed to the third decade of the 18th century. Note brass
wire, still attached to neck, that held cork in place. T.N. 30.
17. Wine bottle of half-bottle size. The metal as in no. 16;
shoulder angular; neck somewhat writhen with a broad and flat
string-rim of 17th-century character. Without the last feature
(and its context) this bottle might be thought to date as late
as 1725. T.N. 30.
18. Wine bottle, olive-green metal. Short cylindrical body with
conical basal kick, straight neck, and down-tooled string-rim.
Dated examples occur in the late 1730's, but are more common in
the following decade. T.N. 23.
19. Wine-bottle neck of olive-green metal in an advanced state of
decay. Wide mouth with everted lip and large round-sectioned
string-rim of unusual character. The angular shoulder suggests
that the neck comes from a body comparable to that of no. 12.
T.N. 31.
20. Pickle jar, everted-mouth fragments only. Olive-green metal in
an advanced stage of decay, originally with square body in the
manner of the more common case bottles.[177] T.N. 18.
FIGURE 20. MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS
1. Harness ornament, plated brass. (See fig. 17, no. 12.) T.N. 17.
2. Harness fitting, brass. (See fig. 17, no. 13.) T.N. 15.
3. Brass button. Hollow cast; both back and front convex; the back
with two molding holes on either side of the flat-sectioned
brass loop, which spreads directly from the back without any
intermediary shank. Such buttons were common in the second
half of the 17th century and the first quarter of the 18th
century.[178] Diameter, 3/4 in. T.N. 23.
4. Brass curtain ring. The shape cast and then roughly filed flat
on either side. This method of manufacture is typical of the
17th and 18th centuries. Diameter, 1 in. T.N. 24.
5. Ornamental brass band from shaft or hilt of uncertain form. The
band has become flattened and folded, and the condition of the
metal precludes regaining its original shape. However, the
band is almost certainly a truncated cone, ornamented with a
roughly cutout and scored foliate decoration at the narrow end
and plated with a thin band of silver at the other end. Length,
1-3/16 in. T.N. 18.
6. Millefiori or chevron bead of yellow and black glass, almost
certainly Venetian.[179] The bead is flattened on its pierced
axis and has a diameter of 3/8 in. This example is probably
of 17th-century date, but the technique can be traced back to
Roman times. T.N. 30.
7. Chinese export porcelain-cup fragment. Decorated in
underglaze blue, rough chevron ornament below the rim on the
interior. Diameter approximately 3 in. T.N. 23.
[Illustration: FIGURE 20.--MISCELLANEOUS small finds.]
8. Lower bowl fragment of lead-glass Romer ornamented with
gadrooning or pillar molding. This is undoubtedly the finest
glass fragment from the site; it would not have been out of
place in the best English household.[180] About 1685. T.N. 30.
9. Indian projectile point of honey-colored quartzite. The edges
slightly serrated, and the base slightly concave; the tip
missing, but total length originally about 43 mm. Holland Type
C.[181] T.N. 16.
10. Indian projectile point of red quartzite. Eared or
corner-notched variety; original length approximately 45 mm.
Holland Type O.[182] This is an unstratified item discovered
on the bared clay surface on the promontory of Tutter's Neck
overlooking the junction of Tutter's Neck and Kingsmill Creeks.
U.S. Government Printing Office: 1966
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402--Price 70 cents
FOOTNOTES:
[57] I am indebted to Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., for permitting
the partial excavation of the site, for its generosity in offering
to present the bulk of the artifact collection to the United States
National Museum, and for its financial assistance in the preparation
of this report. I am also much indebted to Audrey Noël Hume and John
Dunton who represented the full extent of our field team, and to the
latter for his work in the preservation of the iron and other small
finds. My gratitude is also extended to A. E. Kendrew, senior vice
president of Colonial Williamsburg, and to E. M. Frank, resident
architect, the late S. P. Moorehead, architectural consultant, and
Paul Buchanan, all of Colonial Williamsburg, for their help in the
interpretation of the architectural remains. Further thanks are
extended to Thaddeus Tate of the College of William and Mary for his
valued council throughout the operation and for reading and commenting
on the final report. I also greatly appreciate comments made by C.
Malcolm Watkins, curator of cultural history at the Smithsonian
Institution, in regard to the European artifacts; the help with
the Indian material provided by Ben C. McCary, president of the
Archeological Society of Virginia; and suggestions for historical
sources made by H. G. Jones, state archivist, North Carolina. Finally,
my thanks are extended to Alden Eaton who first found the site and
without whose interest another relic of Virginia's colonial past would
have been lost.
[58] "_Mesuage_, in Common law, is used for a dwelling-house, with
Garden, Courtilage, Orchard, and all other things belonging to it" (E.
PHILLIPS, _The New World of Words_, London, 1671).
[59] WILLIAM WALLER HENING, _Statutes at Large ... A Collection of All
the Laws of Virginia ..._, vol. 4 (Richmond, 1820), p. 371.
[60] Papers of the Jones Family of Northumberland County, Virginia,
1649-1889 (MSS. Division, Library of Congress), vol. 1.
[61] "Patents Issued During the Royal Government," _William and Mary
College Quarterly_ (January 1901), ser. 1, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 143.
In the 17th century prior to the building of the College of William
and Mary, College Creek was known as Archer's Hope Creek, after the
settlement of Archer's Hope at its mouth.
[62] There was a patent dated February 6, 1637, to "Humphry Higgenson"
for 700 acres "called by the name of Tutteys neck, adj. to Harrop ...
E. S. E. upon a gr. swamp parting it from Harrop land, W. S. W. upon a
br. of Archers hope Cr. parting it from Kingsmells neck, W. N. W. upon
another br. of sd. Cr. parting it from land of Richard Brewsters called
by the name of the great neck alias the barren neck & N. N. W into the
Maine woods." Richard Brewster's 500 acres were described as beginning
"at the great Neck alias the barren neck, adj. to Tutteys Neck a br.
of Archers hope Cr. parting the same, S. upon a br. of sd. Cr. parting
it from Kingsmells Neck...." _Cavaliers and pioneers. Abstracts of
Virginia Land Patents and Grants 1623-1800_, abstracted and edited by
Neil M. Nugent (Richmond: Dietz Printing Co., 1934), vol. 1, pp. 80, 81.
[63] On July 19, 1646, a patent was granted to Richard Brewster for
"750 acres, Land & Marsh, called the great Neck of Barren Neck, next
adjoining to lutteyes neck." "Patents Issued ...," _William and Mary
College Quarterly_ (July 1901), ser. 1, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 94.
[64] "Notes from Records of York County," _Tyler's Quarterly Historical
and Genealogical Magazine_ (July 1924), vol. 6, no. 1, p. 61.
[65] "Virginia Gleanings in England," _Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography_ (October 1904), vol. 12, no. 2, p. 179.
[66] "List of Colonial Officers," _Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography_ (January 1901), vol. 8, no. 3, p. 328; and "Lightfoot
Family," _William and Mary College Quarterly_ (October 1894), ser. 1,
vol. 3, no. 2, p. 104.
[67] "Patents Issued ...," _William and Mary College Quarterly_
(January 1904), ser. 1, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 186. For similar spelling
see note 7, above.
[68] "Escheat, in Common-law, signifieth lands that fall to a Lord
within his Manor, by forfeiture, or the death of his Tenant without
Heirs; it cometh from the French word Escheire, to fall" (PHILLIPS,
_New World of Words_).
[69] On August 14, 1710, Richard Burbydge was among those who signed
a report on the inspection of the vessel _Jamaica Merchant_, lying at
anchor in the upper district of the James River, at the precept of
Governor Spotswood. The inspectors were sworn by Capt. John Geddes, a
justice of the peace for James County. (_Calendar of Virginia State
Papers and other Manuscripts, 1652-1781_, edit. Wm. P. Palmer, M.D.,
Richmond, 1875, vol. 1, p. 141.) This is the only reference to Burbydge
that has been found.
[70] L. H. JONES, _Captain Robert Jones of London and Virginia_
(Albany, 1891), p. 34.
[71] "Virginia Quit Rent Rolls, 1704," _Virginia Magazine of History
and Biography_, vol. 31, no. 2 (April 1923), p. 157; vol. 31, no. 3
(July 1923), p. 222; vol. 32, no. 1 (January 1924), p. 72.
[72] _Colonial Records of North Carolina_, edit. William L. Saunders
(Raleigh 1886), vol. 1, p. 590.
[73] ALONZO T. DILL, "Eighteenth Century New Bern," _North Carolina
Historical Review_ (January 1945), vol. 22, no. 1, p. 18.
[74] "Bruton Church," _William and Mary College Quarterly_ (January
1895), ser. 1, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 180.
[75] HENING, _Statutes at Large_, vol. 3 (Philadelphia, 1823), p. 431.
[76] Papers of the Jones Family ..., vol. 1.
[77] _Colonial Records of North Carolina_, vol. 1, p. 680.
[78] Ibid., pp. 837, 838.
[79] Ibid., p. 787.
[80] Ibid., p. 866.
[81] Ibid., p. 864.
[82] HUGH T. LEFLER AND ALBERT R. NEWSOME, _The History of a Southern
State, North Carolina_ (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 1954), pp. 56-60.
[83] _Colonial Records of North Carolina_, vol. 1, p. 864.
[84] "Notes from the Journal of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726,"
_William and Mary College Quarterly_ (April 1913), ser. 1, vol. 21, no.
4, p. 249.
[85] HENING, _Statutes at Large_, vol. 4 (Richmond, 1820), p. 371.
[86] Papers of the Jones Family ..., vol. 1.
[87] "Diary of John Blair. Copied from an Almanac for 1751, Preserved
in Virginia Historical Society," _William and Mary College Quarterly_
(January 1899), ser. 1, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 151, note 2.
[88] CONWAY ROBINSON, "Notes from Council and General Court Records,"
_Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_ (October 1906), vol. 14,
no. 2, p. 188, note 3.
[89] "Bray Family," _William and Mary College Quarterly_ (April 1905),
ser. 1, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 266.
[90] Ibid.
[91] HENING, _Statutes at Large_, vol. 4 (Richmond, 1820), p. 371.
[92] "Bray Family," pp. 266-267.
[93] HENING, _Statutes at Large_, vol. 8 (Richmond, 1821), pp. 460-464.
[94] Inventory of William Allen, in Surry County Wills, no. 6,
1830-1834, pp. 341-344.
[95] _Calendar of Virginia State Papers_, vol. 1, p. 39.
[96] The will of Roger Jones is preserved in the Public Records Office
in London, but it is published in full in L. H. JONES, _Captain Robert
Jones_, pp. 196-200.
[97] L. H. JONES, _Captain Robert Jones_, p. 34.
[98] DILL, "Eighteenth Century New Bern," p. 18.
[99] SAMUEL A. ASHE, _History of North Carolina_ (Greensboro: C. L. Van
Noppen, 1908), vol. 1, pp. 200-204; and LEFLER and NEWSOME, _History of
a Southern State_, pp. 63-64.
[100] _Colonial Records of North Carolina_, vol. 2, p. 472.
[101] Ibid., p. 475.
[102] Text of the will is given in L. H. JONES, _Captain Robert Jones_,
pp. 200-205.
[103] HUGH JONES, _The Present State of Virginia_ [1724], edit. Richard
L. Morton (Virginia Historical Society, 1956), p. 104.
[104] "The Cocke Family of Virginia," _Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography_ (October 1897), vol. 5, no. 2, p. 192.
[105] Two concrete fenceposts have been set up on the north-south
axis of the residence, the posts being driven immediately beyond the
respective chimney foundations. Two additional posts have been erected
on the east-west axis of the kitchen.
[106] As the work progressed, access to the site became increasingly
difficult, necessitating the abandoning of transport farther and
farther from the scene of operations. However, in the winter of
1960-1961, after all save the last trench had been dug, the Chesapeake
Corporation crew drove a new road through the neck, a road which in
fact cut right through the middle of the archeological area. By great
good fortune the road passed between the two buildings without doing
much more damage than had already been done by the earlier bulldozing.
[107] The builders had made use of oystershell mortar. Specimen bricks
ranging in color from pale salmon to a purplish red have the following
measurements: 8-7/8 in. by 4-1/4 in. by 2-1/4 in. and 8-7/8 in. by
4-1/8 in. by 2-1/2 in.
[108] The "T.N." number in parentheses represents the field number of
the Tutter's Neck deposit.
[109] A house of similar character was photographed at Yorktown
in 1862; see A. LAWRENCE KOCHER and HOWARD DEARSTYNE, _Shadows in
Silver_ (New York: Scribner, 1954), p. 82, fig. 3, no. 17. The Bracken
House in Williamsburg also is similar; see MARCUS WHIFFEN, _The
Eighteenth-Century Houses of Williamsburg_ (Williamsburg, 1960), p. 57,
and figs. 5, 6.
[110] Negroes belonging to the estate of Frederick Jones are listed in
Papers of the Jones Family, vol. 1, November 29, 1723.
[111] Oystershell mortar was used. Sample bricks are pale salmon to
overfired red and measure 8 in. by 3-7/8 in. by 2-1/2 in. and 8-3/4 in.
by 3-3/4 in. by 2-1/2 in.
[112] IVOR NOËL HUME, "The Glass Wine Bottle in Colonial Virginia,"
_Journal of Glass Studies_ (Corning Museum, 1961), vol. 3, p. 99, fig.
3, type 6.
[113] See F. H. GARNER, _English Delftware_ (London: Faber and Faber,
1948), p. 15 and fig. 30a.
[114] See C. MALCOLM WATKINS, "North Devon Pottery and Its Export to
America in the 17th Century" (paper 13 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).
[115] ADRIAN OSWALD, "A Case of Transatlantic Deduction," _Antiques_
(July 1959), vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 59-61.
[116] For an example of comparable shape and date, see figure 6 of IVOR
NOËL HUME, "German Stoneware Bellarmines--An Introduction," _Antiques_
(November 1958), vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 439-441.
[117] J. C. HARRINGTON, "Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth
and Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes," _Quarterly Bulletin
Archeological Society of Virginia_ (September 1954), vol. 9, no. 1, no
pagination. AUDREY NOËL HUME, "Clay Tobacco Pipe Dating in the Light of
Recent Excavations," ibid. (December 1963), vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 22-25.
LEWIS H. BINFORD, "A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe
Stem Samples," _Southeastern Archeological Newsletter_ (June 1962),
vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 19-21.
[118] See 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), p.
222, fig. 35, no. 7, and p. 220.
[119] ADRIAN OSWALD, "The Archaeology and Economic History of
English Clay Tobacco Pipes," _Journal of the British Archaeological
Association_ (London, 1960), 3d series, vol. 23, p. 83.
[120] OSWALD, loc. cit. (footnote 59).
[121] NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 220, footnote 96.
[122] See: J. F. BLACKER, _The A B C of English Salt-Glaze Stoneware
from Dwight to Doulton_ (London: S. Paul & Co., 1922), p. 34ff.; and
IVOR NOËL HUME, "Bellarmines and Mr. Dwight," _Wine and Spirit Trade
Record_ (December 17, 1956), pp. 1628-1632.
[123] C. MALCOLM WATKINS and IVOR NOËL HUME, "The 'Poor Potter' of
Yorktown" (paper 54 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and
Technology_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 249, by various authors),
Washington: Smithsonian Institution, in press.
[124] The earliest known importation is indicated in _Boston
News-Letter_ of January 17, 1724 (G. F. Dow, _The Arts and Crafts in
New England, 1704-1775_, Topsfield, Massachusetts: The Wayside Press,
1927, p. 82).
[125] The common term "wine bottle" is used here for the sake of
convenience, though it should be realized that bottles were not
specifically shaped to contain wine but were used for any and all
liquids from beer to oil.
[126] ADRIAN OSWALD, "English Clay Tobacco Pipes," _Archeological News
Letter_ (April 1951), vol. 3, no. 10, p. 158. The type is attributed
to the period about 1700-1750, with the distribution mainly in the
southwest of England.
[127] See NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 220, footnote 96.
[128] See J. C. HARRINGTON, "Tobacco Pipes from Jamestown," _Quarterly
Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia_ (June 1951), vol. 5, no. 4,
no pagination.
[129] See J. F. HAYWARD, _English Cutlery_ (London: Victoria and Albert
Museum handbook, 1956), pp. 15-16, pl. 13b.
[130] Ibid., p. 16, pl. 17c.
[131] For a similar example, see J. PAUL HUDSON, _New Discoveries at
Jamestown_ (Washington: National Park Service, 1957), p. 34, second
knife from bottom.
[132] The 18th-century shanks tend to be bulbous either below the
shoulder or at the midsection.
[133] A complete spoon with this type terminal was found in excavations
at Green Spring Plantation near Jamestown; see LOUIS R. CAYWOOD,
_Excavations at Green Spring Plantation_ (Yorktown, Virginia: Colonial
National Historical Park, 1955), pl. 11, "G.S. 153." For a Scottish
silver spoon with this type terminal see _The Connoisseur_ (April
1910), vol. 26, no. 104, and _Catalogue of the Guildhall Museum_
(London, 1908), pl. 81, no. 16.
[134] A spoon handle with a shaft of similar type was found at
Jamestown. It bears the mark of Joseph Copeland, a pewterer of
Chuckatuck, Virginia, in 1675. See JOHN L. COTTER, _Archeological
Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia_ (Washington: National Park Service,
1958), pl. 87, fig. at right.
[135] See _Catalogue of the Guildhall Museum_, pl. 71, fig. 3 (for bowl
shape) and fig. 5 (for mark).
[136] As the 18th century progressed, loops tended to be more
round-sectioned. By the end of the colonial period most loops display
their greatest width on the same plane as that of the blade. See NOËL
HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 198, fig. 21, no. 13.
[137] For a similar example see HUDSON, _New Discoveries at Jamestown_,
p. 57.
[138] See H. C. MERCER, _Ancient Carpenters' Tools_ (Doylestown, Pa.:
Bucks County Historical Society, 1951), p. 182.
[139] See NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 198, fig. 21, no. 14.
[140] Both the baglike shape of the lock and the hinged keyhole cover
are indicative of a date in the late 17th century or early 18th century.
[141] HUDSON, _New Discoveries at Jamestown_, p. 26.
[142] A similarly headed object, but slotted at the other end to hold a
linchpin, was found at Jamestown and considered to be an item of marine
hardware. HUDSON, _New Discoveries at Jamestown_, p. 85.
[143] For similar example see NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," p.
224, no. 8.
[144] For similar example see HUDSON, _New Discoveries at Jamestown_,
p. 20, fig. at top left.
[145] Another example with similar frame, but with a broader tang and
no ornamental ridge, was found in the same context.
[146] See NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 224, no. 10, and
_Archaeology in Britain_ (London: Foyle, 1953), p. 107, fig. 23, no. 17.
[147] It is possible that this leg originally spread out into a foot in
the style of no. 6. See HUDSON, _New Discoveries at Jamestown_, p. 30,
fig. at left.
[148] For similar examples, see NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell,"
p. 200, fig. 22, nos. 6, 7.
[149] For a parallel of the stem form only, see GEORGE BERNARD HUGHES,
_English, Scottish and Irish Table Glass from the Sixteenth Century
to 1820_ (London: Batsford, 1956), fig. 35, no. 1. A rather similar
baluster shape, about 1695, is shown in E. M. ELVILLE, "Starting
a Collection of Glass," _Country Life_ (June 11, 1959), vol. 125,
no. 3256, p. 1329, fig. 1. A tavern glass, attributed to the period
1685-1690, whose baluster has a large tear, but which otherwise is a
good parallel, is shown in _The Antique Dealer and Collector's Guide_
(April 1954), p. 29, fig. at left.
[150] The metal was tested for lead with positive results.
[151] A slightly larger stem from a glass of similar form was found
outside the kitchen in deposit T.N. 1; not illustrated.
[152] For a glass of comparable form, but of soda metal, see G. B.
HUGHES, "Old English Ale Glasses," _Wine and Spirit Trade Record_
(April 15, 1954), p. 428 and fig. 1.
[153] For a similar stem shape attributed to the last decade of the
17th century see A. HARTSHORNE, _Old English Glasses_ (London, 1897),
p. 245, pl. 34.
[154] The association of color and style of decoration coupled with
the relationship of diameter to height as displayed here is generally
indicative of early date. In the 18th century, jars of this diameter
tended to be taller, less spread at the base, and with the blue
decoration much darker.
[155] Waste products from London delftware kilns were used to build up
the north foreshore of the River Thames between Queenhithe and Dowgate
in the City of London. Among the many fragments recovered from this
source were biscuit porringer handles of a type similar to the Tutter's
Neck example. The manner in which the rim is folded over the handle
seems to be a London characteristic, Bristol examples more often being
luted straight to the rim. The Thames material was deposited in the
late 17th century and probably came from a pottery on the Bankside on
the south side of the river.
[156] A very small porringer rim sherd of this ware was found at
Tutter's Neck in context T.N. 24; not illustrated.
[157] See GARNER, _English Delftware_, p. 15, fig. 30a.
[158] Dating based on the Carolian appearance of the figure.
[159] E. A. DOWMAN, _Blue Dash Chargers and other Early English Tin
Enamel Circular Dishes_ (London: T. Werner Laurie Ltd., 1919).
[160] From a kiln site found during building operations for Hay's Wharf
between Toolley Street and Pickelherring Street in 1958.
[161] See ERNST GROHNE, _Tongefässe in Bremen seit dem Mittelalter_
(Bremen: Arthur Geist, 1949), p. 120, Abb. 78, Abb. 80a.
[162] The smaller base fragment was found in stratum T.N. 17, a much
later context than the rest. If this fragment does come from the same
dish, it must be assumed that the fragments were scattered and that the
sherd was moved in fill dug from an earlier deposit.
[163] A name coined to describe pottery made by the Pamunkey Indians
and others in the 18th century that was copied from English forms and
sold to the colonists, presumably for use by those who could not afford
European wares. See IVOR NOËL HUME, "An Indian Wave of the Colonial
Period," _Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia_
(September 1962), vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 2-14.
[164] The bowl was important in that the presence of its fragments
deep in both T.N. 23 and T.N. 24 indicated that both Pits D and E were
filled at approximately the same time.
[165] Colonial Williamsburg archeological collection, 10C-58-10B.
[166] Brown stonewares similar to those commonly attributed to Fulham,
but more correctly called London, were manufactured at Yorktown by
William Rogers in the second quarter of the 18th century. See footnote
67.
[167] A comparable vessel, ornamented with medallion containing Tudor
rose and initials of Charles II, is illustrated in BLACKER, _The A B C
of English Salt-Glaze Stoneware_, p. 35.
[168] A similar example from a context of 1763-1772 is illustrated by
NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell," fig. 29, no. 1.
[169] ADRIAN OSWALD, "A London Stoneware Pottery, Recent Excavations
at Bankside," _The Connoisseur_ (January 1951), vol. 126, no. 519, pp.
183-185.
[170] Op. cit. (footnote 67).
[171] A close parallel that was found at Lewes, Delaware, is
illustrated in WATKINS, "North Devon Pottery," p. 45, fig. 25.
[172] See SHEELAH RUGGLES-BRISE, _Sealed Bottles_ (London: Country
Life, 1949), pl. 4, fig. at lower left, and W. A. THORPE, "The
Evolution of the Decanter," _The Connoisseur_ (April 1929), vol. 83,
no. 332, p. 197, fig. 2.
[173] Another example is illustrated by NOËL HUME, "The Glass Wine
Bottle," op. cit. (footnote 56), fig. 3, type 3.
[174] Ibid., fig. 3, type 6, illustrates a similar example.
[175] Ibid., fig. 3, type 5, shows another example.
[176] All other Jones seals from T.N. 30 and T.N. 31 were stamped from
combinations of single-letter matrices. See fig. 6.
[177] A similar though slightly smaller neck came from T.N. 16, and
a square base, probably from an ordinary case bottle, was among
the surface finds. Another example is illustrated in NOËL HUME,
"Excavations at Rosewell," p. 181, fig. 11, no. 13.
[178] NOËL HUME, _Archaeology in Britain_, p. 108.
[179] Colorful beads of this character were frequently used as Indian
trade goods and are found in Indian graves in Virginia and elsewhere. A
long-established legend that beads were manufactured at the Jamestown
glasshouse is without archeological evidence. Although many beads have
been found on the shores of the James River near Jamestown, there is
reason to suppose that all those of European form were imported.
[180] See Hughes, _English, Scottish and Irish Table Glass_, p. 195 and
fig. 134.
[181] C. G. HOLLAND, "An Analysis of Projectile Points and Large
Blades," appendix to CLIFFORD EVANS, _A Ceramic Study of Virginia
Archeology_ (Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 160, Washington,
1955), p. 167.
[182] Ibid., p. 171.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY:
PAPER 54
THE "POOR POTTER" OF YORKTOWN
_C. Malcolm Watkins_ and _Ivor Noël Hume_