The Project Gutenberg EBook of Contributions From the Museum of History
and Technology, by Ivor Noel Hume and C. Malcolm Watkins
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
Title: Contributions From the Museum of History and Technology
Papers 52-54 on Archeology
Author: Ivor Noel Hume
C. Malcolm Watkins
Editor: Frank A. Taylor
Release Date: May 24, 2014 [EBook #45741]
Language: English
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY ***
Produced by Richard Tonsing, Charlene Taylor, Joseph Cooper
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net
[Illustration : BULLETIN 249
WASHINGTON, D.C.
1968]
MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY
CONTRIBUTIONS
FROM THE
MUSEUM
OF HISTORY AND
TECHNOLOGY
_Papers 52-54
On Archeology_
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION WASHINGTON, D.C. 1968
_Publications of the United States National Museum_
The scholarly and scientific publications of the United States National
Museum include two series, _Proceedings of the United States National
Museum_ and _United States National Museum Bulletin_.
In these series, the Museum publishes original articles and
monographs dealing with the collections and work of its constituent
museums--The Museum of Natural History and the Museum of History
and Technology--setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of
anthropology, biology, history, geology, and technology. Copies of each
publication are distributed to libraries, to cultural and scientific
organizations, and to specialists and others interested in the
different subjects.
The _Proceedings_, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in
separate form, of shorter papers from the Museum of Natural History.
These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication
date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume.
In the _Bulletin_ series, the first of which was issued in 1875,
appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs
(occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected
works on related subjects. _Bulletins_ are either octavo or quarto
in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902
papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum of Natural
History have been published in the _Bulletin_ series under the heading
_Contributions from the United States National Herbarium_, and since
1959, in _Bulletins_ titled "Contributions from the Museum of History
and Technology," have been gathered shorter papers relating to the
collections and research of that Museum.
The present collection of Contributions, Papers 52-54, comprises
_Bulletin_ 249. Each of these papers has been previously published in
separate form. The year of publication is shown on the last page of
each paper.
FRANK A. TAYLOR
_Director, United States National Museum_
Papers
_Page_
52. Excavations at Clay Bank in Gloucester County, Virginia,
1962-1963 1
Ivor Noël Hume
53. Excavations at Tutter's Neck in James City County, Virginia,
1960-1961 29
Ivor Noël Hume
54. The "Poor Potter" of Yorktown 73
Part I: Documentary Record
C. Malcolm Watkins
Part II: Pottery Evidence
Ivor Noël Hume
Index 113
Papers 52-54
On Archeology
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY:
PAPER 52
EXCAVATIONS AT CLAY BANK
IN GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA, 1962-1963
_Ivor Noël Hume_
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 4
ARCHEOLOGICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL EVIDENCE 8
METHOD OF EXCAVATION 10
ARCHEOLOGICAL STRATIGRAPHY 11
THE ARTIFACTS 12
CONCLUSIONS 14
[Illustration: Figure 1.--DETAIL FROM AUGUSTINE HERMAN'S MAP OF
VIRGINIA which was published in 1673.]
_Ivor Noël Hume_
Excavations at
CLAY BANK
in Gloucester County, Virginia, 1962-1963
_This paper describes and analyzes artifacts recovered from
the Jenkins site at Clay Bank, Gloucester County, Virginia.
The building which overlay the excavated cellar hole does not
appear on any known map. Among the number of interesting objects
recovered was a large stem and foot from an elaborate drinking
glass or candlestick of fine quality English lead metal. It was
found in association with crude earthenwares, worn out tools,
and broken and reused clay tobacco pipes, suggesting that this
material was derived from various sources._
THE AUTHOR: _Ivor Noël Hume is director of archeology at Colonial
Williamsburg and an honorary research associate of the Smithsonian
Institution._
Early in January 1962 a brick foundation was discovered at Clay Bank
in Gloucester County following the removal of a walnut tree beside the
residence of Mr. William F. Jenkins. The tree was of no great antiquity
but the foundation beneath it was thought by Mr. Jenkins to be worthy
of archeological examination. The author, therefore, visited the site
late in the same month and found that the brick footings were certainly
of colonial date. From the small collection of ceramics and other
artifacts also exposed by the tree, there was reason to suppose that
the building had ceased to exist late in the 17th or perhaps early in
the 18th century.
The site lay on the north bank of the York River on rising ground
immediately west of Clay Bank landing. Little or nothing was known
about the property in the colonial period and it was apparently
identified on no known maps or land plats. However, the fact that it
was adjacent to part of the 18th-century Page family plantation (whose
mansion house had been included in previous archeological work[1])
and because the Clay Bank site gave promise of yielding information
regarding domestic life in the late 17th century, the author decided to
undertake limited excavation in the area of the structure.
With the assistance of local volunteer labor and the archeological
staff of Colonial Williamsburg, two trenches were dug, one exposing a
larger area of the brick foundation, and the other parallel to it some
11 feet to the west in the direction of the river. The first cutting
revealed the remains of a massive brick chimney measuring 10 feet 2
inches by 6 feet using oystershell mortar and laid in English bond. The
brickwork was not bonded to, or abutting against, any wall foundation
and it was therefore presumed that the building to which it belonged
had stood on piers.
The second trench cut through mixed strata of sand, black soil, and
scattered oystershells extending downward to a depth of at least 3 feet
9 inches, at which level a thick layer of shells was found. In the top
of the shell stratum were fragments of glass wine bottles of the late
17th century and parts of an iron can. It was clear that the trench
was not wide enough to enable the artifacts to be studied in situ or
removed in safety, and consequently work was halted until the project
could be developed into an area excavation.
Both the stratigraphy and the similarity in date of artifacts from top
to bottom of the test trench strongly indicated that we were cutting
through one deposit, probably the filling of a cellar belonging to
the same building as the large brick chimney to the east. Remembering
the huge quantities of artifacts that had been recovered from a
single hole at neighboring Rosewell, it was hoped that yet another
significant contribution would be made to the archeology of colonial
Virginia. But in the final analysis the Clay Bank site was to prove
less rich and less historically important (owing to a lack of adequate
documentation) than had been anticipated. On the credit side, however,
it did contribute new facts relating to building construction in
17th-century Virginia, as well as yielding a series of closely dated
tools and miscellaneous artifacts, plus one piece of glass that is not
only without parallel in America, but which is of sufficient importance
to merit a place in the annals of English glass. For this one object
alone, the Clay Bank project would have been eminently worthwhile.
Historical Background
Archeology may be termed the handmaiden of history in that it is truly
the servant of the historian, providing information that is not to
be gleaned from documentary records. At best it is a poor substitute
for the written word, but when the two are used together the pages of
history may acquire an enlivening new dimension. This is particularly
true of American colonial history where the documentation often is
extremely full.
Unfortunately Gloucester County was one of those whose Court Records
were destroyed during the Civil War, and it is difficult and often
impossible to establish property histories over an extended period
of time. However, it is debatable just how much of the blame can be
laid at the doors of war, as many of the county's colonial records
had already been destroyed in a fire at the clerk's office of the
Gloucester courthouse in 1820.
No acceptable evidence has been found to definitely identify the
original owner or the name of the building revealed by the 1962
excavations, though it has been supposed that the adjacent "Ardudwy"
(the present home of Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins) was originally named "New
Bottle" and was built by Robert Porteus at the beginning of the 18th
century. It was hoped that artifacts found on the site might provide
evidence to support the Porteus association, but nothing conclusive
was forthcoming. The only conceivable shred of evidence, thin to the
point of transparency, was provided by a handsome 17th-century latten
spoon bearing a thistle as its touchmark, suggesting, perhaps, that
it was made by a Scots craftsman. As the family of Edward Porteus,
the emigrant and father of Robert Porteus, came from New Bottle
in Scotland, it might be argued that the spoon was among Edward's
possessions when he arrived in Virginia. Such a deduction is readily
assailable, but it is no more so than much other "documentation"
relating to the Porteus family in Virginia.
The distinguished Gloucester County historian, Dr. William Carter
Stubbs undertook considerable research into the history of the
Porteus family, the results of which may be summarized as follows:
Edward Porteus was living in Gloucester County by 1681 in which year
he married the widow of Robert Lee. He died in 1694 leaving a widow
and one son, "Capt." Robert Porteus who became heir to "New Bottle"
plantation. Robert married the daughter of John Smith of "Purton" and
after her death he married a daughter of Governor Edmund Jennings of
"Rippon Hall" in York County. His two wives bore him 19 children, the
best known of whom was Beilby Porteus who was born in 1731 after Robert
had returned to England (in about 1727) to live at York. Beilby Porteus
became Bishop of Chester and then of London, and died in 1808. Robert
lived on in York until his death in 1758.[2]
The location of "New Bottle" has been the subject of dispute for many
years, and as the recent excavations have done nothing to resolve
the matter, it is not necessary to explore the conflicting opinions
and evidence in detail. It is enough to recall that the _Vestry Book
of Petsworth Parish_[3] clearly places Robert Porteus in the Second
Precinct which extended from Bennit's Creek up the York River to Jones'
Creek. The First Precinct had begun at Clay Bank Creek and had reached
to Bennit's Creek. Today most of these names have been changed; Clay
Bank Creek is marked as Aberdeen Creek, the creek at Clay Bank which
was apparently originally known as Bennit's Creek now has no name at
all, and only Jones' Creek remains the same.
The only extant map that shows both Clay Bank Creek and Bennit's Creek
is the Augustine Herman map of Virginia and Maryland published in 1673
(fig. 1). But this shows Bennit's Creek as being as long as the present
Jones' Creek, while the latter is omitted from the map altogether.
However, as the parish records delineating the bounds of the precincts
in 1709 refer to both Bennit's Creek and Jones' Creek there cannot
have been any confusion between them. It is therefore reasonably well
established that the Porteus property lay between those creeks, which
would place it north of the modern community of Clay Bank and south of
Jones' Creek. Although it has not been proved that the Porteus land
included the York River frontage, it is reasonable to suppose that it
did. Thus, if that conjecture is accepted, it becomes highly probable
that the present "Ardudwy" and the adjacent early foundation are on
what were once Porteus acres.[4] The Porteus family continued to own
this or other land in the Second Precinct until at least 1763 as the
bounds of that precinct were ordered to be processioned in 1751,
1755, 1759 and 1763 beginning "on the Land of Robt Porteus Esqr."[5]
As Robert Porteus never returned to Virginia after 1727 and died in
1758, it must either be assumed that the plantation was taken over by
a son or that it was operated by a tenant or manager on "Capt." Robert
Porteus' behalf. In the absence of any other documentation indicating
the presence of any members of the Porteus family in Gloucester after
October 1725,[6] the latter construction seems most reasonable. The
continuing references to Robert Porteus' land in the Second Precinct
until 1763 may be explained as referring to the estate of the late
Robert Porteus.
[Illustration: Figure 2.--PLAN OF EXCAVATIONS in relation to the
existing house.]
[Illustration: Figure 3.--PLAN OF EXCAVATED AREAS and structural
remains.]
Even if the modern Jenkins property is accepted as having been part
of the Porteus plantation it does not necessarily follow that either
the excavated foundation or the much modernized "Ardudwy" represent
the remains of the Porteus house. However, there may be some grounds
for arguing that the foundation and cellar hole were part of the house
of Edward Porteus the emigrant. According to legend, Robert Porteus'
property had once belonged to a Dr. Green at whose house Nathaniel
Bacon died in 1676.[7]
Clues to the appearance of Robert Porteus' house are provided by an
entry in the _Petsworth Parish Vestry Book_ for November 12, 1704.
There it was recorded that the churchwardens drew up an agreement "...
wth Ezra Cotten for ye building of a gleebhouse & a kitchen ye Sd house
to be of ye Same Dementions as Mr Robt Pourtees. & to be framed on
Good white oak Sills and to Stand upon blocks & to be lathd. wth Goo[]
oak lathes and Shingled wth Good Siprus Shingles The Sd house to be 36
foot in Length & 20 foot wide, ye Roof to be 18 Inches Jet and to have
two outside Chimnies and two Closets adjoyning to them, and all things
Ells pertaining according to ye Dementions of ye above Sd Robt Pourtees
house, Viz, ye above Sd Kitchin to be foot Long & foot wide"[8]
The two important features of these instructions are the measurements
of the building and the fact that it was raised on blocks and,
therefore, did not have a walled basement beneath it. But while the
measurements are stated to be those of the Porteus House, it does not
necessarily follow that the elevation of the glebe house on blocks also
drew its precedent from that source.[9] However, if it did, then the
modern "Ardudwy" could not have been the Porteus home as this building
not only measures 47 feet 3 inches by 15 feet 10 inches, but it is also
built over a substantial brick-walled basement. On the other hand, the
excavated cellar hole (though apparently having ended its life prior to
about 1700) was almost certainly part of a building built on blocks or
piers.
It seems reasonable to suggest that Ezra Cotten was assumed by the
churchwardens to know more about the Porteus House than was given
in their specifications, in which case it might be supposed that he
had actually built that house. By extension it might also be assumed
that the job had been completed a comparatively short while before
the building of the glebe house was proposed. Therefore, if it can
be established that Robert Porteus built himself a new house not too
long before November 1704, it would probably follow that he had lived
in his father's old house until that time. If Edward's house was then
destroyed, it would certainly add further support to the theory that
the excavated remains are part of that building.
Unfortunately, there seems little likelihood of obtaining any
additional information regarding either the site of, or the appearance
of Robert Porteus' house. The glebe house does not survive, having
been abandoned in 1746,[10] and the only other potential source of
information has seemingly been lost. The Reverend Robert Hodgson in his
_The Life of the Right Reverend Beilby Porteus_[11] stated that the
bishop possessed "... a singular picture which, though not in the best
style of coloring, was yet thought valuable by Sir Joshua Reynolds, as
a specimen of the extent which the art of painting had reached at that
time in America: and he himself very highly prized it, as exhibiting a
faithful and interesting representation of his father's residence."
This last statement is assumed to be hearsay as Beilby Porteus was born
in England in 1731 and did not, as far as we know, ever visit Virginia.
Attempts to find the picture have met with no success[12] and in all
probability it has long since been destroyed or at best, robbed of its
identity.
Archeological and Architectural Evidence
It is not within the purpose of this paper to include an architectural
study of "Ardudwy." Neither the building's measurements nor its
basement lend credence to the belief that it was once the home of
Robert Porteus. In addition, the 1704 specification called for exterior
chimneys while those of "Ardudwy" are interior. The basement walls use
shell mortar and include bricks of widely varying sizes, but although
many of them have an early appearance, they may well have been reused
from elsewhere. Interior details such as mantels and doors would seem
to date from the early 19th century. What little of the framing that is
visible is pegged but is liberally pierced with both wrought and cut
nails. All in all, it seems probable that "Ardudwy" was built in the
very late 18th or early 19th century. Archeological evidence supports
this belief in that the property is richly scattered with artifacts
of the late 17th century and of all dates after about 1800, but has
yielded very few items that can be attributed to the 18th century.
All appearances point to the abandoning of the immediate area as a
habitation site after the destruction of the excavated building around
1700. The subsequent building of "Ardudwy" so close to the early house
may be assumed to be coincidental, though the site is certainly a
desirable and obvious location for a residence.
Little information as to the above ground appearance of the
17th-century structure was forthcoming, partly because it had almost
certainly stood on piers or blocks, and partly because the excavations
were restricted by limitations of time, labor, and the desire of the
owners to retain at least something of their garden. Neither extensive
probing nor a soil resistivity survey revealed evidence of a second
chimney, nor did they give any clues as to the total length or breadth
of the cellar hole. The back wall of the chimney had been deliberately
dismantled and only a thin skin of brickbats and mortar on the bottom
of the robber trench survived to mark its position. It is therefore
quite possible that another chimney was dismantled with sufficient
completeness to elude discovery by either of the exploratory methods
used.
[Illustration: Figure 4.--THE CHIMNEY and underhearth foundation.]
The jambs of the partially surviving chimney (fig. 4) were laid in
English bond and were 1 foot 7 inches thick and 4 feet 4 inches
long.[13] The interior width of the fireplace measured 7 feet, which
was large by 18th-century domestic standards, but not uncommon in the
17th century before separate kitchens became the rule.[14] Both jambs
were built into the side of the cellar hole and were seated on a bed of
small rocks, but the robbed back-wall had rested only on the natural
sandy clay at a depth of 2 feet 3 inches below the modern grade. In
front of the chimney, and rising from the cellar floor, was a massive
brick-walled underhearth 7 feet 6 inches wide and projecting out from
the fireplace to a distance of 5 feet.
A curious and still unexplained feature of the underhearth was a 4-by
3-inch channel running across the top of the surviving foundation for a
distance of 6 feet 9 inches, starting at the south face and terminating
9 inches short of the north. This channel had been bricked over and the
remaining bricks had dropped into it (fig. 5) presumably after a wooden
beam, which once occupied the space, had rotted or burned out. Traces
of burned or carbonized wood lay on the clay bottom of the channel, but
the bricks over it displayed no evidence of fire. The only conceivable
explanation for the presence of the wood must be that it was part of
a frame used to hold the block of natural sandy clay together while
the underhearth wall was being erected around it. As the underhearth
foundation would have originally risen at least another 2 feet 6 inches
above the timber to the floor level of the house, the wood would not
have been in danger of igniting from the heat of the domestic fire. But
if the house ultimately burned, it is possible that the exposed end of
the timber might have caught fire and slowly been consumed along its
entire length.
The cellar hole had been cut into natural sandy clay to an average
depth of 5 feet 3 inches below the modern grade. Its backfilling was
predominantly of the same sandy clay and, consequently, the exact edge
of the cellar hole was sometimes hard to determine. It was probably
because of this similarity between the natural subsoil and the cellar's
fill that the feature failed to show up in the soil resistivity survey.
Owing to previously mentioned limiting factors, only the southeast
corner of the cellar hole was found and only parts of the south and
east walls were traced out. Consequently, it can merely be said that
the cellar exceeded 27 feet in east/west length and 11 feet 2 inches in
width (fig. 3).
Three post holes were found against the south face, while the rotted
remains of another vertical post were found north of the chimney
supporting a much-decayed horizontal board that had served to revet the
east face. A broad-bladed chisel (fig. 14, no. 6) was found behind the
board where it had probably been lost while the timbering was being
installed.
Further slight traces of horizontal boards were found along the south
face, suggesting that the soft sides of the large cellar hole had been
supported in this way. But it was not possible to determine whether
the boards had been placed only on sections of the wall that seemed in
danger of sliding in or whether the entire interior had been sheathed
with planks. The south side of the cellar hole sloped outwards at an
approximate 65 percent angle and the traces of boards lay against
it.[15] However, it was not possible to tell whether the vertical posts
had been similarly sloped, but it is reasonable to assume that they
would have done so.
[Illustration: Figure 5.--DETAIL OF COLLAPSED BRICKS in the
underhearth. (_Photo courtesy of E. DeHardit._)]
Parts of the cellar's wooden floor still survived (figs. 6 and 7)
and comprised boards ranging in width from 5 to 7 inches laid over
sleepers or joists 4 to 6 inches wide. The height of the underlying
timbers could not be determined as the weight of the cellar fill might
be assumed to have pressed the floorboards down as the wood of the
sleepers decayed. Only occasional floorboards survived and the channels
left by decayed sleepers did not extend across the full width of the
excavated cellar. From these facts it was deduced that the boards had
been cut from woods of different types, some of which had decayed more
completely than others, and that the sleepers were made from short and
sometimes roughly cut lengths of timber. These sleepers may, in fact,
have served only as a base for anchoring the ends of floorboards, as
was certainly the case northwest of the underhearth where the nails
from the ends of five boards had dropped through into the channel
left by the decayed sleeper. It may be supposed, therefore, that the
sleepers' location would have been dictated by the vagaries of board
length rather than by the design of a planned, measured foundation and
that they served as ties for the floor, rather than joists raising it
off the natural clay beneath.
In addition to the remains of the carefully laid floor, another
much-decayed board, 10 inches wide, and of uncertain thickness, was
found running north/south immediately west of the underhearth. This
board was partially covered by mortar, suggesting that it had been set
on the dirt during the building of the brick structure.
The filling of the cellar in the vicinity of the chimney and
underhearth comprised a single massive deposit of sandy clay, scattered
through which were numerous iron nails, isolated oystershells and
occasional fragments of pottery, glass, and tobacco-pipe stems. A
similar unified filling was encountered at the western end of the
excavation, but towards the middle a large and irregular deposit of
oystershells was sealed within the sand at a depth of 4 feet 6 inches
sloping upward to 3 feet 6 inches towards the south wall. The shell
layer averaged from 6 to 9 inches in thickness and was found to contain
many of the more important artifacts.
[Illustration: Figure 6.--REMAINS OF WOODEN FLOOR BOARDS in the cellar.
(_Photo courtesy of E. DeHardit._)]
On the wooden floor of the cellar lay a thin 1/2-to 1-inch layer of
wood ash, mortar, and occasional brickbats. Had this accumulation been
considerably thicker it might have suggested that the building above
had been destroyed by fire. But although the presence of this skin of
debris could not be explained, it was far from sufficient to support
such a conclusion.
The topsoil over the entire area had been disturbed to a depth of at
least 1 foot, presumably by deep plowing. Over the cellar fill, humus
and a sandy loam extended to a depth of 1 foot 8 inches at the south
edge and to 2 feet 1 inch in the middle. The bottom of this stratum
contained nothing but late 17th-or early 18th-century artifacts,
including an important and well-preserved latten spoon.[16] A small
19th-century disturbance cut into the south cellar edge towards the
west end of the excavation, but caused little disturbance to the main
fill. Another, much larger, late 19th-century trash deposit had been
dug into the fill to the northwest of the chimney and this had reached
to a depth of 3 feet 6 inches below the modern grade. The removal of
the walnut tree had created a similar disturbance immediately south of
the refuse deposit, while a trench for a 20th-century water pipe had
cut yet another slice through the same area. None of these disturbances
had caused any damage to the lower filling of the cellar.
DATING EVIDENCE FOR THE CELLAR
The majority of the excavated artifacts were scattered throughout
the cellar fill and were of similar types from top to bottom of
the deposit. These objects included wine-bottle and drinking-glass
fragments, potsherds of English and perhaps Portuguese tin-enamelled
earthenware, and more that 600 tobacco-pipe fragments, all of them
indicating a terminal date of about 1700. A quantitative analysis of
the tobacco-pipe stem fragments using the Binford formula[17] provided
a mean date of 1698.
Method of Excavation
Digging was initially confined to the immediate vicinity of the chimney
foundation (Area B on fig. 3) and to the previously described test
trench (A). An east/west trench (D) was next dug to link the two and to
isolate the disturbed areas of the tree hole and 19th-century pit in
Areas C and G.
Owing to a shortage of labor and the rigors of the weather, it
was necessary to confine the digging to small areas which could be
completed in a single day's work. Consequently, it was not possible
to clear the whole area, as one part would be back-filled during the
digging of the next. Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins, the owners of the property,
were extremely tolerant of the damage that was done to their gardens,
but after the clearance of the large area E, they indicated that the
project had gone far enough. Nevertheless, they were persuaded to
permit the cutting of another smaller test area to the west (F), but
when this, too, failed to find the westerly extremity of the cellar,
the project was abandoned. Subsequently, relatives of the owners
cut into the exposed north face of area E and extracted a number of
potsherds and other fragmentary objects from the sand filling.[18] The
undercutting of the bank extended to a distance of 1 foot 6 inches
without encountering the north edge of the cellar, thus showing that
the total width was in excess of 14 feet.
Extensive probing all around the total area of excavation failed to
produce any further traces of the building, though the 1 foot 8 inches
of topsoil and sandy loam was found to be bedded on numerous small
deposits of oystershells and scattered brickbats. Test holes found that
all the located deposits north and west of the existing house had been
laid down or disturbed in the 19th century. Five test traverses with a
soil resistivity meter west and south of the excavation area produced
numerous anomalies which, when checked out, all failed to be associated
with the 17th-century cellar. It seemed that the misleading readings
were caused by variations in the density and moisture-retaining
qualities of the natural sandy clay subsoil.
Early in 1963, while planting a small tree to the south of the
existing house, Mr. Jenkins encountered a stratum of oystershells at
approximately 8 inches below the present grade. (Fig. 2, Area K.)
A series of small test holes was subsequently dug to the south and
southeast of the house, and showed that the layer of shells (average
thickness 4 inches) overlay the subsoil and was spread over an area at
least 15 by 10 feet. A small number of 19th-century pottery fragments
were found mixed into the stratum, but the vast majority of the
artifacts comprised bottle glass and earthenwares of similar types to
those encountered in the cellar hole excavation.[19] The most important
item was a pewter spoon handle of late 17th-century character (fig.
15, no. 27) stamped with the initial "M." The presence of this obvious
domestic refuse was not satisfactorily explained, but it is concluded
that it was originally deposited on the land surface and later
disturbed by cultivation.
[Illustration: Figure 7.--REMAINS OF DECAYED BOARD on floor in front of
underhearth. (_Photo courtesy of E. DeHardit._)]
Landscaping work towards the York River west of the house had yielded
a few widely scattered fragments of colonial and Indian pottery as
well as numerous 19th-century sherds. The colonial material was
predominantly of late 17th-or early 18th-century date, but two sherds
of Staffordshire combed dishes were of a type unlikely to date before
about 1720. No archeological digging was undertaken in these areas.
Archeological Stratigraphy
Each excavated area was given an identifying letter (fig. 3) and
each stratum a number. Thus an artifact marked "B2" was found in the
archeological area that contained the chimney and was recovered from
the top stratum of sandy loam and clay. It should be noted that not
all layers and deposits tabled below were encountered in any one
excavation area, while some were confined to single locations.
1. Topsoil and brown loam to 1 foot 8 inches over cellar hole.
2. Sandy loam merging into top of sandy clay fill or silting,
spreading over edges of cellar hole and sealing the chimney
remains. About 1690-1700 with some top disturbance.
3. Main sandy clay fill, extending to oystershell deposit in
central areas. About 1690-1700.
3A. Sandy clay fill extending to within 6 inches of floor in Area
B, against wall north of chimney. The same as Strata 3-5 but
without the oystershell layer that divided them elsewhere.
About 1690-1700.
3B. Sandy clay as above, but from areas where Stratum 4 was absent.
About 1690-1700.
4. Oystershell deposit in Areas A, C and E, sealed by sandy clay
Stratum 3. About 1690-1700.
5. Sandy clay under oystershell layer, reaching to cellar floor.
About 1690-1700.
6. Ash and sand layer on remains of cellar floor; principal
artifacts concentrated against south face of cellar hole in
Areas D and E. About 1690-1700.
6A. Similar layer to Stratum 6, confined to Area B north of the
chimney and underhearth foundation. About 1690-1700. (The same
number is given to a chisel found behind a horizontal wall
board at this level, but which may have been deposited when the
cellar was built rather than at its date of abandonment. Fig.
14, no. 6.)
7. Objects lying in slots left by rotted-floor sleepers. About
1690-1700.
8. Late disturbance at southwest corner of excavation, Area E.
19th century.
9. 3-inch layer of light-grey soil beneath Stratum 2 extending
down to top of oystershell layer (4) from southwest; confined
to Areas E and F. About 1690-1700, possibly disturbed at upper
west edge.
10. Unstratified material from all areas of the cellar-hole
excavation, derived from frost disturbances and the results of
removing the walnut tree.
11. Finds from oystershell and artifact layer beneath topsoil
southeast of the existing house. About 1690-1700 with a few
much later intrusions. (Area K, fig. 2.)
12. Surface finds recovered from field west of existing house.
The Artifacts
The collection of objects from the Clay Bank cellar hole is important
for a small number of rare items and because the deposit provided
accurate dating for a much larger group of less impressive artifacts.
Unfortunately, neither category included pieces that were of much help
in establishing anything of the history of the property.
A small cannonball of the 3-pound type used by light fieldpieces of the
minion class was found in the top of the sand stratum (D3) against the
south face of the cellar. Guns of this caliber may well have been used
during Bacon's Rebellion, and there might be some who would care to use
the excavated ball to support the legend that Bacon died at Clay Bank.
The ball, it has been argued, could have been left behind by Bacon's
forces when they vacated the site in the fall of 1676. However, such a
conjecture, based on so little evidence, can hardly be taken seriously.
The single clue pointing to a Porteus family association, the latten
spoon with its presumed Scottish mark, hardly merits any more serious
consideration than the cannonball. Somewhat more tenable, however, may
be the suggestion furnished by two artifacts, that the cellar hole was
in the vicinity of a cooper's workshop. The objects in question were
a "chisel" (fig. 14, no. 7) used specifically for driving down barrel
hoops, and a race knife (fig. 12, no. 3), a tool frequently used by
coopers to mark the barrels. No documentary evidence has been found to
indicate the presence of a cooper in the Second Precinct of Petsworth
Parish in the late 17th century though the Vestry Book does contain an
entry for October 4th, 1699, ordering an orphan to be indentured to a
cooper in King and Queen County.[20]
Other tools from the Clay Bank cellar included spade and hoe blades,
a large wedge, and a carpenter's chisel, a range of items that did
nothing to support a coopering association, but which did tend to
indicate that the artifacts might have come from a variety of sources.
The pottery included a high percentage of coarse earthenwares, among
which were fragments of two, or possibly three, lead-glazed tygs and
a similarly glazed cup (fig. 15, nos. 7, 8, and 9), all objects that
would have been best suited either to a yeoman's household or to a
tavern. The large quantity of tobacco-pipe fragments present might
support the latter construction but the dearth of wine-bottle pieces
does not. Numerous fragments of English delftware were found scattered
through the filling from top to bottom, most of them in very poor
condition. While none of the pieces was of particularly good quality,
a medium-sized basin with crude chinoiserie decoration in blue, is
of some importance. The vessel (fig. 15, no. 1) is of a form that
is extremely rare from the 17th century, but which clearly was the
ornamental ancestor of the common washbasins of the 18th century.[21]
In marked, and even staggering contrast to the assemblage of cheap and
utilitarian earthenware, was the presence of a massive lead-glass stem
from a "ceremonial" drinking glass or candlestick, a form undoubtedly
made in London in the period 1685-1695 (fig. 10). Although the
double-quatrefoil stem units and central melon knop are paralleled by
existing glasses, the heavily gadrooned foot is seemingly unknown.
This last feature gives the foot such weight that it has led Mr. R. J.
Charleston, Keeper of Ceramics at the Victoria and Albert Museum in
London, to suggest that the stem may come from a candlestick (fig. 11)
rather than from a large, covered glass. However, no parallels for such
a candlestick are known.
One might be tempted to believe that a glass candlestick would be
more likely to have been brought to 17th-century Virginia than would
a seemingly pretentious, covered, "ceremonial" drinking-glass. But in
1732, Thomas Jones[22] of Williamsburg made a settlement upon his wife
in case of his death, and among the possessions listed were "6 glass
decanters, 6 glasses with covers...."[23] Covered glasses ceased to
be popular after about 1720 when fashions in glass were turning from
the icy sparkle of mass towards more delicate and lighter designs. It
is possible, therefore, that the Jones' glass might have been of the
general type indicated by the Clay Bank stem. But be this as it may,
there is no doubt that the excavated stem is the finest piece of glass
of its period yet discovered in America, and that it is sufficiently
important to be able to add a paragraph to the history of English glass.
Other glass objects included the powdered remains of a small
quatrefoil-stemmed wineglass, a form common in the period
1680-1700.[24] Like so many glasses of its type, the metal was
singularly impermanent when buried in the ground, and little or nothing
could be salvaged of it. Also present were fragments of at least seven
wine bottles of the short-necked, squat-bodied forms of the late 17th
century, as well as one fragment of a short-necked and everted-mouthed
case bottle. A few fragments of cylindrical pharmaceutical bottles
were also found as was a well-preserved bottle of similar metal but
in wine-bottle shape (fig. 9 and fig. 15, no. 19). Such bottles are
thought to have been used for oils and essences, and their manufacture
seems to have been confined to the period about 1680-1720.
Tobacco-pipe fragments (fig. 16) were plentiful throughout the cellar
fill and provided a useful range of bowl forms as well as a key to
the dating of the deposit. All the bowls were of types common in the
last years of the 17th century, a period in which the two English bowl
styles of the second half of the century (one evolving with a spur and
the other with a heel) merged together into the single spurred form
of the 18th century.[25] In addition, the Clay Bank cellar contained
examples of bowls with neither heel nor spur, a style never popular in
England, and which seems to have been developed specifically for the
American market initially copying the shape favored by the Indians.
No fewer than 648 stem fragments were recovered from the cellar
and their stem-hole diameters, using J. C. Harrington's chart,[26]
indicated a manufacture date in the period 1680-1710. Because pipes
are considered to have had a short life, it is generally assumed that
the dates of manufacture and deposition are not far apart. Other
artifacts from the deposit, notably the large glass stem, the wine
bottles, small wineglass and, of course, the pipe bowl shapes, together
suggested a terminal date for the group within the period 1690-1700.
Using the Binford formula,[27] the 648 stem fragments suggested a
mean date of 1698. Experience has shown that the formula is likely to
be accurate to three or four years either way on a sampling of that
size.[28]
The presence of the same maker's initials, I·F, on pipe bowls at
different levels of the cellar fill strongly pointed to a homogeneity
of deposition. Although it is impossible to identify the owners of
the initials with any certainty, it is worth noting that there was
a Josiah Fox making pipes in Newcastle-under-Lyme in and after 1683
whose initials are the same as those most common in the Clay Bank
cellar. The I·F mark was somewhat unusual in that it was impressed
between two X's across the top of the stem (fig. 16, no. 11). All other
marks, save one, were in the normal position, to left and right of the
heels. These comprised W F (William Ferry, Marlborough, about 1700?),
or perhaps W.P., II I (Henry Jones, London, 1688?)[29] and V R. The
remaining mark, S A (fig. 16, no. 14) occurred on the bases of two
bowls with neither heels nor spurs. From the oystershell layer south of
the existing house came a bowl fragment ornamented with the name of a
well-known Bristol pipe-making family, I TIPPET, in a raised cartouche
on the side. This was probably Jacob Tippett whose name appeared in the
Bristol Freedom Rolls in 1680.[30]
In addition to the few marked bowls, two stems were of interest in
that they had been ground or pared down to enable the pipes to be used
again, one being only 2-1/4 inches in length (fig. 16, nos. 12 and 13).
Such frugality might be construed as being associated with a household
of small means. Also present were a few brown stem fragments and part
of one decorated bowl (fig. 8, no. 9) of Virginia, possibly Indian,
manufacture.
Conclusions
The importance of the Jenkins site cellar hole lies solely in its
provision of a valuable group of closely dated artifacts. The
excavations failed to reveal either the size of the building or any
indication of its original ownership and purpose. The structure
does not appear on any known map nor can it be equated with any
specifications contained in the _Vestry Book_ of Petsworth Parish or
any other documentary source now available. Much local legend and
speculation has been considered and regretfully rejected in the absence
of any supporting evidence. The site does lie in the Second Precinct of
Petsworth Parish and it has been established that the Porteus family
did own land therein. Consequently it is quite possible that the
Jenkins site was once part of that tract. But it does not necessarily
follow that the cellar hole was part of the Edward Porteus family
residence.
A _terminus post quem_ of about 1700 for the filling of the cellar hole
has been well established on the archeological evidence. The structure
itself is represented by the large cellar hole which had been floored
and walled with boards and vertical posts, and by the massive chimney
at the east end. The absence of any abutting walling, coupled with our
inability to find any traces of other foundations, strongly suggests
that the building stood on piers or wooden blocks.
The artifacts include a number of extremely interesting objects; but
the curious juxtaposition of the large glass stem (figs. 10 and 11)
with crude earthenwares, worn-out tools and broken and reused clay
tobacco pipes makes it probable that the refuse was derived from
different sources. Whereas the iron objects resting on the cellar floor
may have been in the building when it was destroyed, it is clear that
the large oystershell deposit (and therefore, the glass stem that it
contained) must have been brought from elsewhere. It might therefore be
deduced that the excavated structure had been a kitchen building or,
perhaps, an overseer's house rather than the home of the owner of the
glass stem.
The dearth of 18th-century colonial artifacts on the Jenkins property
seems to indicate, at best, a less intensive occupation after the
destruction of the building that overlay the excavated cellar hole.
It seems improbable, therefore, that the existing "Ardudwy" was in
existence before the late 18th century.
Illustrations
The objects illustrated in figures 8 through 16 are representative
of the principal artifacts found in the Clay Bank excavations. The
dating given below refers to the objects' period of manufacture;
their terminal or throwaway date is determined by their archeological
contexts, which are indicated by area and stratum designations. (See p.
11, Archeological Stratigraphy, and fig. 3.)
FIGURE 8
1. Marly fragment from small plate, English delftware, decorated
in blue with chinoiserie design, probably of Chinamen, rocks,
and grasses. The background color has a very pale-blue tint,
unlike the pure whites and pinkish whites that are generally
associated with London pieces of the period. The closest
parallel for this sherd is in the Bristol City Museum in
England[31] and is attributed to Brislington. An example of
the style, attributed to Lambeth and dated 1684 is illustrated
by F. H. Garner in his _English Delftware_;[32] but unlike the
Clay Bank fragment, the central decoration does not reach to
the marly. About 1680-1690. E4. (Fig. 15, no. 6.)
2. Handle fragment from chamberpot or posset pot, English
delftware, decorated with irregular horizontal stripes in blue.
The handle is pronouncedly concave in section, and lacking
ornament on its edges (as usually occurs on posset pots)[33] a
chamberpot identification seems most likely. The form ranges
from the late 17th century at least through the first quarter
of the 18th. E2.
3. Mug or jug, lower body and base fragment only, English
delftware, white inside, with manganese stipple on exterior.
Probably Southwark, first half of the 17th century. E4. (Fig.
15, no. 4).
4. Basin, English delftware, wall fragments only illustrated (for
full reconstruction see fig. 15, no. 1), the glaze, pale blue,
ornamented with central chinoiserie design of similar character
to no. 1. The wall was decorated with narrow horizontal bands
and a wide foliate zone below the everted rim. The bowl is
important in that it is one of the earliest extant examples of
the simple washbasin form that was to become common throughout
the 18th century. About 1680-1690. Illustrated sherds A3, C3,
F2.
5. Basal fragment of plate, tin-glazed earthenware, decoration
of uncertain form in two tones of blue outlined in black.
Portuguese? 17th century. C4.
6. Base fragment from globular jug, English brown salt-glazed
stoneware, probably from same vessel as no. 7. Late 17th or
early 18th century. C3.
7. Neck fragment from bulbous mug or jug, decorated within
multiple grooving,[34] ware and date as above. A3.
8. Tyg fragments, black lead-glazed, red-bodied earthenware
(sometimes called Cistercian ware), the body decorated with
multiple ribbing. (For reconstruction see fig. 15, no. 7.) Such
drinking vessels were made with up to six or eight handles,
but two was the most usual number and those were placed close
together as indicated here. The form was prevalent in the
period 1600-1675, though taller examples were common during the
preceding century.[35] A3, C3.
9. Tobacco pipe bowl, pale-brown ware, burnished, and decorated
with impressed crescents and rouletted lines, local Indian
manufacture?[36] Second half of 17th century. E4.
10. Body fragment of cord-marked Indian cooking pot, Stony Creek
type,[37] light red-tan surface flecked with ocher and with a
localized grey core. Middle Woodland. B1.
11. Projectile point, buff quartzite, broad stem and sloping
shoulders. Late archaic. E9.
[Illustration: Figure 8.--FRAGMENTS OF ENGLISH DELFTWARE, stoneware,
earthenware, and Indian objects.]
[Illustration: Figure 9.--BOTTLE OF GREEN GLASS in the form of a
miniature wine bottle.]
FIGURE 9
A small glass bottle in wine-bottle style but probably intended for oil
or vinegar, and fashioned from a pale-green metal comparable to that
used for pharmaceutical phials and flasks. The base has a pronounced
conical kick, but is not appreciably thicker than the walls of the
body. The mouth is slightly everted over a V-sectioned string rim. On
the yardstick of wine-bottle evolution such a bottle is unlikely to
have been manufactured prior to 1680 or later than about 1720. E5. (See
also fig. 15, no. 19.)
FIGURES 10 and 11
Stem and foot fragment from an elaborate drinking glass or candlestick,
English lead metal of splendid quality. The solid stem is formed from
two quatrefoil balusters between which is a melon knop with mereses
above and below. The stem terminates in two mereses of increasing size
and is attached to an elaborately gadrooned foot, only part of which
survives. Any suggestion that the foot is actually part of the base of
the bowl is negated by the presence of a rough pontil scar inside it,
as well as by the fact that the surviving fragment spreads out at so
shallow an angle that no other construction is possible.
[Illustration: Figure 10.--AN ELABORATE STEM of English glass, London,
about 1685-1695.]
The stem form is most closely paralleled by two goblets illustrated
in W. A. Thorpe's _History of English and Irish Glass_,[38] one of
which contains within its stem an English fourpenny piece of 1680.
Because no known goblet exhibits the high, gadrooned foot of the Clay
Bank example, it has been suggested that the stem may be that of a
candlestick.[39] While this is certainly a reasonable supposition, it
must be added that neither have examples of candlesticks been found
in this form. (For conjectural reconstruction see fig. 11.) Although
it is extremely unfortunate that no upper fragments were found, there
is no doubt as to the date of the surviving section, nor is there any
denying that it is on a par with the best English glass of its period.
London, about 1685-1695. Height of fragment 5-1/4 inches. E4.
[Illustration: Figure 11.--THE CLAY BANK STEM RECONSTRUCTED as both a
drinking glass and a candlestick. Height of fragment is 5-1/4 inches.
About 1685-1695.]
FIGURE 12
1. Spoon, latten, tinned, the bowl oval and the handle flat
with a trilobed terminal. The back of the bowl possesses an
extremely rudimentary rat-tail that is little more than a solid
V slightly off-center at the junction of stem and bowl. The
maker's mark inside the bowl bears the initials W W flanking a
thistle, perhaps suggesting a Scots origin for the spoon. Last
quarter of 17th century. E2.
2. Cutlery handle, bone, roughly round-sectioned at its junction
with the iron shoulder but becoming triangular towards the top.
A4.
3. Race knife, steel, a tool used by coopers and joiners to
inscribe barrels and the ends of timbers. At one end is a
tapering, round-sectioned tang to which a wooden handle was
attached; beside this, and probably originally recessed into
the wood, is a rectangular-sectioned arm, terminating in a
small blade curved over at the end. The arm is hinged at the
shoulder of the tool and could be folded back to inscribe large
arcs and to be used as an individual cutting instrument. At
the other end is a small blunt spike with spiral grooving and
raised cordons, and a small fixed knife with a curved blade
that could be used to cut in the opposite plain to that of
the moveable arm. The arm is stamped with the maker's name
WARD. Attempts to identify an English toolmaker of that name
working in the second half of the 17th century have been
unsuccessful. The tool is well made and possesses a surprising
amount of decoration on the shoulders, in the shape of faceting
at the corners and sculpturing of the flat surfaces.[40] E4.
(See also fig. 15, no. 22.)
[Illustration: Figure 12.--LATTEN SPOON and other small finds.]
[Illustration: Figure 13.--CHEEKPIECE FROM BIT, saw set, and other
iron objects.]
4. Gimlet, iron, the shaft drawn out at the top to grip the wooden
handle, the spoon-shaped blade is badly distorted but the
terminal worm still survives in part. B6A.
5. Tack, brass, probably from trunk or upholstery, convex head
roughly trimmed, diameter 1/2 inch. C3.
6. Boss, cast brass, from cheekpiece of bridle; the slightly
dished edge and central nipple appear to have been ornamental
devices more popular in the 17th than in the 18th century.[41]
This object overlay the robbed rear-chimney foundation at its
northeast corner. B2.
7. Strainer fragment, brass or bronze; the edge flat and therefore
not part of a colander, probably originally attached to an iron
handle. Diameter approximately 8-1/2 inches. E2.
FIGURE 13
1. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, the pointed "blade" without
cutting edge and 1/8 inch in thickness, the tang drawn out,
rectangular in section and clenched at the end. A2.
2. Object similar to the above,[42] but heavier, the tang wider
than the thickness of the "blade," 3/8 inch and 3/16 inch
respectively. E4.
3. Knife blade, iron, small flaring shoulders and round-sectioned
tang. The blade is of unusual shape and may have been honed
down to its present size. C4.
4. Saw wrest or saw set, iron, used to grip and bend the teeth of
saws sideways to enlarge the width of the cut and thus prevent
the blade from binding.[43] C2.
5. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, comprising a flat strip 5/8
inch in width at one end and tapering to 9/16 inch at the other
which exhibits a small right-angled flange before turning
upwards and back on itself, narrowing to a thinner strip
measuring 5/16 inch in width, and forming a loop. The base
strip has a small notch at its broad end.[44] C3.
6. Cramp(?), iron, perhaps intended to be set in mortar and used
to join masonry; rectangular in section and drawn down almost
to a point at either end. E4.
7. Cheekpiece from snaffle bit, iron, incomplete, angular knee
with hole for linking element between rein and bit. This is a
17th-century characteristic common at Jamestown[45] but rare
among the many bits from Williamsburg. E2.
8. Staple, iron, both points broken and the back somewhat bowed,
probably as a result of having been driven. C3.
FIGURE 14
1. Eye of hoe, iron, possibly a grub hoe similar to no. 2, in an
advanced state of decay with the blade represented only by the
narrow triangular spine; no trace of a maker's mark. C3.
2. Grub hoe, iron, the eye and part of the blade surviving, the
spine thick and narrow, no maker's mark. The form has no
published parallel either from Jamestown or Williamsburg. An
example with similar shoulders, but with a V-shaped blade edge,
was found on the Challis pottery kiln site in James City County
in a context of about 1730. [C.S.21F; unpublished.] E4.
3. Broad hoe, iron, with eye and part of the originally D-shaped
blade surviving; the spine shallow, short and flat, with
clearly impressed maker's initials I H within an oval. Circular
and oval marks are common in the 17th century but are rare in
the 18th.[46] E4.
4. Hoe blade, iron, from which the eye and spine appear to have
been removed. It cannot be ascertained whether the blade is
part of a cut-down broad hoe or whether it was always roughly
square in form. The latter shape was well represented in
a cache of agricultural tools of uncertain date found in
excavations at Green Spring in James City County.[47] E4.
5. Stirrup, iron, rectangular footplate with its surface hammered
to increase the grip, the sides round-sectioned but flattened
towards the leather-loop which is drawn out into ornamental
ears. The style was common in the late 17th century. E4.
6. Forming chisel, iron, socketed for attachment to a wooden
handle, the socket and shaft square-sectioned, the blade 2-1/4
inches wide and the cutting edge improved by a welded plate
of superior metal extending 1-7/8 inches up the blade. Found
behind a wallboard at floor level. B6A.
7. Cooper's chisel, iron, the blade 1-3/4 inches in width and with
a groove running the length of the 1/8-inch broad edge to grip
the edge of the hoop while hammering it into place. The shaft
is round-sectioned and spreads into a flat mushroom head. C4.
8. Wedge, iron, of large size, rectangular head measuring 2-3/8
inches by 1-7/8 inches, length 7-3/8 inches and weight
4 pounds. The head shows no evidence of heavy usage and
consequently there is no clue as to why such an object should
have been thrown away. A close parallel (7-1/4 inches in
length) was found at Ste Marie I in Canada on the site of the
early Jesuit settlement of 1639-1649.[48] B3A.
9. Spade, iron edge from wooden blade, the upper edge of the
metal split and the extended sides possessing small winglike
projections, and nails at the ends which together served to
attach the iron to the wood. Iron edges for wooden spades are
not included in the artifact collections from 18th-century
Williamsburg, but were plentiful in various sizes in
mid-17th-century contexts at Mathews Manor in Warwick County.
[Unpublished.] C3.
10. Projectile, solid iron, cast in a two-piece mold, diameter
2-3/4 inches, weight 3 pounds 1 ounce. This is possibly a ball
from a minion[49] whose shot weight is given in Chambers'
_Cyclopaedia_ (1738) as 3 pounds 4 ounces, the difference
possibly being occasioned by the Clay Bank specimen's decayed
surface. D3.
FIGURE 15
1. Basin, English delftware, reconstruction on basis of rim, body
and base fragments, about 1680-1690. (Fig. 8, no. 4) A3, B1,
B3, C3, C4, E2, F2, H3.
2. Basin as above, lower body fragments.
3. Basin as above, base fragment.
4. Mug or jug, lower body fragment, manganese stippled. First half
of 17th century(?). (Fig. 8, no. 3.) E4.
5. Plate, English delftware, rim and base fragments (also
section), decoration in two tones of blue, the fronds outlined
in black. London(?). About 1670-1700. A3, E3.
6. Plate, English delftware, about 1680-1690. (Fig. 8, no. 1.) E4.
7. Tyg, black lead-glazed red ware, double handled; height
conjectural. 17th century. (Fig. 8, no. 8.) A3, B3, B6A, C3,
C4, E3, E9, F3, G2, G3A, H3, 10.
8. Tyg, rim sherd only, brown lead-glazed red ware, thinner than
no. 7 and its ribbing not extending as close to the mouth;
diameter approximately 4-1/2 inches, 17th century. B1.
9. Mug, black lead-glazed red ware, thin-walled bulbous body;
handle conjectural. The form's closest published parallel is
a red ware example which was exhibited at the Burlington Fine
Arts Club, London, in 1914, and bore the legend MR. THOMAS
FENTON in white slip below the rim. The piece was identified
as Staffordshire, about 1670.[50] A comparable mug was found
in 1964 in excavations at Mathews Manor in Warwick County in a
context of the second quarter of the 17th century. [W.S.199;
unpublished.] A3, G3A, H3.
10. Rim sherd from large pan, red body liberally flecked with
ocher, thin lead glaze, the rim folded and flattened on the
upper edge. This fragment is of importance in that it is almost
certainly made from the local Tidewater Virginia clay, yet the
rim technique has not been found on any of the pottery kiln
sites so far located. Date uncertain. K11.
[Illustration: Figure 14.--IRON TOOLS, STIRRUP, and cannon ball.]
[Illustration: Figure 15.--DRAWINGS OF POTTERY, glass, and metal
objects.]
11. Rim sherd from pan or wide bowl, red ware with greenish-brown
lead glaze, the rim thickened and undercut. This form, and
variants on it, were common from the mid-17th century and on
through the 18th, and they are therefore impossible to date on
stylistic grounds alone. Probably English. C4.
12. Rim sherd from large shallow pan, red ware with yellowish-green
lead glaze; the rim thickened, folded and undercut, the upper
surface flattened and with a pronounced ridge at its angle
with the bowl; diameter approximately 1 foot 6 inches. Dating
considerations as no. 11. Probably English. E4.
13. Rim sherd from storage jar, red ware with brown lead glaze,
the rim thickened, folded, and flattened on the top; diameter
approximately 10-1/2 inches. The form was common from about
1650 to 1750. Probably English. E2.
14. Storage jar or pipkin, pale-pink ware flecked with ocher and
occasional granules of quartz, a clear lead glaze imparts an
orange color to the surface, and is locally streaked with
green. The rim is heart-shaped in section, having a groove
along its upper surface, and the body is extremely finely
potted. There is good reason to suppose that this vessel is of
Virginia manufacture, in which case the 17th-century colony
possessed a potter of greater ability than any of those whose
kilns have yet been found. Another fragment of this pot, or one
identical to it, was found to the southeast of the existing
house. C4, E4, 10, K11.
15. Rim sherd from wide bowl of Colono-Indian[51] pottery,
grey shell-tempered ware with stick-or pebble-burnished
reduced surface, the rim everted and flattened. The ware is
contemporary with the European artifacts from the site and is
the earliest datable fragment yet recovered. A3.
16. Rim sherd from bowl of Colono-Indian pottery, buff
shell-tempered ware with stick-or pebble-burnished oxidized
surface, the rim everted, flattened and very slightly dished.
K11.
17. Wine bottle, olive-green glass in an advanced state of decay,
the neck short and broad and the mouth slightly everted over a
roughly applied string rim, the body squat and slightly broader
at the shoulder than at the base, a domed basal kick and no
obvious pontil scar. This is a composite drawing illustrating
the shape typical of the bottles from the Clay Bank site cellar
hole. The two fragments cannot be proved to be part of the same
bottle. About 1680-1700. Neck A2. Body F3.
18. Wine bottle, half-bottle size, olive-green glass in an advanced
state of decay, the form similar to the above but slightly
weaker in the shoulder. About 1680-1700. C4.
19. Bottle, in form of miniature wine bottle, the glass a pale
green similar to that used in the making of pharmaceutical
phials. (Fig. 9.) About 1680-1720. C4.
20. Base of pharmaceutical bottle, pale-green glass with pronounced
conical kick and rough pontil scar, the metal very thin. The
principal dating characteristics of these bottles are the
shapes of the mouths and the slope of the shoulders; in the
absence of those, no close dating is possible.[52] C4.
21. Ring, iron, round section, considerable evidence of wear at
one point on the inside edge suggesting that this object had
been attached to a link of chain or perhaps has been held by a
staple or eye. Such rings are frequently to be found attached
to stalls in stables. B6A.
22. Race knife, the dashed outline indicating the angle of the
hinged blade in its open position. (See fig. 12, no. 3.) E4.
23. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, slightly convex on the upper
face, flat behind, and with a small, flat tongue projecting
from the rear. A much rusted lump adhering to the front may
conceal a similar projection or it may have simply attached
itself in the ground. C3.
24. Collar, iron, four unevenly spaced nail holes for attachment to
a wooden shaft having an approximate diameter of 3-1/2 inches.
D6A.
25. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, rectangular-sectioned bar
narrowing to a small blade-like ear at one end and flattened
into the opposite plain at the other, apparently for
attachment. E4.
[Illustration: Figure 16.--DRAWINGS OF TOBACCO-PIPE BOWL SHAPES
from Clay Bank and Aberdeen Creek.]
26. Staple or light handle for a small box, the narrow ends perhaps
originally clenched and since broken. C3.
27. Handle of spoon, pewter, a heart-shaped terminal above two
small lobes, the letter M stamped with a well-cut die close
to the edge, and a roughly incised cross below it. A late
17th-century terminal form. K11.
FIGURE 16
1. Tobacco-pipe bowl, clay, white surface and grey core, the bowl
heavy and bulbous, large flat heel, rouletted line below the
mouth, stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch. (See no. 19 for possible
parallel.) About 1650-1690. E7.
2. Tobacco-pipe bowl and incomplete stem, clay, white surface and
grey core, cylindrical bowl form with shallow heel extending
from the fore edge of the bowl, initials V R on either side
of heel, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch. About 1680-1700. E4.
Another example from B6A.
3. Tobacco-pipe bowl, clay, white surface and grey core, form
similar to No. 2, but the heel slightly more pronounced and
with rouletted line below the mouth, stem-hole diameter 6/64
inch. About 1680-1700. A3.
4. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, form similar to no. 2, but more
slender and the heel smaller, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch.
About 1675-1700. E7.
5. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, evolved form of no. 2, the bowl
at a more pronounced angle to the stem, stem-hole diameter 6/64
inch. About 1690-1720. A3.
6. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, the bowl shape a cross between
no. 2 and the more elegant and slender style of no. 7,
pronounced and somewhat spreading heel with maker's initials
H I on either side, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch. About
1670-1700. A3.
7. Tobacco-pipe bowl, clay, white surface and grey core, narrow
"swan-neck" form with small heel that is almost a spur,
rouletted line below the mouth, stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch,
about 1680-1700. E4.
Another example (not illustrated) bears the maker's initials WP (or
R) on the sides of the heel,[53] stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch.
A3.
8. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, form similar to no. 7 except
that the bowl is not quite as long and the fore edge of the
heel is less pronounced, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch, about
1680-1700. A3.
9. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, the bowl broader and at a
sharper angle to the stem than in the preceding examples, the
heel shallow and its fore edge extending from the bowl as
in nos. 2-5, stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch, about 1690-1720.
A3. This example is significant in that it represents the
evolutionary merging of the cylindrical and bulbous bowl forms,
with their varying heels and spurs, into a single bowl shape
that persisted through the 18th century. It should be noted
that the illustrated bowl retains the thin-walled circular
mouth common to most examples of its period. The mouth often
becomes more oval and the walls thicker in specimens dating
later into the 18th century.
10. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, more or less cylindrical
rouletted line below the mouth, and with neither heel nor
spur. The absence of these last features is thought to have
been dictated by English pipemakers catering for the American
Indian market and initially copying aboriginal forms. Stem-hole
diameter 7/64 inch, about 1680-1700. H3.
11. Fragment of tobacco-pipe bowl and stem, clay, white surface and
pink core to bowl, but burnt white through stem; bowl shape
apparently similar to no. 10, stamped initials across top of
stem at the fracture, I·F flanked on either side by a period
and a cross,[54] stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch. E4.
12. Tobacco-pipe bowl and stem fragment, white clay, the form very
similar to no. 10 but without rouletting below the mouth. The
pipe is of interest in that the stem fracture has been pared
down after breaking to create a new mouthpiece and a stem only
approximately 2-1/4 inches in length. Stem-hole diameter 7/64
inch, about 1680-1700. C4.
13. Tobacco-pipe stem fragment, white clay, broken off at
junction with bowl and pared down at the other end as no. 12
thus creating a 3-inch stem. Hole diameter 6/64 inch, date
indeterminate. B6A.
14. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, bowl shape similar to no. 2
but without heel; maker's initials on the base of the bowl,
almost certainly SA though the companion initial has been lost
from the other side.[55] Stem-hole diameter 6/64 inch, about
1680-1700. C4.
15. Tobacco-pipe bowl, clay, white surface and grey core, slightly
more evolved than no. 10 being more sharply angled at its
junction with the stem as well as being slightly longer and
narrower in the bowl. Note that this pipe still possesses the
rouletted line below the mouth that tends to be characteristic
of 17th-century examples. Stem-hole diameter 5/64 inch, about
1690-1710. A3.
16. Tobacco-pipe bowl, clay, white surface and grey core,
essentially similar to no. 15, but longer in the bowl and even
more angled at its junction with the stem. Stem-hole diameter
6/64 inch, about 1690-1710. B3A.
(Nos. 17-21 are surface finds from an as yet unexcavated site on
farmland owned by Miss Elizabeth Harwood, approximately a mile
and a quarter south of Clay Bank, and north of Aberdeen Creek.
They are included here as examples of earlier 17th-century
occupation in the Clay Bank area, and because one of the stem
fragments from this site bears the same X·I·F·X mark as appears
on five examples (no. 11) from the Jenkins site cellar hole.)
17. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, flat broad heel, the bowl
somewhat bulbous in the mid section, neat rouletted line below
the mouth. Stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch, about 1630-1670.
18. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay with slipped surface, the bowl
shape characteristic of the mid-17th century, flat heel, and
roughly applied rouletted line below the mouth; maker's mark VS
stamped on upper surface of stem. Stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch,
about 1650-1690.
19. Tobacco-pipe bowl, fragment only, clay, white surface and grey
core, the bowl extremely bulbous and with a pronounced flat
heel. Maker's mark VS stamped on the upper surface of the
stem; dies different to those used for no. 18, but undoubtedly
the same maker. This is important in that it illustrates
the wide difference in bowl shapes produced, apparently
contemporaneously, by a single maker. Stem-hole diameter 7/64
inch, about 1650-1690.
20. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay, the bowl and early form of
no. 3 ornamented on the sides with six molded dots in high
relief,[56] the heel similar to no. 17 though slightly deeper.
Stem-hole diameter 8/64 inch, about 1640-1670.
21. Tobacco-pipe bowl, white clay with slipped surface, heavy
bulbous bowl and flat heel with the maker's mark M B on the
base; a narrow rouletted line around the bowl mouth. Stem-hole
diameter 7/64 inch, about 1650-1680.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am greatly indebted to Mr. and Mrs. William F. Jenkins for
drawing the Clay Bank site to my attention, for permitting me to do
considerable damage to their garden in the course of its excavation,
and for generously presenting the illustrated artifacts to the
Smithsonian Institution. I also owe much to their daughter Mrs.
William DeHardit for valuable historical information as well as for
her constant and vigorous assistance with the actual digging. I am
equally grateful to my wife, Audrey Noël Hume, and to Mr. John Dunton
of Colonial Williamsburg for their part in the excavation, also to Mr.
A. E. Kendrew, senior vice president of Colonial Williamsburg, and Mr.
E. M. Frank, its resident architect, for their comments on both the
chimney foundation and on the age of the existing house. I am also
indebted to Mrs. Carl Dolmetsch of Colonial Williamsburg's research
department for her pursuit of cartographic evidence.
In addition I wish to express my thanks to Mr. R. J. Charleston,
keeper of ceramics and glass, Victoria and Albert Museum, London,
for examining and commenting on the glass, and to Mr. W. D. Geiger,
director of craft shops, Colonial Williamsburg, for similar assistance
in identifying the tools.
Finally, I am indebted to Miss Elizabeth Harwood of Aberdeen Creek for
permission to illustrate examples of tobacco pipes found on her land,
and to Colonial Williamsburg for subsidizing the preparation of this
report.
_May 1965_
I. N. H.
U.S. Government Printing Office: 1966
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402
Price 30 cents
FOOTNOTES:
[1] IVOR NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell, Gloucester County,
Virginia 1957-1959" (paper 18 in _Contributions from the Museum of
History and Technology: Papers 12-18_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin
225, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1963),
pp. 153-228. Hereafter cited as _Rosewell_.
[2] DR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARTER STUBBS, _Descendants of Mordecai Cooke
and Thomas Booth_ (New Orleans, 1923), p. 14 (footnote).
[3] _Vestry Book of Petsworth Parish, Gloucester County, Virginia
1677-1793_, annotated by C. G. Chamberlayne, The Library Board
(Richmond, 1933), p. 97. Hereafter cited as _Vestry Book_.
[4] _Records of Colonial Gloucester County Virginia_, compiled by Polly
Cary Mason (Newport News, 1946), vol. 1, p. 86. The Gloucester rent
roll of 1704 showed Robert Porteus owning 892 acres and Madam Porteus
(presumably his widowed mother) with 500 acres. The latter may have
been situated elsewhere in the parish and have been property inherited
by her at the death of her first husband, Robert Lee.
[5] _Vestry Book_, pp. 284, 295, 304, 318.
[6] _Vestry Book_, October 6, 1725, pp. 186-187. "Petso Parish Detter
this Year in Tobacco ... To Robert Portuse Esqr for Keeping Two
barsterd Children vizt John & Watkinson Marvil 01333 1/2."
[7] _William & Mary Quarterly_ (1896), ser. 1, no. 5, p. 279. "Oldmixon
says that Bacon died at Dr. Green's in Gloucester, and Hening describes
this place in 1722 as 'then in the tenure of Robert Porteus Esq.'" But
as Robert Porteus purchased additional land in 1704, Dr. Green's home
site may not have been the same as that of Edward Porteus.
[8] _Vestry Book_, p. 85. The kitchen measurements are absent.
[9] _Vestry Book_, pp. 74-75. At a previous vestry meeting on 28th
June, 170[2?] details of the proposed glebe house were given as
follows: "Six & thirty foot Long & twenty foot wide with two Outside
Chemneys two 8 foot Square Clossetts planckt above & below, with two
Chambers above Staires and ye Staires to Goe up in ye midst of ye house
with 3 Large Glass windows Below Stair [] Each to have 3 Double Lights
in ym with a Glass window in Each Chamber above Staires Each to have
3 Lights in ym & Each Clossett to have a window in it and Each window
to have 3 Lights." There is no evidence that these specifications were
derived from Robert Porteus' house.
[10] _Vestry Book_, p. 273. May 28, 1746: "Ordered this Present Vestry,
have thought it Better to Build a New Glebe house rather then to Repair
the old one...." Then follow specifications for the new building.
[11] ROBERT HODGSON, _The Life of the Right Reverend Beilby Porteus
D.D._ (London, 1823) pp. 3-4. Hodgson describes Newbottle in the
following terms: "It consisted chiefly of plantations of tobacco; and
on one of these, called Newbottle (from a village of that name near
Edinburgh, once belonging to his family, but now in the possession of
the Marquis of Lothian), he usually resided. The house stood upon a
rising ground, with a gradual descent to York river, which was there
at least two miles over: and here he enjoyed within himself every
comfort and convenience that a man of moderate wishes could desire;
living without the burthen of taxes, and possessing, under the powerful
protection of this kingdom, peace, plenty, and security."
[12] A request for information was published in the English magazine
_Country Life_ (May 24, 1962), vol. 131, no. 3403, p. 1251. This
yielded a reply from the Reverend W. B. Porteus of Garstang Vicarage,
Mr. Preston, Lancashire. He noted that Bishop Beilby Porteus was buried
at Sundridge in Kent and that prior to the Second World War family
connections of the Bishop's wife named Polhill-Drabble still lived in
that village and were deeply interested in their lineage. The Rev.
Porteus feared that Mr. and Mrs. Polhill-Drabble were now dead, and as
I have been unable to trace them, I assume that this is the case.
[13] Seven courses surviving, top at 2 ft. 2 in. below modern grade.
Shell mortar. Specimen bricks: 9 in. by 4-1/8 in. by 2-7/8 in. (salmon)
and 7-1/2 in. by 4-1/4 in. by 2 in. (dark red).
[14] A late 17th-or very early 18th-century house at Tutter's Neck in
James City County, measuring 42 ft. 3 in. by 19 ft. 1 in., possessed a
chimney at either end with dimensions of 9 ft. 11 in. by 4 ft. 11 in.
and 9 ft. 9 in. by 5 ft. The jambs varied in thickness from 1 ft. 6 in.
to 1 ft. 11 in. See footnote 22.
[15] ALBERT C. MANUCY, "The Fort at Frederica," Notes in _Anthropology_
(Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1962), vol. 5, pp. 51-53. An
excavated powder magazine of 1736 exhibited similar construction.
[16] E2. Figure 12, no. 1.
[17] See footnote 27.
[18] The undercutting is shown on the plan (fig. 3, area H) as a
straight-edged unit. This has been done for the sake of neatness, but
it should be noted that there was actually a series of holes that
presented an extremely ragged appearance.
[19] An unusual lead-glazed earthenware rim sherd from a jar was
probably from the same pot as other fragments (fig. 15, no. 14) found
in the cellar hole.
[20] _Vestry Book_, p. 56. "Necholas Lewis" indentured to "Henry Morris
of Straten Major in ye County of King and Quine ... to Learn ye said
orphant ye art of Coopery."
[21] _Rosewell_, fig. 26, nos. 1-4.
[22] Thomas Jones was the younger brother of Frederick Jones, whose
James City County home site at Tutter's Neck was excavated in 1961. See
IVOR NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Tutter's Neck in James City County,
Virginia, 1960-1961" (paper 53 in _Contributions from the Museum of
History and Technology_; U.S. National Museum Bulletin 249; Washington:
Smithsonian Institution), 1965, fig. 20, no. 8. Hereafter cited as
_Tutter's Neck_. A fragment of a lead-glass gadrooned Romer of the same
period as the Clay Bank stem was found on the Tutter's Neck site.
[23] MARY STEPHENSON, "Cocke-Jones Lots, Block 31" (MS., Research
Dept., Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, 1961), p. 6.
[24] _Tutter's Neck_, fig. 17, no. 17; also I. NOËL HUME, "Some English
Glass from Colonial Virginia," _Antiques_ (July 1963), vol. 84, no. 1,
p. 69, figs. 4 and 5.
[25] IVOR NOËL HUME, _Here Lies Virginia_ (New York: Knopf, 1963), fig.
105.
[26] J. C. HARRINGTON, "Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth and
Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes," _Archeological Society of
Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin_ (September 1954), vol. 9, no. 1.
[27] Mathematical formula based on Harrington's chart, prepared by
Lewis H. Binford, University of Chicago. See LEWIS H. BINFORD, "A
New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples,"
_Southeastern Archaeological Newsletter_ (June 1962), vol. 9, no. 1,
pp. 19-21.
[28] AUDREY NOËL HUME, "Clay Tobacco-Pipe Dating in the Light of Recent
Excavations," _Archeological Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin_
(December 1963), pp. 22-25.
[29] ADRIAN OSWALD, "The Archaeology and Economic History of English
Clay Tobacco Pipes," _Journal of the Archaeological Association_
(London, 1960), ser. 3, vol. 23, pp. 40-102.
[30] ADRIAN OSWALD, "A Case of Transatlantic Deduction," _Antiques_
(July 1959), pp. 59-61.
[31] W. J. POUNTNEY, _Old Bristol Potteries_ (Bristol, 1920), pl. 3
(lower left), and p. 37.
[32] F. H. GARNER, _English Delftware_ (London, 1948), pl. 26B.
[33] For a posset pot with these handle characteristics attributed to
Brislington, 1706-1734, see W. M. WRIGHT, _Catalogue of Bristol and
West of England Delft Collection_, (Bath: Victoria Art Gallery, 1929),
pl. 3.
[34] For shape parallel (but not body) see _Tutter's Neck_, fig. 18,
no. 21.
[35] BARNARD RACKHAM, _Mediaeval English Pottery_ (London: 1948), pl.
94. BARNARD RACKHAM, _Catalogue of the Glaisher Collection of Pottery
and Porcelain_ (Cambridge, 1935), no. 20, pl. 3A.
GRISELDA LEWIS, _A Picture Book of English Pottery_ (London, 1956),
fig. 23.
[36] J. C. HARRINGTON, "Tobacco Pipes from Jamestown," _Archeological
Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin_ (Richmond: June 1951), fig. 4.
[37] I am indebted to Dr. B. C. McCary of the Archeological Society of
Virginia for the identification of the prehistoric Indian artifacts.
CLIFFORD EVANS, "A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archeology," (Bureau of
American Ethnology Bulletin 160; Washington: Smithsonian Institution,
1955), p. 69.
[38] W. A. THORPE, _A History of English and Irish Glass_ (London,
1929), vol. 2, pl. 29 and 31, no. 2.
[39] See p. 13.
[40] HENRY C. MERCER, "Ancient Carpenters' Tools," _Bucks County
Historical Society_ (Doylestown, Pa., 1951), p. 51 and fig. 49.
JOHN L. COTTER, "Archeological Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia,"
_U.S. National Park Service Archeological Research Series_, no. 4
(Washington, 1958), p. 174, pl. 72 top.
[41] COTTER, no. 1, p. 176, pl. 74 top.
[42] These objects are extremely common on 18th-century sites.
_Rosewell_, p. 224, and fig. 36, no. 8. _Tutter's Neck_, fig. 16, no.
12.
[43] MERCER, op. cit., p. 295ff.
[44] Two larger examples were found in a cache of metal objects
deposited in about 1730 and found on the Challis pottery kiln site in
James City County. Two more were encountered in excavations on the Hugh
Orr house and blacksmith shop site on Duke of Gloucester Street in
Williamsburg where they apparently dated from the mid-18th century.
[45] CARL GUSTKEY, "Sir Francis Wyatt's Horse," _The National Horseman_
(April 1953), [no pagination] fig. 2.
[46] The majority of marked 18th-century hoes excavated in Virginia
exhibit rectangular stamps, while postcolonial marks tend to be stamped
on the blades rather than the raised spines and without any die edge
being impressed.
[47] LOUIS R. CAYWOOD, "Green Spring Plantation," _Archeological
Report_, Virginia 350th Anniversary Commission (Yorktown: United States
National Park Service, 1955), pl. 9 (bottom).
[48] KENNETH E. KIDD, _The Excavation of Ste Marie I_ (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1949), p. 108 and pl. 24b.
[49] See p. 12 for a consideration of the ball's possible significance.
[50] _Catalogue of Exhibition of Early English Earthenware_, Burlington
Fine Arts Club (London, 1914), p. 29 and fig. 41.
[51] IVOR NOËL HUME, "An Indian Ware of the Colonial Period,"
_Archeological Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin_ (September
1962), vol. 17, no. 1, p. 5.
[52] IVOR NOËL HUME, "A Century of London Glass Bottles, 1580-1680,"
_The Connoisseur Year Book_ (London, 1956), p. 102, fig. 14 right.
[53] A William Partridge was named in the Bristol Freedom Roll for
1689, cf. OSWALD, op. cit. (footnote 30), p. 88.
[54] _Ibid._, p. 70. Perhaps Jacob Fox, Bristol Freedom Roll for
1688, or John Fletcher, Chester Freedom Roll 1673, or Josiah Fox of
Newcastle-under-Lyme who was working in 1684. Other examples with this
mark occur in groups A3 and A4, also on the Harwood property (surface
find) close to the north bank of Aberdeen (Clay Bank) Creek. See p.
14. A single unstratified example has been found in Williamsburg,
coming from disturbed topsoil behind Capt. Orr's Dwelling on Duke of
Gloucester Street.
[55] Oswald lists no maker with these initials in the appropriate
period. However, a bowl impressed on the back with the initials S A
over the date 1683 was found in the river Thames at Queenhithe (London)
and is in the author's collection. See also D. R. ATKINSON, "Makers'
Marks on Clay Tobacco Pipes Found in London," _Archaeological News
Letter_ (London, April 1962), vol. 7, no. 8, p. 184; no. 24; and fig.
2, no. 24. See also _Rosewell_, p. 221 (footnote 96).
[56] A pipe with similar ornament is in the author's collection of
examples from the river Thames at London.
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY:
PAPER 53
EXCAVATIONS AT TUTTER'S NECK
IN JAMES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA, 1960-1961
_Ivor Noël Hume_
LOCATION OF THE SITE 32
HISTORY OF THE SITE 32
THE EXCAVATION 42
THE RESIDENCE 43
THE KITCHEN 45
THE REFUSE PITS 46
ANIMAL REMAINS 51
THE ARTIFACTS 52
CONCLUSIONS 55
[Illustration: FIGURE 1.--_Top_: HYPOTHETICAL ELEVATIONS based on
foundations discovered on Tutter's Neck site. _Bottom_: Conjectural
reconstruction based on elevations of the Tutter's Neck site, about
1740. Elevations by E. M. Frank, director of architecture, Colonial
Williamsburg; conjectural drawings by R. Stinely.]
_Ivor Noël Hume_
Excavations at
TUTTER'S NECK
in James City County, Virginia, 1960-1961
_Land clearance for reforestation of property leased from
Williamsburg Restoration, Inc., resulted in the exposure of
numerous fragments of early 18th-century pottery and glass.
Partial excavation of the site, known as Tutter's Neck, revealed
foundations of a small colonial dwelling and outbuilding, both of
which had ceased to exist by about 1750._
_This paper describes and analyzes the artifacts recovered from
refuse pits on the site. These artifacts, which have been given
to the Smithsonian Institution, are closely dated by context
and are valuable in the general study of domestic life in early
18th-century Virginia._
THE AUTHOR: _Ivor Noël Hume is director of the department of
archeology at Colonial Williamsburg and an honorary research
associate of the Smithsonian Institution._
In the summer of 1959 the Chesapeake Corporation undertook
land-clearance operations prior to reforestation on property leased
from Williamsburg Restoration, Inc., lying to the east of College
Creek, which runs into the James River below Jamestown Island (see fig.
2). In the course of this work the foundations of a small and hitherto
unrecorded colonial residence were bulldozed and largely destroyed. In
the spring of 1960, Mr. Alden Eaton, director of landscape construction
and maintenance for Colonial Williamsburg, while walking over the
razed area, picked up numerous fragments of early 18th-century pottery
and glass which he later brought to the writer for identification. As
the result of this find a survey of the site was undertaken, and two
colonial foundations were located and partially excavated.[57]
The area available for study was limited by the need to cause as
little disturbance as possible to the newly planted seedlings, by a
shortage of time and labor, and by the remarkable speed with which the
ground became overgrown with locust trees and infested by mayflies and
mosquitoes. The location of the excavation area, nearly a mile from the
nearest road, and off a track pitted with mud-filled depressions, made
access impossible during most of the winter months; consequently, work
was possible only in the spring and fall of 1960. By the summer of 1961
both the approach and the site itself had become completely overgrown.
Regardless of these limitations it was possible to obtain full details
of the surviving remains of both the dwelling and its associated
kitchen, as well as recovering a number of informative groups of
domestic artifacts from trash pits under and around the latter
structure. Fortunately, the presence of seal-adorned wine bottles in
two pits provided data that led to the identification of one of the
owners of the property, and thence to a reconstruction of the history
of the site in general.
It should be noted that whereas the colonial artifacts that have been
excavated from Marlborough and Rosewell provide a useful range of
household items of the middle and third quarters of the 18th century,
respectively, the Tutter's Neck material belongs only to the first 40
years of that century, with the emphasis largely upon the first decade.
This last is a phase of Tidewater archeology about which little is
known, falling as it does after the end of the Jamestown era and at the
beginning of the Williamsburg period. Although, of course, Williamsburg
was already being built at the turn of the century, so intensive
was the occupation in the following 75 years that few archeological
deposits of the city's early days have remained undisturbed. The fact
that the Tutter's Neck site was abandoned before 1750, and never again
occupied, consequently enhances its archeological importance.
Location of the Site
The site lies on a steeply sloping promontory at the junction of
Kingsmill and Tutter's Neck Creeks, which flow as Halfway Creek into
College Creek approximately 1,050 yards to the west. The house stood on
the crown of the slope facing west, some 260 yards from the junction
of the creeks, and thus possessed a commanding position. Perhaps, at
that time, there was a clear view of all vessels passing up College
Creek--the main waterway to Williamsburg from the James River. As the
crow flew, the house stood approximately three miles from Williamsburg,
but by road the route was close to four miles to the eastern edge of
the town.
While the largest ships generally unloaded their cargoes at landings
on the James, the smaller vessels would often carry their cargoes up
College Creek to College Landing, about a mile and a quarter from
Williamsburg. It seems reasonable to suppose that Halfway Creek was
also navigable for these vessels on the high tide. In view of the fact
that the curve of the creek's main stream today touches the southern
edge of Tutter's Neck, it is likely that a landing existed there in the
18th century. However, no traces of such a landing are now visible.
History of the Site
There was no known record of the existence of the houses when the
Chesapeake Corporation stripped the site in 1959. The only colonial
map of the area, the so-called Desandrouin map of 1781 (fig. 4),
shows the neck covered by thick woodland, but indicates two or more
buildings some distance to the east. These sites also lay within the
bulldozed area, but, paradoxically, no traces of these have been found.
Comparison of the Desandrouin map with the aerial photograph (fig. 3)
will show that a small, marsh-flanked stream flowed across the back of
the Neck in the 18th century and emptied into Kingsmill Creek. This
stream has since silted up and has cut a new channel that causes it to
open into Tutter's Neck Creek to the north of the house site.
[Illustration: FIGURE 2.--THE TUTTER'S NECK SITE in relation to College
Creek and the James River.]
[Illustration: FIGURE 3.--AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH of Tutter's Neck taken soon
after bulldozing and before the Jones site (arrow) was found. Photo
courtesy City of Williamsburg.]
The Desandrouin map suggests that the buildings on Tutter's Neck had
ceased to exist by 1781, and this conjecture is supported by the
artifacts from the site, none of which date later than mid-century.
Considerable difficulty in establishing the lifespan of the house and
outbuilding has resulted in part from the fact that any evidence for
a terminus ante quem had been stripped away by the bulldozing and in
part from the absence of any maps that identify this promontory as
Tutter's Neck. Indeed the entire premise is built upon the discovery
of wine-bottle seals in one refuse pit beneath the kitchen chimney
and in another approximately 125 feet southeast of the house. These
seals, bearing the initials "F I," were identified as having belonged
to Frederick Jones, who later became Chief Justice of North Carolina.
The identification was arrived at on the evidence of the will of David
Bray, of James City County, that was contested in 1732. In the legal
action, reference was made to "... one messuage,[58] plantation, piece
or parcel of land," known as Tutties Neck, or "three hundred acres,
more or less, lying and being in the parish of Bruton." This land was
stated to have been purchased by Bray's mother, Judith Bray, from
Frederick Jones; it then was obtained by John Randolph and passed by
him in exchange to Thomas Bray.[59]
[Illustration: FIGURE 4.--DETAIL OF COLONEL DESANDROUIN'S MAP of 1781.
Arrow indicates Jones site.]
Thus we know that Frederick Jones had owned a 300-acre tract known
as Tutties Neck. Consequently, the discovery of bottle seals bearing
the initials "F I" in the vicinity of a "messuage" at the mouth of
Tutter's Neck Creek was not without significance. Further corroboration
was provided by a letter of 1721 from Frederick Jones to his
brother Thomas, in Williamsburg, regarding the incorrect marking of
merchandise on the former's account "marked by mistake F I."[60] It
was common practice for plantation owners to use the same shipping
marks that they used for their wine-bottle seals, and therefore it may
be assumed that Jones also owned bottles bearing the initials "F I."
Having established with reasonable certainty that the site in question
was the "Tutties Neck" that had been purchased by Judith Bray from
Frederick Jones, the next step was to attempt to piece together
the history of the site both before and after that transaction.
Unfortunately, during the Civil War the James City County records were
removed for safekeeping to Richmond where they were destroyed. This
loss makes any research into the early documentary history of the
county extremely difficult, and in many cases well nigh impossible.
Source material must be drawn from family papers and from passing
references in the records of other counties. Although the history of
Tutter's Neck has many significant facts missing, it is surprising that
the record is as full as it is.
The first reference occurs in 1632 (or 1642) when mention is made of
"great neck at the barren neck, next adjoining to Tutties neck, a
branch of Archers hope creek."[61] Similar references to "Tutteys" neck
and "lutteyes" neck occurred in 1637[62] and in 1646.[63] Later, in
1679, a deed of sale from Edward Gray to William South of Gloucester
County refers to a parcel of land at "Tuttis Neck."[64] The same
spelling was used in 1682 in the will of Otho Thorpe, of the Parish
of All Hallows at the Wall in London, who left to his cousin John
Grice and Grice's two elder children his plantation in Virginia called
"Tuttis Neck."[65] John Grice is recorded as having been a justice in
James City County in 1685 and 1694.[66]
No further references to Tutter's Neck are to be found until 1711 when
Frederick Jones obtained 100 acres commonly called "Lutties neck,"[67]
escheated land,[68] from one Mathew Brown. It is at this point that
we run into trouble, for the contents of the pits in which the Jones
bottles were found included many items of the late 17th century and
none dating later than the first decade of the 18th century. The pit
beneath the kitchen chimney also contained a bottle bearing the seal
of Richard Burbydge and dated 1701.[69] The inference, therefore, was
that Frederick Jones was on the site during the first years of the
18th century. Jones came from England in 1702,[70] having inherited
considerable estates from his father, Capt. Roger Jones. In 1704 he is
shown in the Virginia Quit Rent Rolls as possessing 300 acres in James
City County, 500 acres in New Kent County, and 2,850 acres in King
William County.[71] Were it not for the purchase of 1711, it would be
reasonable to assume that the 300 acres in James City County were the
same that Jones sold to Judith Bray at some unspecified date prior to
1722, the year of his death.
[Illustration: FIGURE 5.--Plan of excavated features.]
We know that as early as 1703 Frederick Jones had interests in North
Carolina, because it was in that year that one Jeremiah Goodridg
brought suit against him and he was then described as "late of
London."[72] In 1707 Jones received a grant of 4,565 acres in what
are now Jones and Craven Counties in North Carolina.[73] At that time
he was living in or near Williamsburg--presumably on his 300 acres in
James City County; in 1705 he was a vestryman of the Parish of Bruton
with its church in Williamsburg,[74] and in the same year both he and
David Bray were listed as being among the directors for the building of
Williamsburg.[75] It would seem that he was a man of consequence in the
county at that time.
Among the papers of the Jones family are indentures dated 1708
transferring property in both King William and New Kent Counties from
Frederick to his brother Thomas Jones,[76] and it may well be construed
that this transfer occurred at the time that Frederick moved to North
Carolina. In the same year his plantation in Chowan Precinct, North
Carolina, described as "land whereon the church now stands" was chosen
as the site for a glebe.[77] This is presumably the same Chowan County
plantation on which Jones died in 1722.
[Illustration: FIGURE 6.--FREDERICK JONES' WINE-BOTTLE SEALS showing
matrix variations: 1, initials from single matrix, with right side of
"I" poorly formed (same die as fig. 7, left); 2, initials from separate
matrices, with large serifs on "F" and small serifs on "I"; 3-5,
initials from separate matrices, with small serifs on both letters; 6,
7, initials from separate matrices, with heavy serifs on both letters.
Seal 5 came from Pit A; all others from Pit B. The use of single-letter
matrices suggests a 17th-century date for the bottles' manufacture,
while the presence of various die combinations makes it probable that
the bottles were not all made at the same time. It is likely that the
bottles were among Jones' possessions when he emigrated to Virginia in
1702.]
In 1711 Frederick Jones and others residing in North Carolina appealed
to Governor Spotswood of Virginia for help against the Indians.[78]
In the same year his name again occurs on an address to Spotswood
concerning Colonel Cary's rebellion.[79] Almost a year to the day
later, he is recorded as applying at a council meeting for the
return of salt carried from his house ostensibly for "Supporting ye
Garrisons."[80] In July 1712 Jones acquired an additional 490 acres
in North Carolina.[81] All of this evidence points to his being well
settled in his new home by 1712.
[Illustration: FIGURE 7.--WINE BOTTLES of Frederick Jones and Richard
Burbydge, from Pit B. For scale see figure 19.]
The colony of North Carolina developed more slowly than did Virginia.
The first permanent English settlement in North Carolina was on the
Chowan River in about 1653, with the population being drawn from
Virginia. In 1663 the settled area north of Albemarle Sound became
Albemarle County, when Charles II granted the territory to eight
proprietors, in whose families it remained until an act of Parliament
in 1729 established an agreement with seven of them (the eighth
refused to sell) and thus turned the territory into a royal colony.
Consequently, when Jones moved south, North Carolina was still in its
infancy, a haven for piracy and beset by private feuds and troublesome
Indians. In the years 1711-1712 occurred an Indian uprising of
proportions comparable to those that had threatened the life of the
Virginia Colony 90 years before.[82] It was this massacre of 1712 and
its effect on the Jones family that occasioned the foregoing apparent
digression into the early history of North Carolina.
The war with the Tuscarora Indians had begun in 1711 at about the
time that Jones and his neighbors had appealed to Virginia for aid,
and it was not to end until 1713 when the greater part of the defeated
tribe moved north to New York to become the sixth part of the Iroquois
Confederation. In October 1712 Jones' plantation was attacked; but in a
letter from the president of the council, Pollock, to the Governor of
South Carolina, it was stated that the attackers were "... beat off,
none killed of our people."[83] Although there was no loss of life, it
would appear that the effect on Jones' plantation was considerable.
In the Journal of the House of Burgesses at Williamsburg it was
recorded that on November 5, 1712, "Frederick Jones, who some years
ago removed two slaves out of this colony into North Carolina, his
plantation having been totally ruined by the hostilities there;
asks permission to bring his said negroes back again without paying
duty."[84] Although the petition was granted, there is no indication
that Jones did, in fact, return. The important phrase in this notice of
petition is the "who some years ago," for it seems probable that this
refers to the time when Jones left James City County to settle in North
Carolina. Working on the assumption that "some years ago" would be
unlikely to refer to a period of time short of three or four years, it
can be construed that the date of removal fell in 1708 or 1709 at the
latest.
However the evidence is interpreted, it still remains curious that
Jones should have purchased the 100 acres of "Lutties Neck" in 1711 and
that he should sell a 300-acre tract known as "Tutties Neck" to Judith
Bray, when in fact he appears to have possessed a total of 400 acres in
James City County, only one of which is known to bear a name resembling
Tutter's or Tutties' Neck. The only reasonable construction must be
that Mathew Brown's escheated acres adjoined 300 acres that already
constituted Tutter's Neck. But even then there remains the problem of
why only "by estimation, three hundred acres, more or less"[85] were
sold to Mrs. Bray. No evidence has been found to show what became of
the remaining 100 acres, and the only Virginia property mentioned in
Frederick Jones' will of April 9, 1722, was described as "lying in King
William County in Virginia, commonly called Horns Quarter."[86]
It is unfortunate that the direst gap in the documentary evidence spans
much the same period as does the archeological data. However, the
genealogy of the Bray family is of some assistance, providing clues
even if it cannot offer direct answers. When Thomas Bray died on August
2, 1751, he was described as "Col. Thomas Bray, of 'Little Town,' next
to 'Kingsmill,' on James River."[87] That property, lying to the east
of the Kingsmill tract, can be traced back as far as 1636, and it is
known to have been owned by the Pettus family in the latter part of the
17th century.[88] In about 1697 James Bray, son of James Bray, Sr.,
of Middle Plantation (later Williamsburg) married Mourning, widow of
Thomas Pettus, Jr., and so acquired the "Little Town," or "Littletown,"
tract.[89] This James Bray had three children, of whom Thomas was the
eldest and thus became heir to his father's estate.
James Bray, Jr., had two brothers (as well as a sister). The eldest
son, Thomas, died intestate. David, the youngest of the three, married
Judith (b. 1679, d. Oct. 26, 1720), by whom he had one son, David,
Jr.,[90] who married Elizabeth Page (b. 1702, d. 1734) and had no heir.
The previously discussed transaction of 1732 following the death of
David Bray, Jr., whereby Thomas Bray obtained the "Tuttie's Neck" acres
that had been purchased at an unspecified date by Judith Bray,[91]
would suggest that Frederick Jones retained the title until 1717. This
may be deduced on the grounds that Mrs. Bray would have been unlikely
to have purchased land while her husband, David Bray, Sr., was still
alive. Thus Jones would seem to have sold Tutter's Neck between 1717
and 1720 when Judith Bray died.
Thomas Bray, as stated above, lived at Littletown, and there is
no likelihood that he ever resided at Tutter's Neck. He married
Elizabeth Meriwether and by her had one child, a daughter named
Elizabeth who married Col. Philip Johnson.[92] The daughter died in
1765, and when her husband followed her in 1769 "six hundred acres,
with the appurtenances, called and known by the name of Tutty's neck"
were offered at auction.[93] It was presumably at this time that the
Tutter's Neck land was added to the neighboring Kingsmill plantation
of Lewis Burwell. William Allen, of Surry County, purchased Littletown
in 1796, and in 1801 he added Kingsmill to his holdings along, one
supposes, with Tutter's Neck; for in the inventory made at Allen's
death in 1832 the latter property was listed as comprising 923 acres
and valued at $2,330.00.[94]
As the archeological site under consideration was not occupied beyond
the colonial period, there is no need to pursue its history through
the 19th century. It is enough to note that Tutter's Neck is included
in parcel no. 4 of the Kingsmill Tract now owned by Williamsburg
Restoration, Inc. Part of this parcel is leased to the Chesapeake
Corporation through whose courtesy excavation was made possible.
CAPTAIN ROGER JONES AND FREDERICK JONES
The discovery of the Tutter's Neck site and its artifacts associated
with Frederick Jones arouses interest in the man himself and his place
in colonial America. While those facets of his career directly relating
to Tutter's Neck have been outlined above, a few additional facts may
serve to round out our picture of the man.
In 1680 Capt. Roger Jones of London came to Virginia with Lord Culpeper
and was given the task of suppressing piracy in Chesapeake Bay. His
efforts in this direction resulted in considerable personal gain and
he was able to amass extensive Virginia property. Eventually Roger
Jones' activities caused so many complaints that he relinquished his
office and returned to London. In 1692 a letter of petition from the
Council of Virginia to the Earl of Nottingham, King William's principal
Secretary of State, complained bitterly about the ravages by pirates
to ships carrying supplies to the colony and in particular about the
conduct of Roger Jones. This petition, signed by Francis Nicholson and
others of the Council, contained the following enlightening passage:
".... Capt Roger Jones, some time an Inhabitant of this Country,
but at present residing in London. A man that, from noething,
pretends in a few years to have gained a great Estate, & since he
has declared his disaffection to yr Maty before his leaveing this
Country, by refuseing to serve in any office, or take the usuall
Oaths wee pray yor Lordshps leave to give you his true caracter.
He came into this Country a souldier under the L Culpeper; was
by his Ldsp made Captaine of a small sloope wh was to have been
furnished with twelve men, & was ordered to cruise in our great
Bay, to look out for & seize all unlawfull Tradrs, &c. But ye
Captaine having learnt to cheate ye King very early, never had
above 8 men, altho he constantly received pay for 12 men, for wh
ye Lord Culpeper endeavoured to call him to Acct., as well as
for his adviseing, trading with & sheltering severall Pyrates &
unlawfull Traders, instead of doeing his duty in seizing them. By
which means ye sd. Jones laid ye foundation of his p'sent great
Estate, as he gives out he is master of."[95]
In 1701 Roger Jones died in Stepney, London, and was buried at
Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, the home of his wife Dorothy (née Walker)
by whom he had two sons. The elder son, Frederick, inherited the larger
share of the estate,[96] and both he and his brother Thomas arrived in
Virginia in 1702. Thomas remained in the colony throughout his life,
but, as already shown, Frederick decided that North Carolina was more
to his liking. In about 1708 Frederick disposed of most of his Virginia
holdings and moved south, taking with him at least two Negro slaves and
his wife Jane, whom he had married while in Williamsburg.[97]
There is no doubt that Frederick Jones prospered in North Carolina, and
in 1717 he was appointed Chief Justice for the colony,[98] replacing
the previous Secretary and Chief Justice, Tobias Knight, who had
resigned in disgrace. The latter had made the mistake of being too
open an accomplice of Edward "Blackbeard" Teach, the pirate. There
is reason to suppose that even if Governor Eden did not personally
profit from Teach's activities, he was fully aware that the pirate made
his winter quarters in a North Carolina inlet. Teach was not finally
cornered until November 22, 1718, in the famous exploit of Lieutenant
Maynard off Ocracoke Inlet.[99] Jones had by then been in office for at
least a year and he was doubtless aware of the Governor's sympathies.
Indeed, with his own father's example to guide him, Jones was clearly
an excellent choice for Chief Justice if leniency towards piracy was
a prerequisite for the job. Although there is no evidence that Jones
profited from Blackbeard's operations, the records show that he was
quite prepared to turn the trust of his office to his own advantage.
In the end it was a comparatively small manipulation that proved his
undoing.
In 1721 one Daniel Mack Daniel murdered, by drowning, a certain
Ebanezar Taylor and carried off his goods and money to a total of
£290.0.0d. When Mack Daniel was apprehended the money was passed for
safekeeping to Frederick Jones, who apparently pocketed it. On April 4,
1722, the following entry appeared in the _Colonial Records of North
Carolina_:[100]
It's the Opinion of this Board that the money lodged in the said
Collo ffredk Jones hands late Cheif Justice for the appearance
of Robert Atkins and Daniel Mackdaniel at the Genl Court ought
to have been deliverd to the present Cheif Justice with the Genl
Court Papers & Records.
Orderd that the said Collo ffredrick Jones late Cheif Justice doe
immediately pay to Christopher Gale Cheif Justice or his Order
whatever moneys he has in his hands lodged as aforesaid ... in
case of failure hereof the Attorney Genl is hereby Orderd to take
proper measures for the recovery thereof.
At the session of July 31 to August 4, 1722, Jones was due to appear to
answer the charge that he had failed to relinquish the money. But when
the session opened, it was reported that Colonel Jones was dead.[101]
He had made his will only five days after the initial order of April 4
had been issued.[102]
Frederick Jones was in many respects a worthy and upright member of
the North Carolina Council, or so one would gather from the opinion of
Hugh Jones (no relation), who wrote: "Col. Frederick Jones, one of the
Council, and in a good post, and of a good estate in North Carolina,
before his death applied to me, desiring me to communicate the
deplorable state of their Church to the late Bishop of London."[103]
Frederick Jones presumably thought no better of the state of education
in the colony, for we know that in the period 1719-1721 two of his sons
were at school in Williamsburg.[104]
The Excavation
As stated in the introduction, the area and intensity of the
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_
PART I: DOCUMENTARY RECORD--_C. Malcolm Watkins_ 75
THE CROWN AND COLONIAL MANUFACTURE 76
THE "POOR POTTER" AND HIS WARES 79
APPENDIXES 86
PART II: POTTERY EVIDENCE--_Ivor Noël Hume_ 91
THE SALT-GLAZED STONEWARE 91
STONEWARE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 102
THE EARTHENWARES 105
CONCLUSIONS 109
[Illustration: Figure 1.--MODERN YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA, showing original
survey plat on which William Rogers' name appears on lots 51 and 55.
Additional properties which he acquired are mentioned in his will as
lots 59, 74, and 75.]
The "Poor Potter" of Yorktown
_Pottery making in colonial Virginia, strongly discouraged by
a mercantilistic England, seemingly was almost nonexistent
according to the Governor's reports which mention but one nameless
"poor potter" at Yorktown, whose wares are dismissed as being
low in quantity and quality. This paper, the combined effort
of a historian and an archeologist, provides evidence that the
Yorktown potter was neither poor nor nameless, that his ware was
of sufficient quantity and quality to offer competition to English
imports, and that official depreciation of his economic importance
apparently was deemed politic by the colonial Governor._
THE AUTHORS: _C. Malcolm Watkins is curator of cultural history in
the Smithsonian Institution's Museum of History and Technology,
and Ivor Noël Hume is director of archeology at Colonial
Williamsburg and an honorary research associate of the Smithsonian
Institution._
Part I: Documentary Record
_C. Malcolm Watkins_
In his annual reports on manufactures to the Lords of the Board of
Trade during the 1730s, Virginia's royal governor, William Gooch,
mentioned several times an anonymous "poor potter" of Yorktown. At
face value, Gooch's reports might seem to indicate that manufacturing
was an insignificant factor in Virginia's economy and that the only
pottery-making endeavor worth mentioning at all was so trivial it
could be brushed aside as being almost, if not quite, unworthy of
notice. Occasionally, historians have selected one or another of
these references to the "poor potter" to support the view either that
manufacturing was negligible in colonial Virginia or that ceramic art
was limited to the undeveloped skills of a frontier potter.[183] The
recent development of archeology, however, as an adjunct of research
in cultural history--especially in the historic areas of Jamestown,
Williamsburg, and Yorktown--has produced substantial evidence
challenging both the accuracy of Gooch's reports and the conclusions
drawn from them, which, contrary to Gooch's statements, proves that
pottery making in Yorktown was highly skilled and much at odds with the
concept of a "poor potter."
The observation that a remarkably developed ceramic enterprise had
been conducted in or near Yorktown was first made by Mr. Noël Hume,
the archeologist partner of this paper, in 1956 when he identified
fragments of saggers used in firing stoneware, which were excavated
in association with numerous stoneware waster sherds and a group of
unglazed earthenware sherds of good quality at the site of the Swan
Tavern in Yorktown.[184] The question naturally arose, could these
expertly made wares have come from the kilns of the "poor potter"?
Although ultimate proof is still lacking, identification with him
is sufficiently well supported by documentary and artifactual hints
that--until further scientific findings are forthcoming--it is
presented here as a hypothesis that the "poor potter" did indeed make
them. This portion of the paper considers not only the specifics of
artifacts and documents, but also the state of manufactures in Virginia
before 1750 and their relationship to the character and attitudes of
Governor Gooch.
The Crown and Colonial Manufacture
It should be noted that, in general, the history of pottery making
in colonial America is fragmentary and inconclusive. Scattered
documents bear hints of potters and their activities, and occasional
archeological deposits contain the broken sherds and other material
evidence of potters' products. Difficulty in obtaining information
about early pottery manufacture may be related in large part to
a reluctance on the part of the colonists to reveal evidence of
manufacturing activity to the Crown authorities. It was the established
principle of the Mother Country to integrate the colonial economy into
her mercantile system, which was run primarily for her own benefit. As
a consequence, there increasingly developed a contest between those
who sought to protect English manufactures by discouraging production
of colonial goods and those who, in America, tried to enlarge colonial
self-sufficiency, the latter inevitably resorting to evasion and
suppression of evidence in order to gain their advantage.
The outlines of this struggle are suggested in the laws and official
reports relating to colonial manufactures. In Virginia, during the
late 17th and early 18th centuries, influential landowners encouraged
manufactures as a way to offset the dominance of tobacco in the colony,
while several acts were passed in the Virginia Assembly to establish
official port towns which, it was thought, would result in flourishing
craft communities. Although, for a variety of reasons inherent in
Virginia's economy and geography, most of these failed, the acts
nonetheless were consistently opposed by the Crown authorities. The
1704 Act for Ports and Towns, for example, was vetoed by the Crown in
1709 for the following reasons:
The whole Act is designed to Encourage by great Priviledges the
settling in Townships, and such settlements will encourage their
going on with the Woolen and other Manufactures there. And should
this Act be Confirmed, the Establishing of Towns and Incorporating
of the Planters as intended thereby, will put them upon further
Improvements of the said manufactures, and take them off from the
Planting of Tobacco, which would be of very ill consequence, not
only in respect to the Exports of our Woolen and other Goods and
Consequently to the Dependance that Colony ought to have on this
Kingdom, but likewise in respect to the Importation of Tobacco
hither for the home and Foreign Consumption, Besides a further
Prejudice in relation to our shipping and navigation.[185]
This forthright exposition of official English attitudes reiterated
the policy of colonial economic dependence. The wording of the
veto--"encourage their _going on_ with the Woolen and other
Manufactures" and "a _further_ Prejudice in relation to our shipping"
[italics supplied]--shows that the dangers feared by the Board of Trade
regarding the establishment of towns had already become a reality and a
threat to English economic policy.
Victor S. Clark, in _The History of Manufactures_ in _the United
States_, points out that the colonists passed so many laws to encourage
their own manufactures "that such British intervention as occurred must
be regarded rather as indicating the passive disposition of the home
government than as defining an administrative policy vigorously carried
out."[186] Nevertheless, from 1700 until the Revolution, reports on
American manufactures made by royal governors to the Board of Trade
demonstrate not only that the Americans were vigorously promoting
manufactures but also that they were being evasive and secretive in
doing so in the face of official disapproval. The Board of Trade
reported in 1733: "It is not improbable that some former governors of
our colonies ... may, in breach of their instructions, have given their
concurrence to laws, or have connived for many years at the practice
of trades prejudicial to the interest of Great Britain...."[187]
Governor Belcher of Massachusetts in his report to the Board of Trade
complained that "we cannot conceal from your lordships that it is
with the greatest difficulty we are able to procure true informations
of the trade and manufactures of New England; which will not appear
extraordinary when we acquaint your lordship, that the assembly of the
Massachusetts Bay had the boldness to summon ... Mr. Jeremiah Dunbar
[Surveyor General of his Majesty's woods in North America] before them
and pass a severe censure upon him, for having given evidence at the
bar of the House of Commons of Great Britain with respect to the trade
and manufactures of this province...."[188]
After the Port Act of 1704 was disallowed, the Virginians were harder
pressed than the northern colonists, who managed to maintain their
frowned-upon industries. Ignoring the Virginians' resentment at being
limited almost exclusively to the growing of tobacco, additional
economic pressures were put upon them. For example, whereas stripped
tobacco--the leaves separated from the stalks--had constituted the
principal form of exported tobacco, an Act of Parliament was introduced
on January 17, 1729, containing clauses prohibiting the importation
into England of "Stript Tobacco." John Randolph, Clerk of the Council
of Virginia, wrote a letter to Parliament, petitioning the repeal of
the clause. By having to export the stalks, he complained, the planters
are loaded with the duty and Freight of that which is not only of
no Value, but depreciates the pure tobacco at least 2d in every
pound. The Tobacconists are under a temptation to manufacture
the Stalk and mingle it with the leaf, whereby the Commodity is
adulterated, and of course the consumption of it is lessend.
And the Merchants are obliged to keep great quantities in their
Warehouses, and at last to sell upon long Credit. In consequence
of which the price of the Planters Labors, is fallen below what
they are able to bear. And unless they can be relieved, they must
be driven to a necessity of Employing themselves more usefully
in Manufactures of Woollen and Linen, as they are not able under
the present circumstances to buy what is Necessary for their
Cloathing, in this Kingdom....[189]
Although the usual covering phrase, "other manufactures," was omitted
here, it could well have been included. Under such adverse restraints,
enterprising Virginians were almost forced to turn to surreptitious
manufacturing; perhaps the restraints became excellent excuses for
pursuing such manufactures, which, perhaps, were in any case inevitable.
Relief came by 1730 with the passage of a new tobacco act, liberalizing
the restrictions on the planters. Meanwhile, in 1727, William Gooch
was appointed Lieutenant Governor and, owing in part to his political
astuteness and sympathetic awareness of the colonists' difficulties,
the lot of the planter was greatly improved. Nevertheless,
manufacturing persisted as the colonists increased in strength and
numbers. Although official restrictions may have been a perverse
encouragement to manufactures, the dynamics of a growing population
in a new country predetermined even more an expansion of enterprise.
Not only did economic depression force the industrious to turn to
manufactures as an alternative to poverty, but economic prosperity,
when it occurred in the 1730s, provided a financial stimulus to further
that prosperity by means of local manufacturing.
Governor Gooch doubtlessly understood this. He was remarkable among
Virginia's colonial governors for his ability to achieve what the
colonists wanted while pleasing the home government. His administration
created an era of good feeling during which the Virginians frequently
expressed their gratitude and praise. In 1728, after serving as
Governor for seven months, he was given £500 by the Assembly as well
as an illegal grant by the Council of £300 from the royal quit-rents,
which led George Chalmers, an English historian, to comment sourly in
1782 that for this gift "he in return resigned in a great measure, the
government to them."[190]
This was not altogether a fair conclusion, for, though Gooch, as
Campbell in his _History of Virginia_ states, may have been possessed
of "some flexibility of principle,"[191] he was an extraordinarily
successful Governor. Percy S. Flippin concluded that Gooch "was a
striking example of what an energetic, forceful royal governor, who
was influenced by conditions in the colony and not altogether by
his instructions, could accomplish, both for the colony and for the
British government."[192] He repeatedly acted in the interests of the
colonists, particularly regarding improved tobacco laws. He attended
almost every meeting of the Council, whose members constituted the
most influential persons in the colony, and thus established a close
working relationship and understanding with those who expressed the
colonial view-point. Quite evidently he understood that prosperity in
the colony was a prerequisite to successful trade with England and to
a substantial tax return. In respect to improving the tobacco laws,
we know that he opposed existing British attitudes; in relation to
colonial manufactures beneficial to colonial prosperity, we may assume
that he was sympathetic, even though he could not advocate them openly.
Certainly, as Campbell stated, "Owing partly to this coalition [between
Gooch and the planters], partly to a well-established revenue and a
rigid economy, Virginia enjoyed prosperous repose during his long
administration."[193]
Gooch's reports on manufactures to the Board of Trade provide an
exercise in reading between the lines. They suggest that he was doing
his best to support the colonists while observing the letter of the
Crown's instructions. They allude to manufactures here and there, but
usually in terms that minimize their importance or that brush aside the
possibilities of their growth. Yet in his depreciations one senses that
while he was trying to state such facts as were necessary, he actually
was trying on occasion to create an impression that was at variance
with the whole truth. In tracing the Yorktown potter we shall see that
this must have been the case.
In his report of 1732 he made a general statement calculated to allow
the Lords of the Board of Trade to relax in calm reassurance, while at
the same time encouraging their recognition of his wisdom in initiating
a new tobacco law:
There hath been much Discourse amongst the common People of
Sowing Flax and Cotton, and therewith supplying themselves with
Cloathing: but since the late Tobacco Law hath begun to raise the
Price of that Staple, all these projected Schemes are laid aside,
and in all probability will Continue so, as long as Tobacco is of
any Value, seeing the necessary Cloathing for the Planters and
their Negroes, may be more easily Purchas'd with Tobacco than made
by themselves. Nor indeed is there much ground to suspect that any
kind of Manufactures will prevail in a Country where handycraft
Labour is so dear as 'Tis Here; The Heat in Summer, and severe
Colds in Winter, accompani'd with sundry Diseases proceeding from
these Causes, such as Labouring People in Great Britain undergo,
and where the Earth produces enough to purchase and supply all
the necessitys of life without the drudgery of much Toil, men are
tempted to be lazy.
He then added inconsistently that four ironworks making pots and "Backs
for Fireplaces" had been set up in Virginia and admitted that one even
included an air furnace. The Lords of the Board of Trade might well
have asked how these were accomplished without "the drudgery of much
Toil."
He also stated that: "there is one poor Potter's work of course earthen
Ware, which is of so little Consequence, that I dare say there hath not
been twenty Shillings worth less of that Commodity imported since it
was sett up than there was before."[194] It is remarkable that Gooch
felt the need to mention the potter at all, since pottery making was
usually an anonymous, little-noted craft. Nevertheless, in 1733 he
reported again on this seemingly insignificant enterprise:
As to Manufactures sett up, Wee have at York Town upon York
River one poor Potter's Work for Earthen Ware, which is so
very inconsiderable that I dare Say there has not been forty
Shillings' worth less of that Commodity imported since it was
Erected than there was before; the poorest Familys being the only
Purchasers, who not being able to send to England for such Things
would do without them, if they could not gett them Here.[195]
Clearly, we, like the Lords of the Board of Trade, are led to believe
that a semiskilled country potter was operating a small shop which
produced crude pottery incapable of competing with English wares. The
word "poor" can be interpreted doubly, connoting both poverty and low
quality. Hence, by inference, it was an enterprise destined to failure.
But such an impression of failure was not supported by Gooch's own
evidence that the pottery works were continuing year after year. In
1734 he reported:
As to Manufactures We have at York Town, on York River, one poor
Potters' work for earthen Ware, which is so very inconsiderable,
that there has been little less of that Commodity imported since
it was Erected, than there was before.[196]
The 1735 report was equally depreciating,[197] while the following
year Gooch opened his report with the comment: "The same poor Potter's
Work is still continued at York Town without any great Improvement
or Advantage to the Owner, or any Injury to the Trade of Great
Britain."[198]
The 1737 report on Trade and Manufactures even contained a special
subheading: "Potters' Work." There then followed: "The Potter continues
his Business (at York Town in this Colony) of making Potts and Panns,
with very little Advantage to himself, and without any dammage to
Trade."[199] One wonders why Gooch's persistence in mentioning this
enterprise in such terms almost annually did not lead the Board of
Trade to question his reasons for mentioning it at all if the pottery
was so insignificant. Perhaps they did question it, because in the
next report, filed in 1739 after a two-year interval, Gooch dismissed
the pottery succinctly, almost impatiently, as though to turn aside
further questions that might be raised: "The poor Potter's Operation
is unworthy of your Lordships notice." Gooch then proceeded with an
admission that:
The Common People in all Parts of the Colony, and indeed many of
the better Sort, are lately gott into the use of Loom Weaving
coarse cloth for themselves and Negroes; And our Inhabitants on
the other side of the Mountains, make very good Linnen which they
sell up and down the Country. Nor is the making of Shoes with
Hides of their own Tanning less practiced, tho' the Leather is
very Indifferent.[200]
It was easier, of course, to admit that the "common People in all Parts
of the Colony" were engaged in domestic manufactures than to allow
attention to concentrate on a single commercial, industrial enterprise.
Only with difficulty could sanctions have been brought to bear against
home industries throughout the colony--a single manufactory reported
almost annually for eight years was quite another matter. To have
lasted this long, the "poor potter" must have been less than poor, and
his pottery must have had an importance that either had to be revealed
by truthful statement or dissimulated. It appears that Gooch chose the
latter course: the pottery being a large enterprise was noticeable;
being noticeable it had to be reported; but being large it contributed
to the wealth of the colony while competing with British imports which
did not, and therefore it should be condoned. Gooch made a practical
decision which may reflect his obligation to the colonists: the pottery
works had to be downgraded in his reports and attention distracted from
it.
The "Poor Potter" and his Wares
Who, then, was the "poor potter," and how wide of the mark was Gooch in
so designating him?
The first clue was found in a ledger kept between 1725 and 1732 by
John Mercer, who was to become master of the plantation Marlborough in
Stafford County as well as an influential colonial lawyer. In 1725,
at the age of 21, Mercer was making his way in the world by trading
up and down the rivers of Virginia, buying imported goods in towns
like Yorktown, where he had a large account with the wealthy merchant
Richard Ambler, and exchanging these imports for raw materials at
upstream plantations. Included in John Mercer's ledger is an account
with one William Rogers having the following entry: "By Earthen Ware
amounting to by Invoice 12. 3. 6."[201] So large an amount implies a
wholesale purchase from a potter. Was William Rogers, then, the "poor
potter" of Yorktown?
Scattered throughout the records are references to several William
Rogerses from 17th-and 18th-century Virginia (see Appendix I), but
none seems likely to refer to the "poor potter" until one reaches
Yorktown. There a deed is recorded from the "Trustees to the Port Land
in Yorktown," granting two lots of land on May 19, 1711, to "William
Rogers aforesaid Brewer."[202] That he was a brewer admittedly is a
weak clue to his being a potter. But, despite this, it is necessary
to pursue this William Rogers further. These two lots were granted
to Rogers by the Trustees in accordance with previous acts for
establishing port towns. Yorktown had been established according to the
Act for Ports and Towns in 1691, and Rogers' lots were numbers 51 and
55 (see plat, fig. 1), lying contiguously on the northern border of the
town between Read and Nelson Streets. To this day they continue to bear
the same numbers.
[Illustration: Figure 2.--MAJOR LAWRENCE SMITH'S ORIGINAL SURVEY PLAT
of Yorktown, Virginia, made according to the Virginia Port Act of 1691,
which set up a port town for each county. This plat, still in the York
County records, bears the names of successive lot holders from 1691 on
into the 18th century. William Rogers' name appears on lots 51 and 55.
He was granted this property by the town feoffees in 1711. Additional
properties he acquired are mentioned in his will as lots 59, 74, and
75.]
For year after year nothing appears in the York County records to
indicate that William Rogers was connected even remotely with a pottery
works. That he was soon prospering as a brewer is suggested by the
mention of "Roger's [sic] best Virga aile," as selling at sixpence
per quart, in a list of liquor prices presented for Yorktown tavern
keepers on March 19, 1711.[203] In 1714 an indentured woman servant
of Rogers ran away and was ordered to serve an additional six months
and four days.[204] His name occurs in 1718 in two small court actions
to collect bad debts and in another against Robert Minge for trespass.
He is recorded in these simply as "Wm. Rogers."[205] There is no other
significant mention until 1730, when the wife of "William Stark, Gent."
relinquished her right of dower to lands in the County, so as to permit
their sale to "William Rogers."[206] Later in the same year "Mr. Wm.
Rogers" was sued by Henry Ham, a bondservant, for his freedom.[207] In
1734 "William Rogers gent" took oath as "Capt. of the Troop."[208]
Later that year "William Rogers gent" was appointed "Surveyor of the
Landings, Streets, and Cosways in York Town."[209]
LIST OF PLAT OWNERS
--PARTIAL NAME
* ILLEGIBLE
1. Thomas *; W--
2. Neillson; Buckner
3. John Ande--; Buckner
4. (?) Th[r]e[l]keld
5. (?) Q[u]arl[e]; Read; Buckner
6. John *; Buckner
7. Henry Alexander; P. Lightfoot
8. Thomas Greenwood; J. Walker; (?) Amos *
9. Robert L[e]ighton; Sam. Cooper
10. Mr. Joseph; Mr. J. Walker
11. Ralph *; Lightfoot
12. *; Wm. Cary
13. (?) Owen; David
14. Robert Moore; Wm. Cary
15. William Webb; Jno. Trotter
16. Mr. Thomas; Lightfoot
17. Mr. Dudley Diggs; Lightfoot
18. *; Wm. Cary
19. Thomas Collyer; Wm. Cary
20. Thomas Branson; Wm. Cary
21. Nicholas Harrison; Robt. Ballard
22. Thomas *
23. *
24. Jefferson
25. (?) Charles Hansford
26. William Tomkins
27. James Archer; John (?) Douglas
28. *
29. Saml. Tompson
30. John R--
31. Will[ia]m Pattisson
32. Thomas (?) Wootton; A. Archer
33. Mr. Edwd. Moss Jr.; *; Jno. Loving
34. Capt. *
35. Capt. Edmond Jennings
36. Coll. Wm. Diggs; Lightfoot
37. Thomas Mountford; Lightfoot
38. Richard Trotter; P. Lightfoot
39. John Wyth; Jno. Martin
40. Richard (?) Trotter
41. David *
42. John *; Diggs
43. Dannll. Taylor
44. Edward Dodds; (?) Jo. Cathafie
45. William Hewit
46. *
47. *
48. Coll. Wm. Cary; 1709
49. James (?) Plowman; 1712
50. Jno. Simson; Edwd. Powers
51. Wm. (?) Anderson; Wm. Rogers
52. *
53. Will[ia]m--son; Edwd. Smith
54. Edward (?) Gibbs; Ballard
55. James Walker; Wm. Rogers
56. *
57. *; Jno. --ton
58. Harrison
59. Harrison
60. Mrs. Young
61. Mrs. Young
62. Let to Morrison; Tho. H--
63. Robt. Morrison (?) Jr.
64. *
65. Edwd. Power
66. Ed Power
67 and 71. -- Gibbons
67. Deed; Geo. Allen
68. Edward * *
69. Jno. Wyth; Edwd. Webb
70. A. Archer; James (?) Paxton; N. Hooke
71 and 67. -- Gibbons
71. Geo. Allen
72. *
73. Edward Fuller
74. *
75. *
In the _Virginia Gazette_ for September 10, 1736, Rogers advertised
for rent or sale "The House which formerly belong'd to Col _Jenings_,
in which the _Bristol_ store was lately kept ... in _Williamsburg_,"
and on December 22 put in a notice for an overseer.[210] The following
year, on June 20, Rogers was appointed to build the county prison
for £160.[211] In the _Gazette_ for May 4, 1739, he announced the
sale of "A small shallop ... in _York_ Town: she is about Five Years
old...."[212]
Then, on December 17, 1739, we find that Rogers had died and that
his will was presented in court. He had identified himself as "Wm.
Rogers ... Merchant." The will lists the distribution of his lands and
property (see Appendix II) to his wife Theodosia, to one daughter, Mrs.
Susanna Reynolds, and to his son William Rogers--the latter being under
age. In addition to town properties a "Trace of parcel of Land lying
& being and adjoining to Mountford's Mill Dam in the County of York
commonly called & known by the Name of Tarripin Point" went to William
Rogers, Jr.[213]
It is only when we arrive at this document that we find the clue we are
seeking: "my interest is that no potters ware not burnt and fit for
sale should be appraised." Who but a potter (or the owner of a pottery)
would have had in his possession unfired "potters ware" not "fit for
sale"?
Any remaining doubts that Rogers operated a pottery are dispelled by
the inventory (see Appendix III), which describes the estate of a
wealthy man, not a "poor" potter. He owned 29 Negroes, considerable
plate, a clock worth £6, a silver-hilted sword and spurs, and a silver
watch. There were many pictures, including "a Neat Picture of King
Charles the Second" and "52 pictures in the Hall." Some of the rooms
had "Window Curtains & Vallins," and one of the beds had "work'd
Curtains & Vallins" [presumably crewel-worked]. The furniture included
a marble table, "12 Chairs with Walnut frames & Cane bottoms," a
"japand corner cupboard," "Couch Squab and pillows," "pcl Backgammon
Tables," and a great deal more of lavish furnishings. But more
important for us is a grouping of items:[214]
1 pr large Scales & Weights £2.10 a pcl crakt redware £2
a parcel crakt Stone Do £5 11 pocket bottles 3/8
1/2 barrel Gun powder £2.10 1 old Sain & ropes £1.10
1 horse Mill £8 2300 lb. old Iron £9.11. 8
26 doz qt Mugs £5.4 60 doz pt Do 7.10
11 doz Milk pans £2.4 9 large Cream potts 4/6
9 Midle Sized Do 3/ 12 Small Do 2/
2 doz red Saucepans 4/ 2 doz porringers 4/
6 Chamber potts 2/ 4 doz bird bottles 12/
3 doz Lamps 9/ 4 doz small stone bottles 6/
4 doz small dishes 8/ 6 doz puding pans 2/
26 Cedar pailes £2.12 40 Bushels Salt £4
With this, added to the provision in the will, we have adequate proof
that Rogers ran a pottery shop and that he made both stoneware and red
earthenware.
Further evidence is found in the _Virginia Gazette_ for February 4,
1740:
To be Sold by Way of Outcry, at the house of Mr. William Rogers,
deceas'd ... all the Household Goods, Cattle, and Horses; also a
very good drought of Steers, 3 Carts, a Parcel of Wheat, and Salt,
a large Parcel of old Iron, Parcel of Stone and Earthen Ware, a
good Worm Still, a very good Horse Mill to go with one Horse; also
a new Sloop, built last March with all new Rigging, and very well
fitted, with 2 very good Boats and several other Things.[215]
The horse mill was probably the potter's traditional clay-grinding
mill, while we may assume that the large amount of salt was intended
for stoneware glaze. Other items in the inventory show that Rogers was
in both the brewing and the distilling business and every evidence is
that he had achieved great affluence.
Governor Gooch's last report on the "poor potter" was filed in 1741
(none having been sent in 1740). In it he stated:
The poor potter is Dead, and the business of making potts & panns,
is of little advantage to his Family, and as little Damage to the
Trade of our Mother Country.[216]
There is little question now that this William Rogers was, indeed, the
"poor potter." We also learn from this report that the business was
being continued by his family after his death. This is confirmed by a
number of documentary clues, the first of which occurs in an indenture
of 1741 (proved in 1743 in the York County Deeds). It begins:
I George Rogers of Bra[i]ntree in the County of Essex [England]
coller Maker Send Greeting. Whereas William Rogers late of
Virginia Mercht was in his life time younger brother to me the
said George Rogers and at the time of his death left an Estate to
his only son named William Rogers which sd last mentioned William
Rogers dyed lately intestate so that in right of Law the said
Estate is devolved & come unto me....
This document served to appoint "Thomas Reynolds of London Mariner" as
his attorney and to assign to him all his rights in the estate.[217]
We hear no further of George, suggesting that his claim on the estate
was settled permanently, but of Thomas Reynolds we learn a good deal.
On June 6, 1737, as captain of the ship _Braxton_ of London, he arrived
at Yorktown from Boston "where she was lately built." He brought from
New England a cargo of 80,000 bricks, "Trayn Oyl," woodenware, and
hops.[218] It was he who had married Susanna Rogers.[219]
He sailed to Bristol on September 30, 1737, perhaps to sell or
deliver his new ship in England. In any case, he returned from
London the following April as master of the ship _Maynard_. He made
several crossings in her until he docked her at London on October
10, 1739.[220] While there he must have learned of the death of his
father-in-law; whether for this reason or some other, his name was
no longer listed among those of shipmasters arriving at and leaving
Yorktown. Since he then would have been in effect the head of the
family, he probably gave up the sea and settled in Yorktown to manage
William Rogers' enterprises, because William, Jr.,--intended to take
over the principal family properties upon his coming of age--died
within about a year of his father's death. Reynolds, both on his
own account as Susanna's husband and as attorney for George Rogers,
logically would have succeeded to proprietorship. In any case, by
1745 he was established so successfully at Yorktown that he was made
a justice of the peace. At some point he went into partnership with
a Captain Charles Seabrook in a mercantile venture that involved
ownership of the ocean sloop _Judith_ and two "country cutters" named
_York_ and _Eltham_.[221]
Reynolds lived next to the Swan Tavern in Yorktown and was
characterized by Courtenay Norton, wife of the merchant John Norton, as
having "shone in the World in Righteousness."[222] He died in 1758 or
1759.
That the pottery was being operated, presumably by Reynolds, at
least until 1745 is evident from an advertisement by Frances Webb of
Williamsburg in the _Virginia Gazette_ for June 20, 1745. This called
attention to "all Sorts of _Rogers'_ Earthenware as cheap as at York."
And, although we have no assurance that the earthenware was made at
the Rogers pottery, we learn from the _Gazette_ that two days prior to
this the sloop _Nancy_ had sailed from Yorktown for Maryland, bearing a
"Parcel of Earthenware."[223]
How long the pottery may have flourished is not known. There is no
further mention of it after 1745, and the shipping records do not
suggest that earthenware or stoneware products were then being shipped
out of York River.
The most significant fact about the "poor potter" is the revelation
that he made stoneware. Stoneware manufacture is a sophisticated art,
requiring special clays, high-temperature firing, and the ability to
use salt in glazing. When William Rogers acquired his first lots in
Yorktown in 1711, no stoneware, so far as we know, was being made in
North America. By 1725, when Rogers sold earthenware to John Mercer,
the Duché family apparently had just succeeded in making stoneware in
Philadelphia.[224] Since we have no documentary evidence of Rogers'
first production of stoneware, we do not know whether his stoneware
antedated that of the Duchés; we know only that after he died in 1739
numerous pieces of stoneware were listed in what were obviously the
effects of his pottery shop. There is strong archeological evidence,
however, that it was made about 1730 (see p. 110).
Although Rogers may not have been the first to make stoneware in
colonial North America, that he was at least one of the first must
have elevated him to a position of prominence among colonial potters.
Far from being a poor potter who conducted a business "with very
little advantage to himself, and without any damage to Trade," he was
supplying a colonial market that heretofore had been filled solely
from England and Germany. There is a hint that he may have shipped his
wares to North Carolina, because the _Virginia Gazette_ announced on
September 21, 1739: "Cler'd out of York River ... September 11. Sloop
Thomas and Tryal, of North Carolina, John Nelson, for North
Carolina ... some Stone Ware."[225] Three years before, Rogers had sued
in court to collect "a Bill Payable to him from one Richard Saunderson
of North Carolina."[226] The possibility that the stoneware in the
sloop _Thomas and Tryal_ had been made by Rogers is highly conjectural,
since European imports often were redistributed and transshipped
in American ports. But, since its cargo as a whole consisted of
non-European materials, this still remains a possibility.
The most notable inference that Rogers' stoneware may have infiltrated
distant colonial markets is found in the Petition of Isaac Parker
to the Massachusetts Court to establish a stoneware manufactory in
Charlestown, Massachusetts, filed in September 1742: "... there are
large quantities of said ware imported into this Province every year
from New York, Philadelphia, & Virginia, for which ... returns are
mostly made in Silver and Gold by the gentn who receive them here."[227]
Since there is no evidence that stoneware was being made at this time
in Virginia, other than at Yorktown, it is reasonable to suppose that
the "poor potter's" heirs shipped stoneware all the way to New England
and that they were paid in hard cash, as distinct from tobacco credits,
which would have been the case with local customers. However this
may be, the Rogers enterprise, even if its products were confined to
Virginia, appears to have been extensive, wealth-producing, and quite
the opposite of Governor Gooch's appraisal of it in his reports to the
Board of Trade.
As to the location of his kilns, we know that Rogers owned two lots,
where he apparently lived, at the northern boundary of the town. He
also owned a warehouse by the riverside and other lots on which he was
building dwellings when he died. He owned land at "Tarripin Point" and
two lots in Williamsburg. Governor Gooch repeatedly located the pottery
in Yorktown: "We have here at York Town upon York River one poor
Potter's Work ...," or, "the Potter continues his Business (at York
Town in this Colony)." This is rather good evidence that the kilns were
within the town limits rather than at some outside location, such as
"Tarripin Point." A waterfront location would have been desirable for
many reasons, but, since a potter's kiln would have been a fire hazard
not to only Rogers' but to other warehouses, it is questionable whether
nearby kilns would have been tolerated. English practice was usually
to locate potter's kilns at the far edges of towns or outside their
limits. Nevertheless, there were many exceptions, and kilns sometimes
were located near the water, especially when practical reasons of
convenience in loading ships outweighed the dangers. The North Devon
potteries were heavily committed to water transportation, and at least
two of the kilns at Bideford in North Devon in the 17th century, for
example, were located near the water in what were then densely settled
areas.[228] The North Walk Pottery in nearby Barnstaple was also on the
water's edge, close to a thickly populated area;[229] in 17th-century
America we find a parallel in the pottery of William Vincent, located
at the harbor's edge in Gloucester, Massachusetts, where it was easy
for him to ship his wares along the coast.[230] The 18th-century
potteries of Charlestown, Massachusetts, which also had wide markets,
were clustered along the harbor shore amid a welter of wharves and
warehouses.[231] It is conceivable, therefore, that the Yorktown
waterfront may have been similarly exposed to the dangers of a potter's
kiln, since Rogers transported his wares by water.
More logical from the standpoint of safety, however, would be the
pair of lots on the western edge of the town where Rogers apparently
dwelt after they were granted to him in 1711. Although it is not
conclusive, his inventory, which includes the lists of earthenwares and
stonewares mentioned above, appears to have been taken in a sequence
beginning with the house and followed by one outbuilding after another.
Presumably these were located close together. Things pertaining to the
kitchen and perhaps to the quarters follow the contents of the house
(in which the "work room" is mentioned), then the distilling apparatus
followed by the brewing equipment. Next come the pottery items, then
a miscellany of laundry, garden, and cooking gear, and finally stable
fixtures and a horse. It is not until the end of the inventory that
the boats and their rigging and equipment, doubtless located at the
waterside, are mentioned. These speculations are offered for what
they are worth in suggesting possibilities for future archeological
discovery of the kiln site.
The question of William Rogers' own role in the pottery enterprise
perhaps will never be solved conclusively, although, as Mr. Noël Hume
points out, there is no evidence that he himself was a potter. His
beginnings almost surely were humble ones, humble enough for a potter.
We know that his brother George was a maker of horse collars--a worthy
occupation, but not one to be equated with the role of an 18th-century
gentleman--in Braintree, Essex County, England. There were many potters
in Essex in the 17th and early 18th centuries, and one wonders if
William Rogers was trained by one of them. But the Essex Records do not
reveal a William Rogers whose dates or circumstances fit ours. We do
find that a George Rogers died at Braintree in 1750.[232]
Whatever may have been William's early training, it is apparent that he
knew the art of brewing and that he engaged in it at Yorktown. To be
sure, nearly every farmer and yeoman in the colonies knew how to brew.
Furthermore, commercial brewing was probably accepted as an honorable
industry by the Crown authorities, since the colonial demand for beers
and ales must have always been in excess of the exportable supply. It
is possible, we may speculate, that Rogers was trained as a potter but
practiced brewing and preferred to be known publicly as a brewer. In
any case, he was essentially a businessman whose establishment made ale
as well as pottery for public consumption, and it is clear that by 1725
he was conducting a potter's business on a considerable scale. To have
done so he must have employed potters and apprentices, yet in cursory
searches of the York County records, we have been unable to discover
any reference either to potteries or potters, reinforcing the suspicion
that every effort--including Gooch's apologetic references--was being
made to conduct the pottery in a clandestine manner.
Thus, the only thing we know with certainty is that William Rogers was
a very successful entrepreneur who carried on more than one kind of
business. We also can deduce from what is disclosed in the records that
he ascended high in the social scale in Virginia and that the rate of
this ascent was, not surprisingly, in proportion to the increase of his
wealth. Whether or not he was a trained potter, one thing is certain:
he was not a "poor potter."
As to the role of his son-in-law and successor, Thomas Reynolds, we
know with certainty that Reynolds was not a potter. For at least five
years and perhaps longer, however, he evidently ran the pottery,
which means that there were trained hands to produce stonewares and
earthenwares. Who they were or where they came from are not revealed
in the records. If, however, we can prove that the wares about to
be discussed were made by them, it becomes clear that they were a
remarkably competent lot, often able to equal if not to excel their
English peers.
The persistence of the pottery for at least 20 and perhaps more than
34 years was owing in part, no doubt, to Governor Gooch's apologetic
treatment of it in his reports to the Lords of the Board of Trade and
to his leniency toward colonial manufacturers in general. Basically,
however, it was a response to public need and to a growing independence
and a socio-economic situation distinct from the mother country's.
The Virginians had a will and direction which impelled them beyond
the restrictions imposed upon them to grow tobacco and do little
else. The "poor potter" is significant because he exemplified the
impulse to break these restrictions and to move the colony toward a
craft-oriented economy. Because his wares were skillfully made and
sometimes were scarcely distinguishable from those of his English
competitors, he was able to hold his position economically and at the
same time to become personally wealthy and influential. The scope
of his enterprise--more clearly demonstrated in the archeological
section of this presentation--should lead to a reappraisal of Governor
Gooch's attitudes toward the endeavors of the colonists. His reports
to the Board of Trade are shown to have been dissimulations instead of
statements of fact. They evidence a daring and suggest a wisdom and a
degree of pragmatism on the part of the Governor that might well have
been continued by the Crown and its authorities. This entire episode
illustrates a remarkably fluid phase of Virginia's history in which the
opportunity for an energetic man to rise from obscurity to wealth and
position foretold a pattern that became legendary in American society.
Governor Gooch undoubtedly sensed these internal pressures, as much
psychological as economic, to seek the rewards of industry and
enterprise. That the pottery later ceased to function and Virginia's
manufactures in general failed to develop may reflect the differences
in attitudes between Governor Gooch and his successors and the stubborn
impositions by the Crown that eventually led to the American Revolution.
There seems little doubt that the "poor potter," William Rogers, and
the maker of the pottery so liberally dispersed around Yorktown and
elsewhere in Virginia are one and the same. Further archeological
investigation and discovery of a kiln or kiln dump should provide the
evidence needed for proof.
APPENDIXES
I: Other Virginians by the Name of William Rogers
In order to feel absolutely certain that the William Rogers of Yorktown
was the "poor potter" so often mentioned by Governor Gooch, a check was
made through the records of all 17th-and 18th-century Virginians named
William Rogers to see if any others might possibly have been associated
with the Yorktown pottery.
The earliest William Rogers found was listed as one of a group of
60 persons transported and assigned to Richard Cooke in Henrico
County.[233] In 1639 a "Mr. William Rogers" was viewer of the tobacco
crop in Upper Norfolk.[234] In 1718 a William Rogers died in Richmond
County.[235] It is quite evident that none of these was the "poor
potter."
In 1704 a William Rogers owned 200 acres in Accomack County on the
Eastern Shore,[236] and in 1731 a will of William Rogers was recorded
there.[237]
In Surry County several men of this name are noted.
One of them was bound as an apprentice in 1681;[238] this William
Rogers was probably the same man who was listed in 1687 in the Surry
militia "for Foot."[239] In 1702 a William Rogers took up some newly
opened land "on the South side of Blackwater," which was measured by
the surveyor for Charles City County (only meaning, perhaps, that Surry
did not have its own surveyor).[240] In 1704 a William Roger (sic)
owned 450 acres in Surry.[241] Two years later William Rogers, Jr., had
220 acres surveyed on the "S. side of Blackwater" in Surry County.[242]
Meanwhile a William Rogers had recorded a will in Surry in 1701, and
another (presumably William Rogers, Jr.) did so in 1727.[243]
A William Rogers was listed in Lancaster in 1694 as the husband of
Elizabeth Skipworth,[244] and he appears to have been tithable in the
Christ Church parish in 1714.[245] Wills are recorded under the name in
Lancaster County in 1728 and 1768.[64]
None of these records dispute the strong evidence discovered at
Yorktown concerning the identity of the "poor potter."
II. Evidence of William Rogers' Properties
_Virginia Gazette_, SEPTEMBER 10, 1736
"To be Lett or Sold, very reasonably. The House which formerly belong'd
to Col _Jenings_, in which the _Bristol_ store was lately kept, being
the next House to _John Clayton's_, Esq.; in _Williamsburg_: It is a
large commodious House, with Two Lots, a Garden, Coach-House, Stable,
and other Outhouses and Conveniences. Enquire of Capt. _William
Rogers_, in _York_, or of _William Parks_, Printer in _Williamsburg_."
ROGERS' WILL (1739)
To his wife Theodosia: "... two Lotts--lyeing & being in the City
of Wmsburgh together with the Dwelling House and other houses
thereunto belonging" and also
"... a Lott lying behind Cheshire's Lott number 63 in York Town
that I bought of Mr. George Reade, with all the Improvements upon
it during his life and after his death." ["Behind _Cheshire_'s
Lott" apparently means Lot 59, next to it. See plat.]
"... one certain Tract or Parcel of Land, lying being and
adjoining to Mountford's Mill Dam in the County of York commonly
called & known by the Name of Tarripin Point."
"... the parcel of Land that I bought of Mr Edwd Smith except one
Chain and that to be laid off at the end next the Lott that I
bought of Francis Moss with all the Improvements on it and in case
I should dye before I build upon it, I shall leave all the plank
& framing stuff together with the window frames & all the other
things designed for the House to my Wife and not to be appraised
with my Estate and if my Carpenter is not free that he shall
not be appraised but serve his time out and with my said Wife."
[Francis Morse owned Lot 75, extreme southwest corner. Therefore,
this was probably Lot 74.]
* * * * *
"unto my son Wm Rogers
all my Lotts in Yorktown where I now dwell with all
the houses thereunto belonging."
"also the warehouse by the waterside and
all other my Lands and Tenements wherever lying
except the Lotts & Land before given to my Wife."
* * * * *
To his daughter Susanna Reynolds: "the Lott that I bought of Mr Francis
Morse known by the No 75 together with the Brickhouse and all other
Improvements upon it also one Chain of the Land that I bought of Mr
Edward Smith to be taken at the end next to the Lott to her & her heirs
for Ever in case I dye before the House is done I then leave also
bricks enough to finish the house, together wth the window frames &
doors and what other framing was design'd for her house...."
64 _Virginia Wills and Administrations_, loc. cit. (footnote 53).
III: Inventory of William Rogers' Estate[246]
Pursuant to an Order of York Court Dec. the 17th 1739 We the
Subscribers being first sworn before Wm. Nelson junr Gent have
appraised the Estate of Capt. Wm. Rogers decd. as followeth Vizt.
Waterford £25 Betty £25 Adam
£30 Blackwall £30 £110. 0. 0
Nanny £18 Lazarus Son of Nanny
£5 23. 0. 0
Amy Daughter of Nanny £16
Grace Daughter of Nanny 8£ 24. 0. 0
Barnaby £15 Samson £25 Quaqua
£25 Tony £30 95. 0. 0
Jo £30 York £25 Jack £25
George £22 Tom 30 132. 0. 0
Monmouth £30 London £30
Ben £30 Pritty £30 120. 0. 0
Phillis £25 Sarah £30 Harry £25
Lucy £12 92. 0. 0
Little Nanny £25 Phoeby £20
Phil son of Phoeby £5 50. 0. 0
Cato £20 James £18 Peg £16 54. 0. 0
Household Goods &c.
1 Clock £6 one Silver hilt Cutting
Sword and one pr. Silver
Spurrs 4£ 10. 0. 0
1 Tea Pott 5 Spoons 2 pt. Cans
and 2 Salts of Silver 11. 15. 0
To a parcel China ware £10 a
pcl Glasses & Table Stand £1.10 11. 10. 0
a pcl books £4 a pcl Sheets Table
Linnen and one wt. Quilt 22l 26. -- --
1 Silver Salver 1 pt. Can 2 Salts
11 Spoons and one Soop Do 14. -- --
1 Silver Watch £4 one horse Colt
£4 a Coach & 4 horses £40 48. -- --
a Neat Picture of King Charles the
Second 2. 10. 0
1 Marble Table £2 one corner
cupboard wth. a glass face 20/ 3. -- --
1 Looking Glass £1.10 1 pr. Glass
Sconces 15/ £2. 5. 0
1 Chimney Glass wth. a pr. brass
arms £2 a japaned corner Cupboard 2. 15. 0
12 Chairs wth. Walnut frames &
Cane bottoms 5. -- --
1 Dutch picture in a guilt frame 0. 10. 0
7 Cartoons 4 glass Pictures 4
Maps & 3 small Pictures 1. 5. 0
1 Large walnut Table £1.15 one
less Do 20/ 2. 15. 0
1 small Table & one Tea board 5/
one Iron back 12/ 0. 17. 0
1 pr. And Irons 20/ one Iron fender
1 pr. Tongs & Shovel fire 7/6 1. 7. 6
1 Iron plate frame 7/6 8 China
Pictures in large frames 8/ 0. 15. 6
1 Copper Cistern 13/ 12 Ivory
handle knives & forks £1.10 2. 3. 0
11 Eboney Do 12/6 12 Desart Do
wth. Ivory handles 12/ 1. 4. 6
4 Window Curtains & Vallins
£1.10 one small Cherry Table 6/ 1. 16. 0
2 Mares & one Colt £5 a pcl of
Carpenters Tools £2.10 7. 10. 0
27 head Cattle £17 Six high back
Chairs wth. rush bottoms £1.10 18. 10. 0
1 Bed Bolster Pillow Bedsted 1
pr. blankets & Quilt 3. -- --
2 small pine Tables 0. 4. 0
1 large Bed Bolster 1 Pillow 1 pr.
blankets Bedstead Curtain rod
Workt Curtains & Vallins 7.
1 Bed Bolster 2 pillows 1 pr. blankets
1 Old Quilt old blue
Hangings & Bedsted 4. -- --
1 Looking Glass 20/. 2 pr. window
Curtains 10/ one pr. Sconces 6/ 1. 16. 0
1 pr. large mony Scales & weights
12/6 1 pr. less do 5/ 0. 17. 6
1 pr. small do 2/6 5 rush bottom
Chairs wth black frames 7/6 0. 10. 0
A Chimney piece 10/ 52 Pictures
in the Hall 10/ 1.
1 Couch Squab and pillow 30/
1 japand Tea Table 5/ 1. 5. 0
1 Small pine Table 1/ 2 Walnut
Stools 3/ 0. 4. 0
1 Chimney Glass 4/ one pr.
Sconces 7/6 1 Dressing Table 2/ 1. 09. 6
1 Looking Glass wth Drawers 20/
one Iron back 6/ £1. 6. 0
1 pr. And Iron 7/6 1 pr. Tongs &
fire Shovel 4/ 0. 11. 6
1 brass fender 5/ 1 Case wth
Drawers 1.5 1. 10. 0
1 pr. Backgammon Tables 12/6
Tea Chest & Cannisters 6/ 0. 18. 6
1 Dresing Box 5/ 1 Trumpet 5/
1 large Elbow Chair 7/6 0. 17. 6
A Dutch Picture in a guilt frame 2. 0
1 Bed Bedstead Bolster 2 pillows
1 blanket 1 Quilt Curtains
Vallins & Curtain Rod 6. 0. 0
1 Bedstead wth Sacking bottom
1 small Bed & one pillow 1. 10. 0
1 Dram Case & 6 Bottles 12/6
2 pr. window Curtains 10/ 1. 2. 6
1 Copper preserving pan 10/ 1 pr.
large pistols 15/ 1. 5. 0
1 pr. Holsters 5/ 1 pr. holster Caps
& housing laced and flowerd
with Silver 20/ 1. 5. 0
14 bottles Stoughton's Elixir 14/
6l Chocolate 18/ 1. 12. 0
20 lb Cocanuts £2, 50 Ells
Ozn brigs £2.10 4. 10. 0
15-1/2 yds Dorsay 9 Strips twist
2 hh Silk 5 doz Coat and 2 doz.
brest buttons 2. 0. 0
3 Cloth brushes 3/ 28 Maple
handle knives 5/10 0. 8. 10
10 Yarn Caps 2/6 3 horn books 6d
3 Baskits 4/ 0. 7. 0
1 Iron back in the work room 5/
1 Do in the Little Chamber 6/ 0. 11. 0
1 Iron fender 1 pr Tongs & fire
Shovell 5/ 1 pr Andirons 2/ 0. 7. 0
5 brass Candle Sticks 2 Tinder
boxes & 1 Iron Candle Stick 14/ 0. 14. 0
1 Flasket and a parcel Turners
Tools 0. 18. 0
8 pr Negros Shoes £1.4. 72 yds
Cantaloon £1.4 2. 8. 0
11 yds Coarse Stuff 5/6 1 old Desk
20/ 1 Cedar Press 15/ 2. 0. 6
13 Cannisters 3/6 16 Tin patty
pans 12 Cake Do 2 Bisket Do
12 Chocolate Do 2 Coffee pots
and 1 Funnell 11/6 0. 15. 0
1 Box Iron & 2 heaters 5/ 1 Coffee
mill 4/ £0. 9. 0
1. 2 hour Glass 1/ 5 broad hows 13/
1 Spining Wheel 5/ 0. 19. 0
2 4l flat Irons 6/ 1 Trooping
Saddle blue housing Crooper
& Brest plate 20/ 1. 6. 0
An Ozenbrig Skreen 10/ 1 small
pine Chest 2/6 0. 12. 6
1 Walnut Table 12/6 5 Candle
Moulds 7/6 1. -- --
1 Bark Sifter 5/ 10 Pictures 4/
1 Cold Still 12/6 1. 1. 6
1 pr Stilliards 7/6 12 New Sickles
12/ 10 old Do 2/6 1. 2. 0
2 larger Sieves and 1 Hair Sifter
7/6 1 Case wth. 14 bottles 15/ 1. 2. 6
1 Bell Metal Skillet 12/ 1 pr brass
Scales & weights 10/ 1. 2. 0
1 Coffee Roaster 4/ 1 fire Shovell
1 pr Tongs & 1 Iron fender 3/ 0. 7. 0
6 woodin Chairs and 1 old Cane Do 0. 8. 0
1 pewter Ink Stand 2/6 1 Tea
Kettle 5/ 0. 7. 6
2 Trivets 2 pr Sheep Sheers and 1
pr Bellows 5/ 0. 5. 0
1 Warming pan 5/ 20 doz Quart
bottles 2£ 1 whip Saw 20/ 3. 5. 0
3 Empty Casks and 2 beer Tubbs
7/6 0. 7. 6
2 Powdering Tubbs and 1 large
Cask 0. 6. 0
A Meal Binn 3/ 3 Spills 9/ 1
worm Still £2/10 3. 2. 0
4 Wheel barrows 8/ 3 Spades 7/
a Copper Kettle £2.10 3. 5. 0
1 large Iron pott 12/6 1 Iron
Kettle 15/ 1 Flasket 1/6 1. 9. 0
1 Iron pott 1/6 1 Bed Bolster
Bedsted 1 Rugg & 10 Blanket
1/10 1. 11. 6
1 Bed Bolster Bedsted Blanket and
1 old Quilt 17. 6
1 old Table 1/6 6 oxen Ox
Cart Yokes & Chains 13. -- --
80 lb Ginger 10/ 24 lb. Alspice
£1.4 55 lb. Rice 5/ 1. 19. 0
50 lb. Snakeroot £1/5 34 lb. Hops
17/ 124 lb. feathers £5.3.4 7. 5. 4
a pcl old Sails & riging 3. -- --
1 pr large Scales & weights £2.10
a pcl crakt red ware £2 £4. 10. 0
a parcel crakt Stone Do £5 11
pocket bottles 3/8 5. 3. 8
1/2 barrel Gun powder £2.10 1 old
Sain & ropes £1.10 4. -- --
1 horse Mill £8 2300 lb. old Iron
£9.11.8 17. 11. 8
26 doz qt Mugs £5.4 60 doz pt
Do 7.10 12. 14. 0
11 doz Milk pans £2.4 9 large
Cream potts 4/6 2. 8. 6
9 Midle Sized Do 3/ 12 Small Do
2/ 0. 5. 0
2 doz red Saucepans 4/ 2 doz
porringers 4/ 0. 8. 0
6 Chamber potts 2/ 4 doz bird
bottles 12/ 0. 14. 0
3 doz Lamps 9/ 4 doz small stone
bottles 6/ 0. 15. 0
4 doz small dishes 8/ 6 doz
puding pans 2/ 0. 10. 0
26 Cedar pailes £2.12 40 Bushels
Salt £4 6. 12. 0
104 lb. pewter in Dishes & plates 5. 4. 0
1 Gallon 1. 2qt 1 qt 1 pt & 1
1/2 pt pewter pott 0. 16. 0
1 pewter Bed pan 5/ 12 Sheep £3 3. 5. 0
6 Washing Tubbs 12/ 1 Chocolate
pott & Mill 6/ 0. 18. 0
6 Tea Spoons & a Childs Spoon of
Silver 1. -- --
7 Bell Glasses 16/ 1 Kitchen jack
26/ 2. 2. 0
1 pr Andirons 15/ 1 large Copper
pott & Cover 30/ £2. 5. 0
1 less Do 17/6 1 Marble Mortar
12/6 1. 10. 0
1 Bell Metal Do and Iron Pestle 0. 10. 0
2 large knives 1 Choping Do 1
Basting Ladle 1 Brass Skimer
1 pr small Tongs and flesh fork 0. 5. 0
1 Copper Stew pan 1 Copper & 1
Iron frying pan 1 Tin fish
Kettle 0. 14. 0
1 Brass Skillet and 2 Tin Covers 0. 9. 0
1 Iron Crane and 1 large Pestle 0. 8. 0
1 Water pail 1/6 1 Iron pott 1 pr
hooks & 1 Iron Ladle 6/ 0. 7. 6
1 larger Iron pott & hooks 6/ 1
horse Cart & wheels £3 3. 6. 0
1 old whip Saw 10/ 1 Set old
Chain harness for 3 horses 20/ 1. 10. 0
1 Set Do for 3 Horses £4 8 Iron
Wedges 12/6 4. 12. 6
1 Bay horse £1.5 1 pr wooden
Scales 2/ 2 Baskets 2/6 1. 9. 6
1 old horse Cart £1.5 212 bushels
wheat a 1/6d £15.18. 17. 1. 0 [sic]
1 old Boat 10/ a New Sloop
Boat Sails Rigging 2 Anchors
2 Cables 1 old Hawser and 1
Grapnell 90. 0. 0
1 Glass Light 3/ 2 Wyer Sieves 7/6 0. 10. 6
------------
£1224. 5. 6 [sic]
John Ballard
John Trotter
Ishmael Moody
Part II: Pottery Evidence
_Ivor Noël Hume_
The Salt-Glazed Stoneware
Attention was first drawn to the potential importance of the
18th-century pottery factory at Yorktown in 1956 when an examination
of the National Park Service artifacts from the town revealed large
quantities of stoneware sagger fragments visually identical to those
previously retrieved from a site at Bankside in London.[247] On the
assumption that where kiln "furniture" is found there also must
be examples of the product, a more careful search of the Yorktown
collections was made, yielding numerous fragments of brown salt-glazed
stoneware tankards and bottles which, although at first sight
appearing to be typically English, were found to have reacted slightly
differently to the vagaries of firing than did the average examples
found in England.
The largest assemblage of stoneware and sagger fragments came from the
vicinity of the restored Swan Tavern, although the actual relationship
of the pieces, one to another, was not recorded in the National Park
Service's archeological report on the excavations. Nevertheless, the
presence on the same lot of fragments of pint tankards adorned with
a sprig-molded swan ornament (fig. 3) along with numerous pieces of
sagger (fig. 12) seemed positive enough evidence. English tavern mugs
of the 18th century were frequently decorated with an applied panel
copying the sign which hung outside the hostelry.[248] The Swan Tavern
at Yorktown was probably no exception, and to the often illiterate
traveler it would have been identified either by a painted sign or
perhaps by a swan carved in wood and set above the entrance. The
significance of the swan-decorated tankards is simply that the tavern
keeper would have been unlikely to have sent to England for such
objects when, as the saggers so loudly proclaim, a local potter could
supply them as needed and without cost of transportation.
The above reasoning seemed to link the saggers with brown salt-glazed
stonewares rather than with products in the Rhenish tradition, which
would have been the other obvious possibility.[249] Wasters were thinly
represented among the sherds from Yorktown, although many underfired
or overburned pieces were initially claimed as such. A more mature
study of the Yorktown potter's products has shown that these variations
would not have been considered unsalable, nor, in all probability,
would they have been marked down as "seconds." Examples exhibiting both
extremes of temperature have been found in domestic rubbish pits at
Williamsburg, clearly showing that such pieces did find a ready sale.
Figure 4 illustrates a mug fragment from Williamsburg with a large,
heavily salted roof-dripping lodged above the handle and overflowing
the rim, a blemish the presence of which is hard to explain if the mug
was fired in a sagger. Such a piece found in the vicinity of a kiln
reasonably could be considered a waster. It must be deduced, therefore,
that, providing the Yorktown potter's vessels would hold water and
stand more or less vertically on a table, they would find a market.
The site of Rogers' kilns in or near Yorktown has not been found, nor
have his waster tips and pits been located. In the absence of such
concrete evidence, a study of his wares may be thought premature.
But, while numerous questions obviously remain to be answered,
sufficient data have now been gathered to identify a considerable
range of brown stoneware as being of Tidewater Virginia manufacture.
There is, of course, good reason to suppose that much, if not all,
of it is a product of the Rogers factory, although until that site
is dug one cannot be certain. It can be argued, perhaps, that if
there was one more or less clandestine stoneware potter at work in
the area, there might well be others. It could also be added that
two earthenware-pottery-making sites have been discovered in the
Jamestown-Williamsburg area for which no documentary evidence has been
found. The very fact that such enterprise was officially discouraged
reduces the value of the negative evidence to be derived from the
absence of documentation.
The most convincing evidence for the identification of Rogers'
stoneware comes from the already mentioned Swan Tavern mugs and from
a quantity of sherds found in a 4-to 7-inch layer beneath Yorktown's
Main Street in front of the Digges House in the spring of 1957. This
material was exposed during the laying of utilities beside the modern
roadway. So tightly packed were the fragments of saggers and pottery
vessels that they appeared to have been deliberately laid down as
metaling for the colonial street. Several years later Mr. Watkins
discovered that in 1734 William Rogers had been appointed "Surveyor of
the Landings, Streets; and Cosways in York Town." It is reasonable to
suppose, therefore, that Rogers disposed of his kiln waste by using it
for hard core to make good the roads under his jurisdiction. Such a use
of potters' refuse has ample precedent in that the wasters and sagger
fragments from the 17th-century-London delftware kilns were dumped on
the foreshore of the river Thames to serve the same purpose. Similarly,
stoneware waste from the presumed Bankside factory[250] was used there
to line the bottoms of trenches for wooden drains.
The pottery fragments found in the Yorktown road metaling comprised
unglazed, coarse-earthenware pans and bowls; pieces of badly fired,
brown, salt-glazed stoneware jars and bottles; and numerous sagger
fragments.
In the years since interest first was shown in the products of the
Yorktown factory, a useful range of examples has been gathered from
excavations in Williamsburg and in neighboring counties. The single
most significant item was recovered from another kiln site in James
City County (known as the Challis site) on the bank of the James River.
This object, a pint mug (fig. 5), is the best preserved specimen yet
found. It is impressed on the upper wall, opposite the handle, with
a pseudo-official capacity stamp[251] comprising the initials W R
beneath a crown (William III Rex) which, perhaps, might have led to an
intentional misinterpretation as the mark of William Rogers' factory.
The official English marks generally were incuse or stamped in relief
with the cypher and crown within a borderless oval. They were always
placed close to the rim, just left of the handle. Rogers' stamp was set
in a much more pretentious position and was enclosed within a rectangle
marking the edges of the matrix (fig. 6).
The Challis site mug was a key piece of evidence, being the first
example found that illustrated the position of the W R stamp, and
it was sufficiently intact for a drawing to be made, its capacity
measured, and its variations of firing studied. The association of the
Challis mug with the Rogers factory is based on the fact that there is
an identical stamp among the Park Service's artifacts from Yorktown
(fig. 7), along with another pseudo W R stamp which had been applied to
the _base_ of a tankard.
A measured drawing of the Challis mug was given to Mr. James E. Maloney
of the Williamsburg Pottery,[252] who kindly agreed to undertake a
series of experiments to reproduce the piece in his own stoneware
kiln, using local Tidewater clay. The results of the first trials were
extremely successful, and they showed that it would be possible to
reproduce exact copies of the Yorktown wares from this clay (fig. 8).
Thus any doubt as to the supply source was dispelled.
The conditions of firing at the Williamsburg Pottery, however, are
somewhat different from those that would have prevailed in the 18th
century. Mr. Maloney's kiln is fired by oil rather than wood, so that
the localized variations of color resulting from the reducing effects
of wood smoke have been eliminated. In addition, Mr. Maloney's pots
are fired without the use of saggers, thus providing more uniform
atmospheric and salting conditions than would have been possible with
the 18th-century method of stacking the kilns.
[Illustration: Figure 3.--PINT AND QUART MUGS of brown salt-glazed
stoneware made for the Swan Tavern at Yorktown. Each mug is decorated
with an applied swan in high relief.]
The Yorktown mugs were hand thrown, but a template was used to shape
the ornamental cordoning. It was first assumed that a single template
had served to fashion both the cordons at the base and the groove below
the lip. We had such a tool made of aluminum, copying the Challis
mug's ornament, and proportionately enlarged to allow for shrinkage in
firing. But in using this template Mr. Maloney discovered that it was
impossible to shape the whole exterior of the vessel in one movement
without the tools "chattering" against the wall. Since none of the
Yorktown sherds nor, indeed, any of the brown-stoneware mugs I have
studied in England exhibit this feature, it is clear that the potters
used only a small template which molded the base cordoning alone, a
technique in marked contrast to that of the German Westerwald potters
of the same period, whose mass-produced tankards and chamberpots
invariably exhibit considerable "chattering." Shaping the lip of the
Yorktown tankards appears to have been accomplished entirely by hand as
was the application of the encircling groove below it. Because the clay
used in the manufacture of these brown stonewares is relatively coarse,
it does not lend itself readily to the thin potting so characteristic
of English white salt-glaze or the refined Nottingham and Burslem brown
stonewares. Consequently, it was necessary to pare down the mouths
of the mugs to make them acceptable to the lips of the toper. This
interior tooling, extending about half an inch below the rim, is found
on all the Yorktown and English brown stonewares of this class. The
technique is the reverse of that used by the Westerwald potters, whose
mugs are thinned from the outside, leaving the straight edge on the
interior.[253] Having imbibed from both types of tankard, I believe
that the English (and Yorktown) technique is distinctly preferable.
One's upper lip does most of the work; the paring of the inside of the
vessel shapes the rim away from that lip and carries the ale smoothly
into the mouth.
[Illustration: Figure 4.--YORKTOWN STONEWARE MUG FRAGMENT marred by
kiln drippings lodged above the handle. The fragment was found in
Williamsburg. Height of sherd 4 centimeters.]
The treatment of the single-reeded handle on the Challis site mug
equals the best English examples, being thin and of sufficient size to
accommodate three fingers, with the top of its curve remaining below
the edge of the rim so that the thumb cannot slip over it. In addition,
the lower terminal is folded back on itself and impressed. While it
has often been said that the signature of a potter is found in the
shaping of his rims and his handles, we must remember that in a large
commercial pottery the person who applies the handles often is not the
same workman as he who throws the pot. This explains the considerable
variety among the handles of supposed Yorktown tankards, some of them
very skillfully fashioned and applied, others appallingly crude. It is
inconceivable that all can be the work of a single craftsman.
[Illustration: Figure 5.--YORKTOWN STONEWARE MUG, found in James City
County, which was discarded about 1730. Height 12.5 centimeters;
capacity 17 fluid ounces.]
The iron-oxide slip into which the upper part of the body and handle
of the Challis site mug was dipped provided the vessel with a pleasing
purplish-to-green mottling when struck by the salt, but, compared to
its English prototypes, the variations of color and the unevenness
of the size of the mottling label it a product of inferior firing.
Nevertheless, in criticizing the Yorktown stoneware, we might remember
Dr. Johnson's comment on women preachers, whom he likened to a dog
walking on its hind legs, saying: "It is not done well; but you are
surprised to find it done at all."
[Illustration: Figure 6.--SILVER REPRODUCTION of the matrix used by
the Yorktown potter to apply unofficial excise stamps. Height 1.45
centimeters.]
[Illustration: Figure 7.--EXAMPLES OF W.R. STAMPS on Yorktown stoneware
mugs. Right, from below the rim; left, on the underside of the base.
Enlarged.]
On the evidence of the many fragments of Yorktown mugs found in
Williamsburg excavations, it may be supposed that the Challis example
was of above-average quality. Many of the Williamsburg sherds are both
badly overfired and poorly mottled, owing either to inadequate salting
or to the use of a slip of the wrong consistency. The much-restored
specimen shown in figure 9 was found in a mid-18th-century rubbish
deposit[254] and apparently had belonged to John Coke, who kept tavern
in Williamsburg east of the Public Gaol. In this example, the intended
mottled effect has become a solid band of purple, and the body color
below has turned dark gray. I had long supposed that both were the
result of overfiring. Experiments by Mr. Maloney, however, clearly
showed that the gray body may result from a reducing atmosphere as
readily as by excessive temperature, while the purple zone could be due
to the slip's being too thick. Two test mugs fired side by side at
a temperature of 2300° F., using thick and thin slips of iron oxide,
produced the solid-purple band and the brown mottle respectively.
[Illustration: Figure 8.--REPRODUCTION OF A YORKTOWN salt-glazed
stoneware mug made from local clay at the Williamsburg pottery. Height
12.8 centimeters.]
[Illustration: Figure 9.--POOR-QUALITY MUG of probable local stoneware,
discarded in the mid-18th century. Found in Williamsburg. Height 13.4
centimeters; capacity 23 fluid ounces.]
Before dismissing the John Coke mug as merely an example of wrong
slip consistency, it should be noted that this piece has none of the
characteristics of the Challis mug; the handle is quite different in
both size and shape and is applied without the folded terminal, the
proportions are poor, and the template used for the base cordoning
is so worn on its bottom edge that the wide upper cordon is more
pronounced than the base itself, thus giving the whole vessel a feeling
of stubby instability. In addition, the body appears to have been
scraped round after the slip had been applied, possibly to remove the
excess. All in all, it is a miserable mug, and we may be forgiven for
wondering whether it is really a product of William Rogers' operation.
Some of his tankards may have been made by apprentice potters, which
would account for somewhat varying shapes. But the handle is not an
inept creation as handles go; it is simply an entirely different type
from that used on the English stoneware that Rogers copied. Even
more curious is the question of the template, which should have been
discarded long before. While the throwing variations of Rogers' potters
may have been overlooked, little can be said for a master craftsman who
would allow the use of tools so worn as to mar the esthetic quality of
every mug produced. We may wonder whether there was another stoneware
potter at work in Virginia in the mid-18th century or whether, after
Rogers' death, his factory's standards were allowed to deteriorate to
the level of the John Coke mug.
Although the tavern tankards are the most informative of the Yorktown
products, numerous other stoneware forms were produced. These are well
represented in the National Park Service and Colonial Williamsburg
collections. The most simple and at the same time the most attractive
of these is a group of hemispherical bowls (fig. 10), two of which
were found in the same deposit as the Coke mug.[255] One, which had
been dipped into an iron-oxide slip in the same manner as were the
tankards, has a pale gray body with a narrow band of brown mottling
below the rim. The other Coke bowl has a dirty greenish-gray body,
while the slipped band is a heavy purplish-brown with little mottling.
The entire bowl is too heavily salted, an infirmity which often may
have afflicted these pieces. A fragment of a slightly smaller and even
more heavily salted bowl was found in 1961 by Mrs. P. G. Harrison in
her flower bed at Yorktown,[256] thus seeming to confirm the Yorktown
origin of the Coke bowls.
[Illustration: Figure 10.--HEMISPHERICAL BOWLS of Yorktown stoneware,
discarded in the mid-18th century. Found in Williamsburg. Rim diameter
of both 17.15 centimeters.]
There is no doubt that bottles and jars, some of considerable size,
were among the Yorktown factory's principal products, but this does not
mean necessarily that all such items found in the vicinity of Yorktown
or Williamsburg are Rogers' pieces. Just as the tavern tankards were
copies of English mugs, so the bottles and jars had their prototypes
among the wares of English, brown-stoneware potters. The difference is
simply that the kitchen vessels have rarely attracted the attention of
collectors and therefore are poorly represented in English museums.
Consequently we have little opportunity to study them and to determine
how such pieces differ from those made at Yorktown. At this stage it
is possible to be sure only of the Virginia origin of those examples
whose clay is clearly of the local variety. Such an identification
can be made only when the piece is markedly underfired and retains
the coloring and impurities characteristic of earthenwares of proven
Virginia manufacture. Fortunately, the large bottles are small mouthed
and neither slipped nor glazed on the inside, thus ensuring that, if
the piece is underfired the earthenware characteristics will be readily
discernible. Fragments of underfired stoneware bottles were among the
most common sherds recovered from the colonial roadway at Yorktown,
providing invaluable evidence to aid the identification of the Rogers
stoneware body composition and color. It must be reiterated, however,
that this guide is confined to underfired products and that those
correctly burned cannot be distinguished as yet from others of English
manufacture.
The globular bottle shown in figure 11 is underfired and consequently
not a true "stoneware," but from the outside it bears all the
characteristics of a good quality product. This undoubtedly local
and almost certainly Yorktown example was found on the John Coke
site in Williamsburg[257] in a context of about 1765. The body is
evenly potted, the cordoning below the mouth neatly tooled, and the
broad strap handle rugged and tidily shaped into a finger-impressed
rat-tail terminal. The handle can, perhaps, be faulted, in that it will
accommodate only two fingers with comfort, and it is a little wider in
proportion to its size than any I have seen in England. The iron-oxide
slip which extends to the midsection of the body is well mottled and
predominantly of good color. Ignoring the under-firing, this bottle may
be classed as a very creditable piece of potting, seemingly quite as
good as most such vessels turned out by English potters in the mid-18th
century.[258]
[Illustration: Figure 11.--AN UNDERFIRED YORKTOWN "stoneware" bottle,
discarded about 1765. Found in Williamsburg. Surviving height 24.77
centimeters.]
Globular-bodied jars with everted collar-like mouths can be proved to
have been made at Yorktown on the evidence of a few small under-and
over-fired sherds recovered from the old road metaling in front of the
Digges House. The best example recovered from a dated archeological
context in Virginia is a jar found in a rubbish deposit of about
1763-1772 at the plantation of Rosewell in Gloucester County.[259] But
like the well-fired bottles, its Yorktown provenance cannot yet be
proved.
The last major category of kitchen stoneware believed to have been
made at the Yorktown pottery is a group of pipkins (fig. 13, no. 7).
These were often overburned and improperly salted, turning the body
a greenish gray and the iron-oxide slip to a coarse brown mottling
with a similar greenish hue. The bodies of these vessels are generally
bag-shaped and are broader toward the base than at the rim, which
is slightly everted and tooled into a rounded lip over a cordon of
comparable width. The handles were made separately in solid rolls that
were pierced longitudinally with a stick or metal rod to avoid warping
in firing or heat retention in use. They possess pestle-like terminals
that were luted to the body after shaping. No definite evidence has yet
been found to identify these vessels as Yorktown products, but they do
exhibit color characteristics, particularly when overfired, comparable
to those of one of the Coke hemispherical bowls as well as to some of
the tankard fragments.
[Illustration: Figure 12.--AN INCOMPLETE SAGGER and lid for quart
tankards, with a Swan Tavern pint mug seated in it. Found at Yorktown.]
[Illustration: Figure 13.--YORKTOWN STONEWARE BOTTLE AND PIPKIN, and
characteristic earthenware rim forms.]
Figure 13
1. Creampan, rim sherd of typical Yorktown form, slightly flaring
externally and incurving within, hard red earthenware with
grey-to-pink surface and one spot of dark-brown glaze on the
outside; presumably biscuit and rejected before glazing.
Diameter approximately 10-1/4 inches. Found at Yorktown along
with other similar rims beneath the roadway south of the Digges
House. Colonial Williamsburg collection.
2. Creampan, section from rim to base, a typical example of the
"rolled-rim" technique, the body poorly fired, pink earthenware
flecked with ocher, presumably biscuit and rejected before
glazing. The sherd is badly twisted and is an undoubted waster.
Diameter approximately 16 inches. National Park Service
collection from Yorktown. No recorded context.
3. Creampan, rim and wall fragment, rim technique similar to no.
2, but heavier and the body thicker; pale pink earthenware
flecked with ocher. Presumably biscuit and rejected before
glazing. Diameter uncertain. National Park Service collection
from Yorktown. No recorded provenance.
4. Creampan, rim and wall fragment, the rim form a variant on
the everted and rolled technique, seemingly having been
turned out and then rolled back toward the interior. The body
orange-to-pink earthenware flecked with ocher, presumably
biscuit and rejected before glazing. Diameter approximately
10-1/8 inches. National Park Service collection from Yorktown.
No recorded provenance. Fragments of three pans of this type
were present in the as-yet-unpublished group of artifacts from
the Challis site in James City County whence came the key
Rogers stoneware tankard (fig. 3), all of which were buried
around 1730.
5. Funnel, lower rim fragment, lead-glazed pale pink-bodied
earthenware similar to the two examples illustrated in figure
15; the rim everted and tooled beneath, a technique paralleled
by those on numerous bowls found at Yorktown and Williamsburg.
A rim sherd of this form was among the pieces found in front
of the Digges House. The funnel is thin walled, well potted,
and coated with a ginger-to-yellow mottled glaze both inside
and out. National Park Service collection from Yorktown; no
recorded context. The comparable funnels cited above were
discarded in the mid-18th century.
6. Porringer, small rim fragment only, but bearing traces of
handle luting which thus identifies the vessel; the rim everted
and flattened on the top, pale pink-bodied earthenware,
presumably biscuit and rejected before glazing. Diameter
approximately 6-1/8 inches. National Park Service collection
from Yorktown; no recorded provenance.
7. Pipkin, brown salt-glazed stoneware, bag-shaped body with
slightly rising base, the rim thickened, slightly everted, with
a tooled cordon beneath. The handle (not part of this example)
was made as a solid roll and when soft pierced longitudinally
with a stick. The glaze is well mottled and a purplish green.
The body was thrown away in the mid-18th century, but the
handle is unstratified. Colonial Williamsburg archeological
collection (body) E. R. 140.27A, (handle) 30B. Other fragments
from Williamsburg show that the rim usually was drawn slightly
outward at a point at right angles to the handle to create a
simple spout. Excavated examples of these pipkins range in rim
diameter from 4-1/8 to at least 5-5/8 inches.
8. Bottle, brown salt-glazed stoneware, neck and handle fragment
only, the body dark gray and the oxide slip a deep purple to
yellow as a result of overfiring. Glazing also occurs on the
fractures, identifying this piece as a waster and therefore of
considerable importance. Other blemishes include roof drippings
on the handle and body which indicate that the bottle was fired
without the protection of a sagger. The cordoning on the neck
is well proportioned, and the handle terminates in a neatly
fingered rat-tail. National Park Service collection from the
Swan Tavern site at Yorktown; unstratified. S. T. 213.
[Illustration: Figure 14.--BROWN LEAD-GLAZED EARTHENWARE CREAMPAN of
typical Yorktown type, probably dating from the second quarter of the
18th century. Found in Williamsburg. Rim diameter 35.56 centimeters.]
Stoneware Manufacturing Processes
The types of kiln used by the Yorktown potters as well as their
techniques of manufacture will not be known until the factory site
is located and carefully excavated. Until that time, the Yorktown
stonewares raise more questions than they answer. The most important of
these is the shape of the kilns and how they were fired. The wares run
the gamut from such under-burning that the iron-oxide slip has evolved
no further than a zone of bright-red coloring, to overfiring which has
turned the slip a deep purple and the body to almost the hardness and
color of granite. Do these differences result from a lack of control
over entire batches, or do they stem from temperature variations
inherent in different parts of the kiln? Mr. Maloney's experiments,
made without the use of saggers, have shown that close proximity to the
firebox can unexpectedly and dramatically affect the wares.
Thus, one mug of his first test series was placed much closer to the
direct heat than were the rest, with the result that it emerged with an
overall dark, highly glossed surface somewhat reminiscent of Burslem
brown stoneware.
The only real evidence of the Yorktown manufacturing process comes from
the many sagger fragments that have been found around the town. The
largest single assemblage was discovered on the Swan Tavern site, but
another group of large pieces was recovered from beneath the Archer
Cottage at the foot of the colonial roadway leading down to the river
frontage. In neither instance is it likely that the sherds were serving
any practical purpose, and so it is hard to imagine why they would have
been taken to these widely distant locations.
The Park Service Yorktown collection includes sections through three
saggers of different sizes, one for holding quart tankards (fig. 12),
another for pint mugs, and a third which might have served for the
bowls, the last being 5-3/4 inches in height and having an interior
base diameter of approximately 8 inches, with walls 1/2 inch thick and
side apertures 5-1/2 inches apart.[260] These apertures are pear shaped
and are common to all the Yorktown saggers, as they are also to the
examples excavated at Bankside in London.[261] The tankard saggers have
three such holes plus a vertical slit which extends from the top to the
bottom to house the handles, but it is not known whether the wide and
shallow example described above would have possessed this feature. If
this example was intended only for bowls, a slot would not have been
needed and an extra aperture probably would have been substituted:
but were it also used for pipkins, a handle opening would have been
essential. The purpose of the pear-shaped apertures was to enable the
salt fumes to percolate freely around the vessels being fired. For the
same reason sagger lids sometimes were jacked up on small pads of clay,
or the sagger rim scooped out here and there to let the fumes enter
from the top. A careful examination of some of the Yorktown vessels
shows that those closest to the salting holes received excessive fuming
through the sagger apertures, the outlines of which were transferred to
the pots in patches or stripes of heavy greenish mottling.
[Illustration: Figure 15.--YELLOW LEAD-GLAZED EARTHENWARE CREAMPAN
of local Tidewater manufacture, probably dating from the second
quarter of the 18th century. Found in Williamsburg. Rim diameter 34.29
centimeters.]
Other kiln furniture found in Yorktown includes fragments of sagger
lids having an average thickness of 3/4 of an inch and various lumps
of clay which served as kiln pads and props.[262] Without knowing the
type of kilns used it is impossible to determine how the saggers were
employed. It is obvious, however, that they prevented the pots from
sticking together in the kiln, from being dripped upon by the fusing
brickwork of the roof, and from becoming repositories for the salt as
it was thrown or poured into the kiln. But, as Mr. Maloney demonstrates
daily, it is perfectly possible to make good stoneware without saggers,
though wasters will accrue from the mishaps just described. If a
single-level "crawl-in" or "groundhog" type kiln is used, the number
of pots discarded as wasters is more than offset by the space saved
through not using saggers. It can be argued, therefore, that Rogers'
kiln was of a type in which the saggers served the additional function
of allowing the pots to be stacked one on top of the other instead of
being spread over a wide flat area, in which case it is possible that
the kiln or kilns were of the beehive variety.[263]
[Illustration: Figure 16.--LEAD-GLAZED EARTHENWARE BOWL of typical
Yorktown type, probably dating from the second quarter of the 18th
century. Found in Williamsburg. Rim diameter 18.95 centimeters.]
The manufacture of stoneware requires only one firing at a temperature
of about 2300° F., and it takes Mr. Maloney approximately 13 hours
to burn them, although at Yorktown the use of saggers may have
necessitated prolonged "soaking" of up to 24 hours or more. The salt
was thrown in at the peak temperature and repeated at least twice
at intervals of about a half hour. When the fire was extinguished
the kiln would have been allowed to cool for up to two days and two
nights before it could be unloaded. Mr. Maloney has stated that his
stoneware kiln, which he considers small, takes approximately three
hours to load. Thus, if the Yorktown factory worked at full capacity,
it probably would have been possible to fire each kiln once a week.
But, not knowing how many workmen were engaged in the operation, we
would be unwise even to guess at the size of its output. The listing
of stoneware and coarse earthenware included in Rogers' inventory is
not particularly large, although £5 worth of "crackt" stoneware might
have represented a considerable quantity of "seconds" or wasters when
one considers that 26 dozen good quart mugs were worth only 4 shillings
more.
Pint mugs are the most commonly found stoneware relics of the Yorktown
factory. Following the "26 doz. qt Mugs £5.4.," a value of 4d. per
mug, we find "60 doz pt Do 7.10."[264] A stock of 60 dozen would be
reasonable because, as Mr. Maloney has stated, a good potter can throw
approximately 12 dozen a day.
[Illustration: Figure 17.--A PAIR OF BROWN LEAD-GLAZED local
earthenware funnels, paralleled by a fragment from Yorktown, discarded
in the mid-18th century. Found in Williamsburg. Rim diameters: left,
18.25 centimeters; right, 18.42 centimeters.]
Before leaving the evidence of the inventory it should be noted that
the vessels which we usually term storage jars are probably synonymous
with Rogers' "9 large Cream Potts 4/6"; but where are the large stone
bottles? The "4 doz small stone bottles 6/" were likely to have been
of quart capacity. We can only suppose that the large bottles were
not included in the batches fired just before Rogers died and that,
consequently, he had none in stock.
The Earthenwares
Besides the stonewares, the inventory includes the following items of
earthenware:
11 doz Milk pans £2.4
9 Midle Sized Do 3/
2 doz red Saucepans 4/
6 Chamber potts 2/
3 doz Lamps 9/
4 doz small dishes 8/
9 large Cream potts 4/6
12 Small Do 2/
2 doz porringers 4/
4 doz bird bottles 12/
4 doz small stone bottles 6/
6 doz puding pans 2/
This listing might be read to indicate that the Yorktown factory
produced considerably less earthenware than stoneware, a construction
that could be supported by the earlier inventory reference to "a
pcl crakt redware" with a value of only £2 as against the £5 worth
of "crackt" stoneware. We may wonder whether a ratio of 40 to 60
percent may not be a reasonable guide to the proportionate output of
coarse-ware and stoneware, although it must be admitted that we do
not know the relative sizes of the two parcels of cracked wares. It
must be added also that, besides the inventory, the only extant direct
documentary reference to the Rogers' factory products (1745) is to
earthenware, not stoneware. Furthermore, we know that 20 years earlier
he had sold a considerable quantity of earthenware to John Mercer of
Marlborough.
Prior to the discovery of the Yorktown evidence we had known of no
stoneware manufacturing in Tidewater Virginia in the 18th century, but
archeological evidence had revealed the presence of earthenware kilns
in the 17th century, with the possibility of two or three operating
at much the same time.[265] It can easily be argued that there would
have been more in the 18th century, though no kiln sites have yet
been found. These considerations cannot be ignored, and consequently
we must carefully avoid the trap of attributing all 18th-century,
lead-glazed earthenwares made from Tidewater clay to the Rogers
factory. A wood-fired Yorktown kiln burning pottery made from Peninsula
clay and coated with a clear lead glaze would produce wares possessing
variations of texture and color similar to those emerging from a
comparable kiln, say, at Williamsburg.[266] Therefore, in attempting
to assess the range and importance of Rogers' earthenwares we must use
potting techniques alone as our guide to their identification.
[Illustration: Figure 18.--UNGLAZED EARTHENWARE BOTTLE, probably of
Yorktown manufacture, discarded about 1765. Found in Williamsburg.
Surviving height 23.81 centimeters.]
The principal evidence comes from the cut beside Main Street in
Yorktown in front of the Digges House,[267] where numerous rim
fragments of overfired and unglazed creampans were found. Others were
recovered from the edges of the roadways on three sides of the adjacent
colonial lots 51 and 55, shown on the 18th-century plat (Watkins,
fig. 1) as having belonged to William Rogers. The rims from these
deposits flared slightly, were tooled inward, and were flattened on
the upper surface (fig. 13, no. 1). Fragments of such bowls, usually
coated on the inside with a mottled lead glaze varying in color from
light ginger to the tone and appearance of molasses, depending on the
color of the body, are frequently found in Williamsburg (fig. 14) and
on plantation sites in contexts of the second quarter of the 18th
century. This creampan form is one of two made from Virginia clay
which constantly turn up in contemporaneous archeological deposits.
The second form (figs. 13, no. 2, and 15) possesses an everted and
rolled rim,[268] an entirely different technique from that described
above. I am inclined to doubt that these and their variants were made
at the Rogers factory and have termed them products of the "rolled-rim"
potter. Nevertheless, a few unglazed fragments of such pans (fig. 13,
nos. 2-4) are represented in the National Park Service collections
from uncertain archeological contexts in Yorktown.[269] The fact that
they are unglazed suggests that they may have been made there, though
undoubtedly not by the craftsman who threw the flattened-rim creampans.
Other earthenware sherds from the Digges House group include small,
folded-rim fragments which may have come from storage jars or
flowerpots. Another fragment was sharply everted over a pronouncedly
incurving body. This could have been part of a small bowl or porringer.
The Williamsburg archeological collections include a number of bowls
of this form, one of which is illustrated in figure 16. A similar
rim form is present on a pair of lead-glazed funnels (fig. 17) from
a mid-18th-century context at the Coke Garrett House in Williamsburg
and on a presumed funnel fragment (fig. 13, no. 5) in the Park Service
collection from Yorktown.[270] Also from Yorktown comes the only known
porringer fragment (fig. 13, no. 6), a biscuit sherd with a flattened
rim and traces of the luting for a handle.[271] Although the type
is not represented among stratified finds from Yorktown, mention
must be made of an unglazed earthenware water (?) bottle found in
Williamsburg,[272] which is clearly a stoneware form and thus probably
was made at the Yorktown factory (fig. 18).
Perhaps the most baffling item listed in Rogers' inventory was the
reference to "4 doz bird bottles 12/", for it was hard to imagine that
he would have been making the small feeder bottles for cages which
were normally fashioned in glass. However, it now seems reasonably
certain that the Rogers bird bottles were actually bird houses. Figure
19 illustrates two bottle-shaped vessels of Virginia earthenware
coated with lead glazes identical in color to examples found on a
creampan and other presumably Rogers products excavated in Yorktown.
The example on the left has lost its mouth but when complete was
undoubtedly comparable to the specimen at right. The former was found
in 1935 during the demolition of a chimney of the "Pyle House" at Green
Spring near Jamestown.[273] It was mortared into the chimney twelve
feet above the ground with its broken mouth facing out but with its
base stopping short of the flue. The bottle is now in the collection
of the National Park Service at Jamestown, and a recent examination
showed that it still contained a lens of washed soil lying in the
belly clearly indicating the position in which it had been seated in
the chimney brickwork. A stick had been thrust through the wall before
firing and emerged on the inside at the same point that the lens of
dirt was resting. It was apparent, therefore, that the hole was meant
for drainage. The stick hole was present in both bottles as also was an
ante cocturam cut in the base (fig. 20) which removed almost half of
the bottom plus a vertical triangle. It is believed that this feature
was intended to enable the bottles to be hooked over pintles or large
nails which latched into the #V# and prevented them from rolling.
In this way they could have been mounted under the eaves of frame
buildings as nesting boxes (or bottles) and although firmly secure when
hooked, they could be easily lifted off for cleaning. Evidence of such
use is provided by slight chipping on the inner face of the vertical
#V# cut of the second bottle (right) where the bottle had abraded
against the nail or pintle.
The date of the Green Spring bottle is uncertain, though the paper
label accompanying it says "Probably 1720, date of building of house."
However, it is clear that the bottle was not installed in the intended
portable manner and it is possible that it was added at a later date.
The complete example (fig. 19, right) was recently discovered in a
sound archeological context during excavations at the James Geddy House
in Williamsburg, being associated with a large refuse deposit dating in
the period about 1740-60.[274]
It may be noted that in the 1746 inventory of the estate of John
Burdett, tavern keeper of Williamsburg, there are listed "16 bird
Bottles 3/".[275] As it seems unlikely that a tavern keeper would have
a stock of birdcage bottles when he apparently had no birdcage, it
may be suggested that the reference is to bottles similar to those
discussed here. In support of this conclusion, attention is drawn
to the fact that Rogers' new bottles were valued at 3d each, while
Burdett's (used?) seven years later were appraised at 2-1/4d.[276]
[Illustration: Figure 19.--TWO EARTHENWARE "BIRD BOTTLES" believed
to be of Rogers' lead-glazed earthenware showing drainage holes in
sides. Bottle on left is from a house chimney near Green Spring and,
on right, is from the James Geddy House in Williamsburg. Height 18.42
centimeters, and 21.91 centimeters, respectively.]
It seems evident that the Rogers earthenware was fired to biscuit,
glazed, and fired again in a glost oven; no other explanation accounts
for the large quantities of unglazed earthenware found at Yorktown.
Mr. Maloney's experiments at the Williamsburg Pottery have amply
demonstrated that the Yorktown earthenware could have been glazed
in the green state and would not have required a second firing.
Furthermore, the study of a late-17th-century kiln site in James City
County has confirmed that not all potters thought it necessary to make
glazing a separate process. It is curious that the Rogers factory
found it desirable to take this second and seemingly uneconomical
step. The making of stoneware certainly would not have been a
double-firing operation, and, although some of the pieces actually
are fired no higher than the earthenware, they have been slipped and
salted. Consequently we must accept the bottle discussed above as an
intentional earthenware item which had passed through only the first
kiln. Furthermore, its presence in Williamsburg indicates that it was
never meant to be glazed. And finally, it should be noted that an
unglazed handle fragment, probably from a similar bottle, was among the
sherds recovered from the roadway in front of the Digges House.
[Illustration: Figure 20.--BASES OF THE "BIRD BOTTLES" depicted in
figure 19, showing holes for suspension. Base diameters: left, 10.48
centimeters; right, 10.16 centimeters.]
Conclusions
The Rogers inventory contains such a wide variety of forms that one
may claim without fear of contradiction that his factory was _capable_
of producing any of the kinds of kitchen vessels and general-purpose
containers that the colony may have required. Consequently, a Yorktown
origin may reasonably be considered for any of the wares made from
local clay that turn up in contexts of the appropriate period. In the
Williamsburg collections are such varied lead-glazed, earthenware
items as closestool pans, chamber pots, straight-sided dishes, lidded
storage jars, wide-mouthed and double-handled storage bins, pipkins,
and chafing dishes. But whether all these things were made, in fact, at
Yorktown cannot be known until the factory site is found and excavated.
In the meantime, a few conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the
existing archeological evidence. There can be no doubt that the Rogers
factory at Yorktown was a sizable operation and that it employed
throwers as capable in their own field as any in England. Our slender
knowledge of Rogers' own background does not indicate that he himself
was a potter. It must be supposed, therefore, that he obtained the
services of at least a journeyman potter apprenticed in one of the
brown-stoneware factories in England. One can only guess at the center
in which this unknown craftsman was trained, but it is more than likely
that he came from London and might have worked at Fulham,[277] or more
probably at Southwark, or even, perhaps, at Lambeth, the types of
sagger and the wares produced at Yorktown being stylistically identical
to the fragments found on the latter sites.
Not knowing the number of craftsmen employed, we cannot hope to
determine the size of Rogers' output or the number of kilns in
operation. But one would suppose that he had at least two kilns, one
for stoneware and the other for lead-glazed earthenware, although they
could, conceivably, have been interchangeable. An indication that
lead-glazed wares were sometimes burned in the salt-glaze kiln is
provided by a single creampan in the Williamsburg collection,[278]
which is both lead-glazed and heavily incrusted with salt. It is
possible, however, that, knowing that there would be "cold" spots in
the kiln,[279] the potter tried to make use of every available inch and
inserted a few lead-glazed pieces along with the stoneware.
Documentary evidence relating to the distribution of Rogers' products
has been discussed by Mr. Watkins (pp. 83-84), and, although some
of it tends to be equivocal, we are left with the impression that
both stoneware and earthenware were shipped for trade elsewhere,
but that such shipments were probably infrequent and not of large
quantities.[280] When seemingly comparable fragments are unearthed on
sites beyond the environs of the York and James Rivers one must use
extreme caution in attributing them to Yorktown. Clay of a generally
similar character lies beneath much of Tidewater Virginia, and, since
little serious historical archeology has been undertaken in the state
beyond the Jamestown-Williamsburg-Yorktown triangle, it is much too
soon to assume that apprentices trained at Yorktown did not set up
their own kilns in other counties. In short, techniques of manufacture
such as are exhibited by the shaping of earthenware rims and handles
should be the only acceptable guide for identification, and even these
are not infallible. As for the stoneware, the manufacturing techniques
are so English in character that they are of no help. Thus, once the
Rogers stoneware was shipped out of Yorktown, it must have lost its
identity as totally as Governor Gooch presumably had hoped that it
would.
Archeological evidence for the date range of the Yorktown ware is not
very conclusive. The Challis site mug seems to have been thrown away
around 1730, and this provides the earliest tightly dated context in
which the wares have been found. The largest single assemblage of
probable Yorktown products was the extensive refuse deposit believed
to have been associated with John Coke's tavern in Williamsburg,
but this was not discarded before mid-century. Other fragments of
stoneware tankards, jars, and pipkins have been found at the Anthony
Hay and New Post Office Sites in Williamsburg in contexts ranging from
1750 to 1770, while more, possibly Yorktown pieces, were encountered
in a rubbish deposit interred in the period 1763-1772 at Rosewell
in Gloucester County. These are, of course, dates at or after which
the pieces were thrown away; they do not necessarily have a close
relationship with the dates of manufacture. Nevertheless, the recovery
of so many fragments from late contexts does suggest that the factory
continued in operation after the last documented date of 1745.[281]
The most obvious source for dating evidence is clearly at Yorktown
itself, but, unfortunately, little of the large National Park Service
collection has any acceptable archeological associations. The
fragments recovered from the roadway in front of the Digges House
were accompanied by no closely datable items. While it is tempting
to associate this deposit with Rogers' tenure as "Surveyor of the
Landings, Streets; and Cosways" beginning in 1734,[282] it is also
possible that he provided the City of York with road metaling before
that date and that after his death his successors continued to do so.
The quantity of sagger fragments from the vicinity of the Swan Tavern
might have been associated in some way with the fact that Thomas
Reynolds (see Watkins, p. 83) occupied the adjacent lot. More sagger
fragments were found in the backfilling of the builder's trench around
the recently restored Digges House on Main Street, which the National
Park Service believes to have been constructed in about 1760.[283] But
it can be argued that the sagger pieces were scattered so liberally
around the town that their presence in the builder's trench does not
necessarily imply that the factory was still operating at that date.
In summation, it may be said that the quantities of stoneware and
earthenware with possible Yorktown associations which have been found
in archeological sites in Tidewater Virginia leave little doubt that
the venture established by William Rogers was of considerable value to
the colony. There can be equally little doubt that Governor Gooch was
aware of this fact and that he gave his tacit approval to the venture
by minimizing its importance in his reports to the Board of Trade.
The quality of the products was good by colonial standards, and their
quantity impressive. Consequently, in spite of Governor Gooch's
misleading reports, William Rogers begins to emerge as one of the
pioneers of industry in Virginia. It is to be hoped that it will be
possible eventually to undertake a full archeological excavation of his
factory site and so enable Rogers to step out once and for all from
behind the deprecatory sobriquet of the "poor potter" of Yorktown that
has concealed for more than two centuries his name, his acumen, and his
potters' talents.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am indebted to Colonial Williamsburg for helping to subsidize
the preparation of this paper and for permission to illustrate
specimens from its archeological collections; also to J. Paul
Hudson, National Park Service curator at Jamestown for similar
facilities; as well as to Charles E. Hatch, senior National Park
Service historian at Yorktown, for access to various archeological
reports in his library.
I am particularly grateful to James E. Maloney of the Williamsburg
Pottery for the immense amount of work which he so generously
undertook not only to reproduce copies of the Yorktown products
but also to recreate the wasters as well, thus providing
information regarding the colonial technical processes that could
not have been obtained in any other way. I am also grateful to
Joseph Grace, Colonial Williamsburg's watchmaker and engraver
who made an accurate copy of the unofficial excise stamp used on
Rogers' mugs, and to my secretary Lynn Hill, who toiled long and
hard to bring order into this report.
I am further indebted to Wilcomb E. Washburn, Chairman, Department
of American Studies, at the Smithsonian Institution, who first
drew my attention to the artifacts in front of the Dudley Digges
House; and to my wife Audrey, to John Dunton and William Hammes,
all of Colonial Williamsburg's department of archeology, who
through the years have helped collect ceramic evidence from
Yorktown.
I. N. H.
U.S. Government Printing Office: 1967
FOOTNOTES:
[183] For example: THOMAS JEFFERSON WERTENBAKER, _The Old South, The
Founding of American Civilization_ (New York: Scribner's, 1942), p.
265; J. PAUL HUDSON, "Earliest Yorktown Pottery," _Antiques_ (May
1958), vol. 73, pp. 472-473.
[184] This material is located in the collection of the Colonial
National Historical Park, Jamestown, Virginia.
[185] "Reasons for Repealing the Acts pass'd in Virginia and Maryland
relating to Ports and Towns," _Calendar of Virginia State Papers and
Other Manuscripts_, edit. William P. Palmer (Richmond, 1875), vol. 1,
pp. 137-138.
[186] VICTOR S. CLARK, _The History of Manufactures in the United
States, 1607-1860_ (Washington, D.C.: The Carnegie Institution, 1916),
pp. 26-27.
[187] Ibid., p. 203.
[188] Ibid., p. 204.
[189] Library of Congress Transcripts: Great Britain, Public Records
Office, Colonial Office 5, vol. 1322, p. 185.
[190] PERCY SCOTT FLIPPIN, "William Gooch: Successful Royal Governor
of Virginia," _William & Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine_
(1926), ser. 2, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 37-38; FLIPPIN, _The Royal
Government in Virginia (1624-1775)_ (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1919), pp. 124 ff.
[191] CHARLES CAMPBELL, _History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of
Virginia_ (Philadelphia, 1810), p. 448.
[192] FLIPPIN (1926), op. cit. (footnote 8), p. 38.
[193] CAMPBELL, op. cit. (footnote 9), p. 414.
[194] Library of Congress Transcripts: Great Britain, Public Record
Office, Colonial Office 5, vol. 1323, p. 82.
[195] Ibid., p. 133.
[196] Ibid., p. 189.
[197] Ibid., vol. 1324, p. 3.
[198] Ibid., pp. 30-31.
[199] Ibid., p. 104.
[200] Ibid., vol. 1325, p. 83.
[201] C. MALCOLM WATKINS, _The Cultural History of Marlborough,
Virginia_, (_Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology_,
U.S. National Museum Bulletin 253), Washington: Smithsonian
Institution, in press.
[202] York County Records: Deeds & Bonds, vol. 2, 1701-1713, p. 365 (In
York County Courthouse, Yorktown, Va.).
[203] York County Records, Book 14: _Orders & Wills_, 1716-1720.
[204] Ibid., pp. 307, 317, 357, 386, 394, 439.
[205] York County Records, Book 17: _Orders, Wills, &c._, 1729-1732, p.
136.
[206] Ibid., p. 296.
[207] York County Records, Book 18: _Orders, Wills, & Inventories_, p.
15.
[208] Ibid., p. 121.
[209] Ibid., p. 157.
[210] LESTER J. CAPPON and STELLA F. DUFF, _Virginia Gazette Index,
1736-1780_ (Williamsburg, Va.: Institute of Early American History and
Culture, 1950); and the _Virginia Gazette, 1736-1780_ (Williamsburg,
Va.: Issued on microfilm by the Institute of Early American History and
Culture from originals loaned by other institutions, 1950), reel 1.
[211] EDWARD M. RILEY, "The Colonial Courthouses of York County,
Virginia," _William & Mary Quarterly Historical Magazine_ (1942), ser.
2 (hereinafter designated _WMQ_ 2), vol. 22, pp. 399-404.
[212] _Virginia Gazette_ microfilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1.
[213] York County Records, Book 18: _Orders, Wills, & Inventories_, pp.
525, 537 ff.
[214] Ibid., pp. 553 ff.
[215] _Virginia Gazette_ microfilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1.
[216] Library of Congress Transcripts, op. cit. (footnote 12), vol.
1325, p. 83.
[217] York County Records, Book 5: _Deeds_, 1741-1754, p. 64.
[218] _Virginia Gazette_ microfilm, op. cit. (footnote 41), reel 1
(June 17, 1737).
[219] _Tyler's Quarterly_ (Richmond, Va., 1922), vol. 3, p. 296.
[220] _Virginia Gazette_ microfilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1
(Sept. 30, 1737; April 17, 1738; June 23, 1738; July 7, 1738; April 20,
1739; July 13, 1739; Aug. 24, 1739; January 25, 1740).
[221] "Reynolds and Rogers," _WMQ_ 1 (1905), vol. 13, pp. 128, 129.
[222] _John Norton & Sons, Merchants of London and Virginia_, edit.
Frances Norton Mason (Richmond, Va.: Dietz, 1937), p. 518.
[223] _Virginia Gazette_ microfilm (Parks' Virginia Gazette, June 20
and July 4, 1745); I. NOËL HUME, Part II, p. 110.
[224] "The Votes of Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania,"
_Pennsylvania Archives_ (Harrisburg), ser. 8, vol. 3, pp. 2047-2049.
(From Rudolf Hommel, in correspondence with Lura Woodside Watkins.)
[225] _Virginia Gazette_ microfilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1.
[226] York County Records, Book 18: _Orders, Wills, & Inventories_, p.
290.
[227] "Petition of Isaac Parker, September, 1742," _Massachusetts
Archives_, vol. 59, pp. 332-333 (quoted in LURA WOODSIDE WATKINS, _New
England Potters and Their Wares_ [Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1950], p. 245).
[228] _Bideford-in-Devon: Official Guide to Bideford and District_,
edit. Sheila Hutchinson (Bideford, about 1961), p. 35.
[229] 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), pp. 28-29.
[230] LURA WOODSIDE WATKINS, _New England Potters and Their Wares_
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950), p. 16.
[231] Ibid., p. 24.
[232] _The Register of Burials in the Parish of Braintree in the County
of Essex from Michaelmas ... 1740_ (MS in Essex County Record Office,
Chelmsford, England), p. 40.
[233] "Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents," prepared by W. G. STANARD,
_Virginia Magazine of History & Biography_ (hereinafter designated
_VHM_) (1899), vol. 5, p. 186.
[234] "Viewers of Tobacco Crop, 1639," _VHM_ (1898), vol. 5, p. 121.
[235] _Virginia Wills and Administrations 1632-1800_, comp. Clayton
Torrence (Richmond, Wm. Byrd Press, Inc., n.d.), pp. 364-365.
[236] _English Duplicates of Lost Virginia Records_, comp. Louis des
Coquets, Jr. (Princeton, N.J.: Privately printed, 1958), p. 128.
[237] _Virginia Wills and Administrations_, loc. cit. (footnote 53).
[238] LYON G. TYLER, "Education in Colonial Virginia," _William & Mary
College Quarterly Historical Magazine_ (1897), ser. 1 (hereinafter
designated _WMQ_ 1), vol. 5, p. 221.
[239] "Extracts from the Records of Surry County," _WMQ_ 1 (1903), vol.
11, p. 83.
[240] _English Duplicates_, op. cit. (footnote 54), p. 73.
[241] Ibid., p. 210.
[242] Ibid., pp. 81, 83, 86.
[243] _Virginia Wills and Administrations_, loc. cit. (footnote 53).
[244] "Virginia Gleanings in England," _VHM_ (1921), vol. 29, p. 435.
[245] "Tithables in Lancaster County, 1716," _WMQ_ 1 (1913), vol. 21,
p. 21.
[246] From _Orders, Wills, & Inventories_, York County Records, no.
18, pp. 553 ff. The linear totals given in the right-hand column are
not always the sum of the amounts noted in each line, but they are
presented here as faithfully as possible.
[247] ADRIAN OSWALD, "A London Stoneware Pottery, Recent Excavations
at Bankside," _The Connoisseur_ (January 1951), vol. 126, no. 519, pp.
183-185.
[248] J. F. BLACKER, _The A. B. C. of English Salt-Glaze Stoneware_
(London: 1922), pp. 46, 48, 51, 56, 57, 63, and 65.
[249] Kiln waste found in recent excavations in Philadelphia indicate
that Anthony Duché was manufacturing stoneware there in the style of
Westerwald in the 1730s.
[250] No trace of a kiln was found on the Bankside site in Southwark;
it is probable that the waste came from another location nearby,
possibly from the factory established in Gravel Lane around 1690,
which continued under various managements until about 1750. It may
be noted that, in the same way that much Southwark delftware has
been erroneously attributed to Lambeth, it is likely that brown
stonewares in the so-called style of Fulham was made in Southwark
before Lambeth rose to prominence in that field. See F. H. GARNER,
"Lambeth Earthenware," _Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle_
(London: 1937), vol. 1, no. 4, p. 46; also JOHN DRINKWATER, "Some Notes
on English Salt-Glaze Brown Stoneware," _Transactions of the English
Ceramic Circle_ (London, 1939), vol. 2, no. 6, p. 33.
[251] W. R. excise or capacity stamps continued to be impressed on
tavern mugs long after William III was dead. The latest published
example is dated 1792. DRINKWATER, op. cit. (footnote 69), p. 34 and
pl. XIIIb.
[252] The Williamsburg Pottery, on Route 60 near Lightfoot, specializes
in the reproduction of 18th-century stoneware and slipware.
[253] I. NOËL HUME, _Here Lies Virginia_ (New York: Knopf, 1963), fig.
55.
[254] Colonial Williamsburg, E. R. (Excavation Register) 140.27A.
[255] E. R. 140.27A.
[256] Colonial Williamsburg, cat. no. 1913.
[257] E. R. 157G.27A (also 159A, 165A, 173, and 173A).
[258] The majority of archeologically documented pieces have been
recovered from English domestic sites and not from kiln dumps.
[259] I. 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.
208, no. 3 and p. 209, fig. 28, no. 3.
[260] U.S. National Park Service collection at Jamestown: Yorktown the
first from the Swan Tavern Site and the others from Project 203, F. S.
8, unstratified material recovered during sewer digging on Main Street,
1956-1957.
[261] OSWALD, op. cit. (footnote 66), fig. IX.
[262] U.S. National Park Service collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, S.
T. 1933.
[263] Mr. Maloney is of the opinion that saggers could just as usefully
have served a "groundhog" kiln where they would have enabled the pots
to be stacked up to four in height.
[264] See WATKINS, Part I, footnote 32.
[265] Op. cit. (footnote 72), pp. 208-220.
[266] It must be stressed that no evidence of any such kiln exists. See
also footnote 30.
[267] This material is divided between the colonial archeological
collections of the Smithsonian Institution and of Colonial Williamsburg.
[268] I. NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Tutter's Neck, James City County
in Virginia, 1960-1961," paper 53 in _Contributions from the Museum
of History and Technology_ (U.S. National Museum Bulletin 249);
Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1966, fig. 19, nos. 1, 3, and 4.
[269] N.P.S. Collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, no provenance.
[270] Bowl IC.1.18C, Funnels E.R. 140.27A, and National Park Service
collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, no provenance.
[271] National Park Service collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, no
provenance.
[272] E.R. 157A, C, and G, 27A.
[273] National Park Service collection, J. 13049 (G.S.), with
label reading "Pyle House Green Spring. Built into brickwork of
chimney--removed in securing brick for Lightfoot House by C.? T.
(10.29.35)."
[274] Colonial Williamsburg archeological collections, E. R. 987D.19B,
cat. 3275.
[275] "Inventory and Appraisement of estate of John Burdett," York
County Records, Book 20, _Wills and Inventories_, pp. 46-49.
[276] Since this paper was written and the bird bottles identified,
a number of additional fragments have been recognized among
mid-eighteenth-century finds from Williamsburg excavations, including a
small, pierced lug handle fitting the scar on the Geddy example (fig.
19, right). The hole through the handle lined up with that through the
shoulder clearly indicating that their combined purpose was to provide
an alternative method of suspension for use when the bottles were hung
in trees.
[277] There is a long-established belief that Fulham was the principal
source of 18th-century brown-stoneware vessels. While the art of making
the ware was first developed there by John Dwight, the factory fell
into decline after his death in 1703 and remained in virtual oblivion
until the 19th century.
[278] Archeological area 2B2, context unknown.
[279] Mr. Maloney has pointed out that a margin of 150°F. is sufficient
to make the difference between earthenware and stoneware.
[280] Export records for the York River should be treated with some
caution as goods often were imported from one place and later exported
to another. But if we accept the 1739 and 1745 _Virginia Gazette_
references (Watkins, footnotes 38 and 41) as being to wares of Yorktown
manufacture, by the same token we must draw comparable conclusions
from the Naval Office Lists for Accomac (Eastern Shore of Virginia),
which show "1 shipment" of "stoneware" exported to Maryland in 1749.
Similarly we would have to assume that there was an earthenware
factory operating near the James River in 1755 when the records list
the exporting of "2 crates Earthenware" to the Rappahannock. Such
conclusions may, indeed, be correct, though there is as yet no evidence
to support them. Naval Office Lists, Public Records Office, London;
cf. _Commodity Analysis of Imports and Exports, Accomac, Virginia,
1726-1769_, and for the _Rappahannock, Virginia, 1726-1769_ microfilm
books compiled under the direction of John H. Cox, University of
California, 1939 (unpublished).
[281] _Virginia Gazette_, June 20, 1745.
[282] WATKINS, Part I, footnote 37.
[283] Large numbers of wine-bottle fragments also were recovered
from the builder's trench, and provided archeological support for a
construction date after about 1760.
Index
Act for Ports and Towns (1691), 80
Act for Ports and Towns (1704), repeal of, 76, 77
act prohibiting importation of "stript tobacco," 77
petition for the repeal of, 77
ale, 80
Allen, William, 41
Ambler, Richard (merchant), 79
architectural drawings, Tutter's Neck, 30
Atkins, Robert, 42
Bacon, Nathaniel, 7
ball, cannon, 12, 22, 23 (illustr.)
basin, English delftware, 15, 16 (illustr.), 22, 24 (illustr.)
bead, glass, 47, 70, 71 (illustr.)
Belcher, Governor (Massachusetts), 77
Board of Trade (London), reports to, 75, 76, 77, 78-79, 82-83, 84,
85, 111
boat
"shallop," 82
sloop, 82
bone, 18, 47
bones, animal, 51-52
bottles, 36, 43, 51, 82
bird, 82, 107, 108 (illustr.), 109 (illustr.)
case, 13
oil or essence, 13
pharmaceutical, 13, 24 (illustr.), 25, 55
stoneware, 91, 92, 98 (illustr.), 100 (illustr.), 101, 105
water, 107
wine, 4, 10, 13, 14, 24 (illustr.), 25, 39 (illustr.), 43, 44, 45,
46, 49, 51, 55, 68-70 (illustr.)
wine, miniature, 17 (illustr.), 24 (illustr.), 25
wine, seals for, 32, 35, 36, 37 (illustr.), 43, 46, 55, 69,
(illustr.), 70
Yorktown earthenware, 106 (illustr.)
bottle glass, 11
bowls: delftware, 49, 64-66 (illustr.)
earthenware, 48 (illustr.)
Indian pottery, 67
Staffordshire, 55
stoneware, 96, 97 (illustr.)
Yorktown earthenware, 49, 104 (illustr.), 107
_Braxton_ (ship), 83
Bray, David, Sr., 40
Bray, David, Jr., 35, 37, 40
Bray, Elizabeth, 41
Bray, Elizabeth Meriwether, 41
Bray, James, Sr., 40
Bray, James, Jr., 40
Bray, Judith, 35, 36, 37, 40
Bray, Thomas, 35, 40, 45, 56
brewing, 80, 82, 85
Brewster, Richard, 36
Bristol (store), 82, 87
Brown, Matthew, 36, 40
bricklaying, English bond, 4, 8, 44, 45
brickmaking, 43
bricks (_See under_ building materials)
broad arrow, 58 (illustr.), 59
Bruton Parish, 35
church, 37
buckle, shoe, 63 (illustr.), 64 (_See also_ harness)
building materials:
bricks, 43, 87;
shipment of, 83;
sizes of, 8, 44, 45
lathes, oak, 7
lumber, 7, 9, 10, 14;
oak strips, 44;
weatherboards, 44
(_See also_ floor)
mortar, 4, 8, 10, 43, 44, 45, 51
oystershells, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 44, 45, 49, 52
plaster, 51
shingles, cypress, 7
Burbydge, Richard (seal of), 36, 39, 46, 69 (illustr.), 70
Burdett, John (tavern keeper), 107, 108
Burwell, Lewis, 41
Burwell's Ferry (Virginia), 43
(_See also_ Kingsmill)
button, brass, 70, 71 (illustr.)
can, iron, 4
Carter, Robert "King", 45
Cary, Colonel Thomas, rebellion led by, 39
Challis site (James City County), 92, 94, 95, 96, 110
Chalmers, George, 78
chamber pots, 82;
handle of English delftware, 15, 16 (illustr.)
charger, delftware, 49, 51, 55, 65 (illustr.), 66
Charles II, 39, 82
Charleston, R. J., 13
Chesapeake Corporation, 31, 32, 41, 42
Cheshire, ----, 87
chimney, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14;
bird bottles in, 107-108;
Tutter's Neck, 36, 43, 45, 49
chinoiserie, 13
Chowan Precinct (North Carolina), 37-39
churches:
Bruton Parish, 37
Chowan Precinct (North Carolina), 37-38
Clark, Victor S., 76
Clay Bank,
excavations at, 3-27;
excavation plans, 6
Clayton, John, 87
clock, 82
closets, 7
clothing, 77, 78
Coke, John (tavern keeper), 95, 96, 97, 110
collar, iron, 24 (illustr.), 25
College Landing (Virginia), 32
Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., 3, 5, 31, 32, 42, 44, 96
ceramics, 10, 11, 31, 32, 46
Indian, 11, 15, 16 (illustr.)
shipment of, 82, 84
Staffordshire, 11
(_See also_ specific forms and types)
Colono-Indian pottery, 24 (illustr.), 25, 45, 49, 55, 65 (illustr.), 67;
bowl, 65 (illustr.), 67;
cup, 52 (illustr.)
cooper, 12
Cotton, Ezra, 7
Council of Virginia, 40, 77, 78
petition complaining about piracy, 41
Culpeper, Lord, 41
cup, Colono-Indian pottery, 52 (illustr.);
delftware, 49;
earthenware, 12, 68, 69 (illustr.);
porcelain, 70, 71 (illustr.)
curtains, 82;
rings for, 70, 71 (illustr.)
cutlery, 46, 58 (illustr.);
bone handled, 18, 19 (illustr.)
(_See also_ knife; fork)
Daniel, Daniel Mack, 42
delftware, 50 (illustr.):
bowls, 49
charger, 49, 51, 55
cup, 49
drug jar, 49
English, 13, 15, 16 (illustr.), 22, 23, (illustr.), 44, 46, 47,
51, 64-67, 65 (illustr.)
plate, 47
porringers, 49
salts, 51 (illustr.)
Desandrouin (cartographer), 32, 34, 35
doors, 8
drug jar, 49, 65 (illustr.), 66
Duché, Anthony (potter), 91
Duché family (potters), 84
Dunbar, Jeremiah, 77
Dwight, John (Fulham potter), 55, 109
earthenware, 14
bowl, 48 (illustr.)
Cistercian, 15, 16 (illustr.)
English, 10, 68, 69 (illustr.)
lead-glazed, 11, 22, 24 (illustr.)
North Devon, 47
Staffordshire, 48 (illustr.)
tin-enameled (Portuguese), 10, 15, 16 (illustr.)
Yorktown, 47, 49, 51, 55, 68, 69 (illustr.)
(_See also_ specific forms; William Rogers)
Eaton, Alden, 31
Eden, Governor, 42
elevations, hypothetical (Tutter's Neck), 30
_Eltham_ (ship), 83
excavation plans, Clay Bank, 6; Tutter's Neck, 37, 47
excise stamps, 92, 95 (illustr.)
Ferry, William (tobacco pipe maker), 14
firebacks, 78
fireplace, 8, 9
flax, 78
Fletcher, John (tobacco pipe maker), 27
floor, wooden, 9, 10 (illustr.), 11 (illustr.), 44
fork, table, 51, 58 (illustr.), 59
flower pots, 107
Fox, Jacob (tobacco pipe maker), 27
Fox, Josiah (tobacco pipe maker), 14
framing, 8
Frank, E. M., 44
funnel, Yorktown earthenware, 100 (illustr.), 101, 105 (illustr.)
furnace, air, 78
furniture, 82
Gale, Christopher, 42
Geddes, Captain John, 36
glass, 10, 31, 43;
bead, 47, 70, 71 (illustr.);
decanter, 13;
stem of drinking glass or candlestick, 13, 14, 17 (illustr.);
reconstructed drawing of, 18;
window, 44, 49
(_See also_ bottle)
glasses, drinking, 10;
Romer, 55, 71 (illustr.), 72;
tumbler, 44, 51, 55;
wine, 13, 14, 47, 49, 55, 64;
with covers, 13
glebe-house, 7, 38
Gooch, Governor William, 75, 76-77, 78-79, 82-83, 84, 85
reports to Board of Trade, 75, 76, 78-79, 84, 85, 111
Goodridg, Jeremiah, 37
Gray, Edward, 36
Green, Dr., 7
Grice, John, 36
gunpowder, 82
Ham, Henry, 81
hardware:
band, brass, 70, 71 (illustr.)
bolt, 60, 61 (illustr.), 62
boss, brass, 19 (illustr.), 21
handle, 60, 61 (illustr.)
hasp, 61 (illustr.)
key, 58 (illustr.), 60
latch, 61 (illustr.), 62
loop, 62, 63 (illustr.)
nails, 8, 10, 44
padlock, 44, 51, 54 (illustr.), 60, 61 (illustr.)
rivet, 61 (illustr.), 62
spike, 60, 61 (illustr.)
staple, 20 (illustr.), 21, 24 (illustr.), 27
strap, 61 (illustr.), 62, 63 (illustr.), 64
tack, 19 (illustr.), 21
ward plate, 61 (illustr.), 62
harness:
boss from bridle, 19 (illustr.), 21
buckle, 47, 61 (illustr.), 62
cheekpiece from snaffle bit, 20 (illustr.), 21
fitting for, 47, 70, 71 (illustr.)
ornament, 47, 63 (illustr.), 64, 70, 71 (illustr.)
snaffle bit, 62, 63 (illustr.)
spoon bit, 58 (illustr.), 60
stirrup, 22, 23 (illustr.)
Harrison, Mrs. P. G., 97
Harwood, Elizabeth, 28
hearth, 9, 10, 12
Herman, Augustine, 2, 5
Higgenson, Humphry, 36
Hodgson, Reverend Robert, 7
Horns Quarter (King William County), 40
horseshoe, 49, 62, 63 (illustr.)
houses:
"Ardudwy" (Clay Bank), 4, 5, 7, 8, 14
brick, 45, 87
Corotoman, 45
Green Spring, Pyle House, 107, 108
Jamestown, 44
Tutter's Neck, drawings of, 30 (illustr.)
Williamsburg:
John Blair, 44
Brush-Everard, 44
Coke Garrett, 107, 108
James Geddy, 107
Anthony Hay, 110
New Post Office, 110
Yorktown:
Archer Cottage, 102
Digges house, 92, 98, 106, 107, 108, 110
(_See also_ Tutter's Neck, buildings)
indentured servants, 81
Indians:
appeal to governor for help against, 38, 40
Iroquois Confederation, 40
pottery, 11, 15, 16 (illustr.) (_See also_ Colono-Indian pottery)
projectile point, 15, 16 (illustr.), 71 (illustr.) 72
tobacco pipes, 14
uprising, 39-40
war with Tuscarora Indians, 39-40
inventory, William Rogers' estate, 82, 88-90, 105, 109
iron, unidentified objects, 20 (illustr.), 21, 24 (illustr.), 25-27
(_See also_ specific items)
ironworks, 78
_Jamaica Merchant_ (ship), 36
Jamestown, 44, 107
jar:
earthenware, 24 (illustr.), 25, 47, 68, 69 (illustr.)
pickle, glass, 69 (illustr.), 70
stoneware, 92
storage, 24 (illustr.), 25, 68, 69 (illustr.), 105, 107
Jenings, Col., 82, 87
Jenkins, William F., 3, 4, 11
Jennings, Governor Edmund, 4
Johnson, Elizabeth Bray, 41
Johnson, Col. Philip, 41
Jones, Dorothy Walker, 41
Jones, Frederick, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44-45, 56;
property attacked by Indians, 40;
will of, 40;
wine bottle seal of, 35-36, 38 (illustr.), 39 (illustr.), 69
(illustr.), 70
Jones, Henry (tobacco pipe maker), 14
Jones, Hugh, 42
Jones, Jane, 41
Jones, Captain Roger, 36, 41;
complaints about the conduct of, 41
Jones, Thomas, 13, 35, 37, 41
_Judith_ (ship), 83
jug, brown stoneware, 65 (illustr.), 67;
white stoneware, 55
kilns, 104; "furniture", 76, 91, 92, 93-94, 99 (illustr.), 103-104;
location of, 84, 105-106;
types of, 104;
use of refuse of, 92
(_See also_ pottery making)
Kingsmill (Virginia), 40, 41 (See also Burwell's Ferry)
kitchen:
Clay Bank, 7, 8
Tutter's Neck, 30, 36, 43, 44;
conjectural reconstruction of, 30 (illustr.);
excavation of, 45-46
knife, iron, 20 (illustr.), 21;
table, 49, 58 (illustr.), 59
Knight, Tobias, 41
lamps, 82
latten (_See under_ spoon)
leather, 79
Lee, Robert (widow of), 4
Little Town (Virginia), 40, 45
majolica, Spanish, 49
makers' marks:
latten spoon--R S, 58 (illustr.), 59
W W, 4, 18
pewter spoon--M, 27
tools--I H, 21
WARD, 18
(_See also_ tobacco pipe)
Maloney, James E., 92-96, 102-105
mantels, 8
manufacturing in colonial Virginia, 76-79
reports on trade and manufactures, 75, 76, 78-79
manufacturing in New England, 77
map, Tutter's Neck, 33 (illustr.);
Virginia (1673), 2 (illustr.), 5; (1781), 32, 34, 35 (illustr.);
Yorktown, 74; (1691), 80
marks: broad arrow, 58 (illustr.), 59
excise stamp on stoneware, 92, 95 (illustr.)
shipping, 36
(_See also_ makers' marks; tobacco pipes)
Marlborough (plantation), 32, 79, 105
_Maynard_ (ship), 83
Maynard, Lieutenant, 42
Mercer, John, 79, 84, 105
Meriwether, Elizabeth, 41
Middle Plantation (Williamsburg), 40
mill, horse, 82
Minge, Robert, 81
Morse (Moss), Francis, 87
Mountford's Mill Dam, 82
mug, 82;
English delftware, 15, 16 (illustr.), 22, 24 (illustr.), 46;
redware, 22, 24 (illustr.);
reproductions, 96 (illustr.);
stoneware, 91, 92, 93 (illustr.), 94 (illustr.), 99 (illustr.), 104-105
_Nancy_ (sloop), 83
National Park Service, 91, 92, 93, 96, 102, 107, 110
Negroes, 40, 78, 79, 82 (_See also_ slaves)
Nelson, John, 84
Nelson, William, 88
"New Bottle" (plantation), 4; location of, 4-5
New Bottle (Scotland), 4
Nicholson, Francis, 41
Norton, Courtenay, 83
Norton, John (merchant), 83
oil, 83
ointment pot, 65 (illustr.), 66
Page, Elizabeth, 40
Page family, 3
pan: cream (Yorktown earthenware), 55, 68, 69 (illustr.), 100
(illustr.), 101, 102 (illustr.), 103 (illustr.), 106, 109-110
milk, 82
pudding, 82
sauce, 82
Tidewater earthenware, 22, 24 (illustr.), 25, 92
Parker, Isaac, 84
Parks, William (printer), 87
Petsworth Parish (_See under Vestry Book of_)
Pettus family, 40
Pettus, Mourning, marriage of, 40
Pettus, Thomas, Jr. (widow of), 40
pewter (_See_ spoon)
pictures, 82
pipe (_See_ tobacco pipe)
pipkin, 24 (illustr.), 25, 99, 100 (illustr.), 101
piracy, 41-42
plate, English delftware, 15, 16 (illustr.), 22, 24 (illustr.), 65
(illustr.), 67; tin-glazed earthenware, 15, 16 (illustr.)
Pollock, ----, 40
porcelain, Chinese, 49
cup, 70, 71 (illustr.)
porringers, 82;
delftware, 49, 65 (illustr.), 66;
Yorktown earthenware, 100 (illustr.), 101, 107
Porteus, Beilby, 4, 8
Porteus, Edward, 4, 7, 14
Porteus, Robert, 4, 5, 7, 8
pot, cream, 82;
iron, 62, 63 (illustr.), 78
potteries, Charlestown, Mass., 84
Fulham (England), 109
Gloucester, Mass., 85
North Devon, England, 84
North Walk, England, 84-85
Philadelphia, 84
Williamsburg, 92-96, 102-105
pottery: inventory of, 82, 85
pottery making, 78-79, 83-84, 102-105, 110;
experiments in, 92-96, 102-105
prison, 82
gaol, 95
projectile point, 15, 16 (illustr.), 71 (illustr.), 72
Purton (plantation), 4
Randolph, John, 35, 77
Reade, George, 87
Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 7
Reynolds, Susanna Rogers, 82, 83, 87
Reynolds, Thomas, 83, 84, 110
ring: curtain (brass), 70, 71 (illustr.);
iron, 24 (illustr.), 25, 62, 63 (illustr.)
"Rippon Hall" (plantation, York County), 4
Rogers, George, 83, 84
Rogers, Theodosia, 82, 87
Rogers, William (Yorktown potter), 75-111
brewer, 80, 82, 85
Captain of the troop, 82
death of, 82, 83
inventory of, 82, 88-90, 105, 109
surveyor, 82, 92
Rogers, William, Jr., 82, 83, 87
Rogers, William (others of same name), 86-87
Rosewell (plantation), 3, 32, 98, 110
salt, 39, 82
salt dishes, delftware, 51 (illustr.), 65 (illustr.), 66, 67
saucer, 55, 65 (illustr.), 66
Saunderson, Richard, 84
Sayer, Richard (tobacco pipe maker), 54
scales, 82
Seabrook, Captain Charles, 83
seal, wine bottle, 32, 35, 36, 37 (illustr.), 43, 46, 55, 69
(illustr.), 70
shells, 52
shoes, manufacture of, 79
Skipworth, Elizabeth, 87
slaves, 45;
brought to North Carolina from Virginia, 40, 41;
ceramics made for use by, 45;
listed in inventory, 88;
quarters for, 46
Smith, Edward, 87
Smith, John (daughter of), 4
Smith, Major Lawrence, 80
South, William, 36
spoon: latten, 4, 10, 12, 18, 19 (illustr.), 46, 58 (illustr.), 59
pewter, 11, 24 (illustr.), 27, 47, 49, 58 (illustr.), 59
Spotswood, Governor Alexander, 36, 37
Stark, William (wife of), 81
still, 82 (See also brewing)
stoneware:
Bellarmine, 49
brown, 49, 51, 65 (illustr.), 67-68
excise stamps on, 92, 95 (illustr.)
manufacture of, 83-84, 102-105, 110
Westerwald tankard, 49, 65 (illustr.), 68
white, jug, 55
white salt-glazed, 43, 49
strainer, brass or bronze, 19 (illustr.), 21
stratigraphy, Clay Bank, 11-12
Tutter's Neck, 49
Stubbs, William Carter, 4
Swan Tavern (Yorktown), 76, 83, 102, 110;
mugs from, 91, 92, 93 (illustr.), 99 (illustr.)
sword, 49, 58 (illustr.), 60, 82
tankard, brown stoneware, 65 (illustr.), 67, 91;
Westerwald stoneware, 49, 65 (illustr.), 68
tanning, 79
Tarripin Point (Virginia), 82, 84, 87
taverns, 80
Taylor, Ebanezar, 42
Teach, Edward "Blackbeard" (pirate), 41-42
textiles: cotton, 78;
linen, 77, 79;
manufacture of, 79;
wool, 76, 77
_Thomas and Tryal_ (ship), 84
Thorpe, Otho, 36
Tippet, Robert (tobacco pipe maker), 54
Tippett, Jacob (tobacco pipe maker), 14
tobacco, 76, 77;
act of 1730, 77;
laws regarding, 78
tobacco pipes, 10, 13, 14, 26 (illustr.), 27-28, 46, 47, 49, 52-54;
dating of, 10, 13, 14, 47, 52-54;
Indian, 14, 15, 16 (illustr.);
profiles, 57 (illustr.)
tobacco pipes, makers' marks on:
H I, 14, 26 (illustr.), 27
H S, 49, 53, 57 (illustr.)
I F, 14, 26 (illustr.), 27
I S, 53-54, 57 (illustr.)
M B, 26 (illustr.), 28
R M, 53, 57 (illustr.)
S A, 14, 26 (illustr.), 28
V R, 14, 26 (illustr.), 27
VS, 26 (illustr.), 28
W, 54
W F, 14
W P (or R), 14, 26 (illustr.), 27
X·I·F·X, 26 (illustr.), 28
tobacco pipes, makers of:
William Ferry, 14
John Fletcher, 27
Jacob Fox, 27
Josiah Fox, 14, 27
Henry Jones, 14
Richard Sayer, 54, 56, 57 (illustr.)
I. Tippet, 14, 49
Robert Tippet, 54
Richard Tyler, 54
tools, 14
chisel, carpenter's, 12;
cooper's, 13, 22, 23 (illustr.);
forming, 9, 12, 22, 23 (illustr.)
cramp, 20 (illustr.), 21
dividers, 49, 54 (illustr.), 58 (illustr.), 60
fleam, 58 (illustr.), 60
gimlet, 19 (illustr.), 21
hoe, 12, 21, 22, 23 (illustr.);
broad, 21, 23 (illustr.);
grub, 21, 23 (illustr.)
race knife, 12, 18, 19 (illustr.), 24 (illustr.), 25
saw, 47, 54 (illustr.)
saw wrest, 20 (illustr.), 21
scissors, 54 (illustr.), 59, 60
scythe, 62, 63 (illustr.)
sickle, 47, 49, 54 (illustr.), 60, 61 (illustr.)
tools: spade, 22, 23 (illustr.)
unidentified, 58 (illustr.), 60
wedge, 12, 22, 23 (illustr.)
tube, bone, 63 (illustr.), 64;
iron, 61 (illustr.), 62
Tutter's Neck, 30-72;
aerial photograph of, 32
buildings:
drawings of, 30
excavation of, 43-46
kitchen, 30, 36, 43, 44, 45-46
residence, 30, 43-45
excavation plan of, 37, 47
map of, 33 (illustr.), 34, 35 (illustr.)
tyg, earthenware, 12, 15, 16 (illustr.); 22, 24 (illustr.)
Tyler, Richard (tobacco pipe maker), 54
unidentified objects, iron, 20 (illustr.), 21, 24 (illustr.), 25-27
(_See also_ specific items)
_Vestry Book of Petsworth Parish_, 5, 7
Vincent, William (potter), 85
Virginia: colonial economy, 76-79
Ward, ---- (toolmaker), 18
warehouse, 87
weaving, 79
Webb, Frances, 83
Williamsburg, 13, 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 82, 83, 84, 87, 91,
92, 95, 110
(_See also_ Colonial Williamsburg, Inc.)
Williamsburg Pottery, 92-96;
experiments at, 102-105
Williamsburg Restoration, Inc., 31, 41
windows, 7, 44;
frames for, 87;
lead cames for, 44
(_See also_ glass, window)
woodenware, 83
_York_ (ship), 83
Yorktown, 74-111;
list of plat owners, 81
map of, 74;
(1691), 80
Transcriber's Notes:
Simple spelling, grammar, and typographical errors were corrected.
Italics markup is enclosed in _underscores_.
Bold markup is enclosed in =equals=.
Fancy or unusual font markup is enclosed in #number signs#.
P. 54 Sidenote text may appear to be oddly split between lines but
this is what is portrayed on the image.
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Contributions From the Museum of
History and Technology, by Ivor Noel Hume and C. Malcolm Watkins
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY ***
***** This file should be named 45741-8.txt or 45741-8.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/4/5/7/4/45741/
Produced by Richard Tonsing, Charlene Taylor, Joseph Cooper
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
http://gutenberg.org/license).
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
[email protected]. Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at http://pglaf.org
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
[email protected]
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit http://pglaf.org
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
http://www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
