Chapter III: Part II: Pottery Evidence (2)

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unpublished.]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.

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.

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

_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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.