Chapter IV: Part II: Pottery Evidence (3)

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.