ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

1. Marly fragment from small plate, English delftware, decorated in blue with chinoiserie design, probably of Chinamen, rocks, and grasses. The background color has a very pale-blue tint, unlike the pure whites and pinkish whites that are generally associated with London pieces of the period. The closest parallel for this sherd is in the Bristol City Museum in England[31]and is attributed to Brislington. An example of the style, attributed to Lambeth and dated 1684 is illustrated by F. H. Garner in hisEnglish Delftware;[32]but unlike the Clay Bank fragment, the central decoration does not reach to the marly. About 1680-1690. E4. (Fig. 15, no. 6.)2. Handle fragment from chamberpot or posset pot, English delftware, decorated with irregular horizontal stripes in blue. The handle is pronouncedly concave in section, and lacking ornament on its edges (as usually occurs on posset pots)[33]a chamberpot identification seems most likely. The form ranges from the late 17th century at least through the first quarter of the 18th. E2.3. Mug or jug, lower body and base fragment only, English delftware, white inside, with manganese stipple on exterior. Probably Southwark, first half of the 17th century. E4. (Fig. 15, no. 4).4. Basin, English delftware, wall fragments only illustrated (for full reconstruction see fig. 15, no. 1), the glaze, pale blue, ornamented with central chinoiserie design of similar character to no. 1. The wall was decorated with narrow horizontal bands and a wide foliate zone below the everted rim. The bowl is important in that it is one of the earliest extant examples of the simple washbasin form that was to become common throughout the 18th century. About 1680-1690. Illustrated sherds A3, C3, F2.5. Basal fragment of plate, tin-glazed earthenware, decoration of uncertain form in two tones of blue outlined in black. Portuguese? 17th century. C4.6. Base fragment from globular jug, English brown salt-glazed stoneware, probably from same vessel as no. 7. Late 17th or early 18th century. C3.7. Neck fragment from bulbous mug or jug, decorated within multiple grooving,[34]ware and date as above. A3.8. Tyg fragments, black lead-glazed, red-bodied earthenware (sometimes called Cistercian ware), the body decorated with multiple ribbing. (For reconstruction see fig. 15, no. 7.) Such drinking vessels were made with up to six or eight handles, but two was the most usual number and those were placed close together as indicated here. The form was prevalent in the period 1600-1675, though taller examples were common during the preceding century.[35]A3, C3.9. Tobacco pipe bowl, pale-brown ware, burnished, and decorated with impressed crescents and rouletted lines, local Indian manufacture?[36]Second half of 17th century. E4.10. Body fragment of cord-marked Indian cooking pot, Stony Creek type,[37]light red-tan surface flecked with ocher and with a localized grey core. Middle Woodland. B1.11. Projectile point, buff quartzite, broad stem and sloping shoulders. Late archaic. E9.

2. Handle fragment from chamberpot or posset pot, English delftware, decorated with irregular horizontal stripes in blue. The handle is pronouncedly concave in section, and lacking ornament on its edges (as usually occurs on posset pots)[33]a chamberpot identification seems most likely. The form ranges from the late 17th century at least through the first quarter of the 18th. E2.

3. Mug or jug, lower body and base fragment only, English delftware, white inside, with manganese stipple on exterior. Probably Southwark, first half of the 17th century. E4. (Fig. 15, no. 4).

4. Basin, English delftware, wall fragments only illustrated (for full reconstruction see fig. 15, no. 1), the glaze, pale blue, ornamented with central chinoiserie design of similar character to no. 1. The wall was decorated with narrow horizontal bands and a wide foliate zone below the everted rim. The bowl is important in that it is one of the earliest extant examples of the simple washbasin form that was to become common throughout the 18th century. About 1680-1690. Illustrated sherds A3, C3, F2.

5. Basal fragment of plate, tin-glazed earthenware, decoration of uncertain form in two tones of blue outlined in black. Portuguese? 17th century. C4.

6. Base fragment from globular jug, English brown salt-glazed stoneware, probably from same vessel as no. 7. Late 17th or early 18th century. C3.

7. Neck fragment from bulbous mug or jug, decorated within multiple grooving,[34]ware and date as above. A3.

8. Tyg fragments, black lead-glazed, red-bodied earthenware (sometimes called Cistercian ware), the body decorated with multiple ribbing. (For reconstruction see fig. 15, no. 7.) Such drinking vessels were made with up to six or eight handles, but two was the most usual number and those were placed close together as indicated here. The form was prevalent in the period 1600-1675, though taller examples were common during the preceding century.[35]A3, C3.

9. Tobacco pipe bowl, pale-brown ware, burnished, and decorated with impressed crescents and rouletted lines, local Indian manufacture?[36]Second half of 17th century. E4.

10. Body fragment of cord-marked Indian cooking pot, Stony Creek type,[37]light red-tan surface flecked with ocher and with a localized grey core. Middle Woodland. B1.

11. Projectile point, buff quartzite, broad stem and sloping shoulders. Late archaic. E9.

Figure 8.—Fragments of English delftware, stoneware, earthenware, and Indian objects.

Figure 9.--BOTTLE OF GREEN GLASS in the form of a miniature wine bottle.

A small glass bottle in wine-bottle style but probably intended for oil or vinegar, and fashioned from a pale-green metal comparable to that used for pharmaceutical phials and flasks. The base has a pronounced conical kick, but is not appreciably thicker than the walls of the body. The mouth is slightly everted over a V-sectioned string rim. On the yardstick of wine-bottle evolution such a bottle is unlikely to have been manufactured prior to 1680 or later than about 1720. E5. (See also fig. 15, no. 19.)

Stem and foot fragment from an elaborate drinking glass or candlestick, English lead metal of splendid quality. The solid stem is formed from two quatrefoil balusters between which is a melon knop with mereses above and below. The stem terminates in two mereses of increasing size and is attached to an elaborately gadrooned foot, only part of which survives. Any suggestion that the foot is actually part of the base of the bowl is negated by the presence of a rough pontil scar inside it, as well as by the fact that the surviving fragment spreads out at so shallow an angle that no other construction is possible.

Figure 10.—An elaborate stemof English glass, London, about 1685-1695.

The stem form is most closely paralleled by two goblets illustrated in W. A. Thorpe'sHistory of English and Irish Glass,[38]one of which contains within its stem an English fourpenny piece of 1680. Because no known goblet exhibits the high, gadrooned foot of the Clay Bank example, it has been suggested that the stem may be that of a candlestick.[39]While this is certainly a reasonable supposition, it must be added that neither have examples of candlesticks been found in this form. (For conjectural reconstruction see fig. 11.) Although it is extremely unfortunate that no upper fragments were found, there is no doubt as to the date of the surviving section, nor is there anydenying that it is on a par with the best English glass of its period. London, about 1685-1695. Height of fragment 5¼ inches. E4.

Figure 11.—The Clay Bank stem reconstructedas both a drinking glass and a candlestick. Height of fragment is 5¼ inches. About 1685-1695.

1. Spoon, latten, tinned, the bowl oval and the handle flat with a trilobed terminal. The back of the bowl possesses an extremely rudimentary rat-tail that is little more than a solid V slightly off-center at the junction of stem and bowl. The maker's mark inside the bowl bears the initials W W flanking a thistle, perhaps suggesting a Scots origin for the spoon. Last quarter of 17th century. E2.2. Cutlery handle, bone, roughly round-sectioned at its junction with the iron shoulder but becoming triangular towards the top. A4.3. Race knife, steel, a tool used by coopers and joiners to inscribe barrels and the ends of timbers. At one end is a tapering, round-sectioned tang to which a wooden handle was attached; beside this, and probably originally recessed into the wood, is a rectangular-sectioned arm, terminating in a small blade curved over at the end. The arm is hinged at the shoulder of the tool and could be folded back to inscribe large arcs and to be used as an individual cutting instrument. At the other end is a small blunt spike with spiral grooving and raised cordons, and a small fixed knife with a curved blade that could be used to cut in the opposite plain to that of the moveable arm. The arm is stamped with the maker's nameWARD. Attempts to identify an English toolmaker of that name working in the second half of the 17thcentury have been unsuccessful. The tool is well made and possesses a surprising amount of decoration on the shoulders, in the shape of faceting at the corners and sculpturing of the flat surfaces.[40]E4. (See also fig. 15, no. 22.)Figure 12.—Latten spoonand other small finds.Figure 13.—Cheekpiece from bit, saw set, and other iron objects.4. Gimlet, iron, the shaft drawn out at the top to grip the wooden handle, the spoon-shaped blade is badly distorted but the terminal worm still survives in part. B6A.5. Tack, brass, probably from trunk or upholstery, convex head roughly trimmed, diameter ½ inch. C3.6. Boss, cast brass, from cheekpiece of bridle; the slightly dished edge and central nipple appear to have been ornamental devices more popular in the 17th than in the 18th century.[41]This object overlay the robbed rear-chimney foundation at its northeast corner. B2.7. Strainer fragment, brass or bronze; the edge flat and therefore not part of a colander, probably originally attached to an iron handle. Diameter approximately 8½ inches. E2.

2. Cutlery handle, bone, roughly round-sectioned at its junction with the iron shoulder but becoming triangular towards the top. A4.

3. Race knife, steel, a tool used by coopers and joiners to inscribe barrels and the ends of timbers. At one end is a tapering, round-sectioned tang to which a wooden handle was attached; beside this, and probably originally recessed into the wood, is a rectangular-sectioned arm, terminating in a small blade curved over at the end. The arm is hinged at the shoulder of the tool and could be folded back to inscribe large arcs and to be used as an individual cutting instrument. At the other end is a small blunt spike with spiral grooving and raised cordons, and a small fixed knife with a curved blade that could be used to cut in the opposite plain to that of the moveable arm. The arm is stamped with the maker's nameWARD. Attempts to identify an English toolmaker of that name working in the second half of the 17thcentury have been unsuccessful. The tool is well made and possesses a surprising amount of decoration on the shoulders, in the shape of faceting at the corners and sculpturing of the flat surfaces.[40]E4. (See also fig. 15, no. 22.)

Figure 12.—Latten spoonand other small finds.

Figure 13.—Cheekpiece from bit, saw set, and other iron objects.

4. Gimlet, iron, the shaft drawn out at the top to grip the wooden handle, the spoon-shaped blade is badly distorted but the terminal worm still survives in part. B6A.

5. Tack, brass, probably from trunk or upholstery, convex head roughly trimmed, diameter ½ inch. C3.

6. Boss, cast brass, from cheekpiece of bridle; the slightly dished edge and central nipple appear to have been ornamental devices more popular in the 17th than in the 18th century.[41]This object overlay the robbed rear-chimney foundation at its northeast corner. B2.

7. Strainer fragment, brass or bronze; the edge flat and therefore not part of a colander, probably originally attached to an iron handle. Diameter approximately 8½ inches. E2.

1. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, the pointed "blade" without cutting edge and 1/8 inch in thickness, the tang drawn out, rectangular in section and clenched at the end. A2.2. Object similar to the above,[42]but heavier, the tang wider than the thickness of the "blade," 3/8 inch and 3/16 inch respectively. E4.3. Knife blade, iron, small flaring shoulders and round-sectioned tang. The blade is of unusual shape and may have been honed down to its present size. C4.4. Saw wrest or saw set, iron, used to grip and bend the teeth of saws sideways to enlarge the width of the cut and thus prevent the blade from binding.[43]C2.5. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, comprising a flat strip 5/8 inch in width at one end and tapering to 9/16 inch at the other which exhibits a small right-angled flange before turning upwards and back on itself, narrowing to a thinner strip measuring 5/16 inch in width, and forming a loop. The base strip has a small notch at its broad end.[44]C3.6. Cramp(?), iron, perhaps intended to be set in mortar and used to join masonry; rectangular in section and drawn down almost to a point at either end. E4.7. Cheekpiece from snaffle bit, iron, incomplete, angular knee with hole for linking element between rein and bit. This is a 17th-century characteristic common at Jamestown[45]but rare among the many bits from Williamsburg. E2.8. Staple, iron, both points broken and the back somewhat bowed, probably as a result of having been driven. C3.

1. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, the pointed "blade" without cutting edge and 1/8 inch in thickness, the tang drawn out, rectangular in section and clenched at the end. A2.

2. Object similar to the above,[42]but heavier, the tang wider than the thickness of the "blade," 3/8 inch and 3/16 inch respectively. E4.

3. Knife blade, iron, small flaring shoulders and round-sectioned tang. The blade is of unusual shape and may have been honed down to its present size. C4.

4. Saw wrest or saw set, iron, used to grip and bend the teeth of saws sideways to enlarge the width of the cut and thus prevent the blade from binding.[43]C2.

5. Object of uncertain purpose, iron, comprising a flat strip 5/8 inch in width at one end and tapering to 9/16 inch at the other which exhibits a small right-angled flange before turning upwards and back on itself, narrowing to a thinner strip measuring 5/16 inch in width, and forming a loop. The base strip has a small notch at its broad end.[44]C3.

6. Cramp(?), iron, perhaps intended to be set in mortar and used to join masonry; rectangular in section and drawn down almost to a point at either end. E4.

7. Cheekpiece from snaffle bit, iron, incomplete, angular knee with hole for linking element between rein and bit. This is a 17th-century characteristic common at Jamestown[45]but rare among the many bits from Williamsburg. E2.

8. Staple, iron, both points broken and the back somewhat bowed, probably as a result of having been driven. C3.

1. Eye of hoe, iron, possibly a grub hoe similar to no. 2, in an advanced state of decay with the blade represented only by the narrow triangular spine; no trace of a maker's mark. C3.2. Grub hoe, iron, the eye and part of the blade surviving, the spine thick and narrow, no maker's mark. The form has no published parallel either from Jamestown or Williamsburg. An example with similar shoulders, but with a V-shaped blade edge, was found on the Challis pottery kiln site in James City County in a context of about 1730. [C.S.21F; unpublished.] E4.3. Broad hoe, iron, with eye and part of the originally D-shaped blade surviving; the spine shallow, short and flat, with clearly impressed maker's initials I H within an oval. Circular and oval marks are common in the 17th century but are rare in the 18th.[46]E4.4. Hoe blade, iron, from which the eye and spine appear to have been removed. It cannot be ascertained whether the blade is part of a cut-down broad hoe or whether it was always roughly square in form. The latter shape was well represented in a cache of agricultural tools of uncertain date found in excavations at Green Spring in James City County.[47]E4.5. Stirrup, iron, rectangular footplate with its surface hammered to increase the grip, the sides round-sectioned but flattened towards the leather-loop which is drawn out into ornamental ears. The style was common in the late 17th century. E4.6. Forming chisel, iron, socketed for attachment to a wooden handle, the socket and shaft square-sectioned, the blade 2¼ inches wide and the cutting edge improved by a welded plate of superior metal extending 1-7/8 inches up the blade. Found behind a wallboard at floor level. B6A.7. Cooper's chisel, iron, the blade 1¾ inches in width and with a groove running the length of the 1/8-inch broad edge to grip the edge of the hoop while hammering it into place. The shaft is round-sectioned and spreads into a flat mushroom head. C4.8. Wedge, iron, of large size, rectangular head measuring 2-3/8 inches by 1-7/8 inches, length 7-3/8 inches and weight 4 pounds. The head shows no evidence of heavy usage and consequently there is no clue as to why such an object should have been thrown away. A close parallel (7¼ inches in length) was found at Ste Marie I in Canada on the site of the early Jesuit settlement of 1639-1649.[48]B3A.9. Spade, iron edge from wooden blade, the upper edge of the metal split and the extended sides possessing small winglike projections, and nails at the ends which together served to attach the iron to the wood. Iron edges for wooden spades are not included in the artifact collections from 18th-century Williamsburg, but were plentiful in various sizes in mid-17th-century contexts at Mathews Manor in Warwick County. [Unpublished.] C3.10. Projectile, solid iron, cast in a two-piece mold, diameter 2¾ inches, weight 3 pounds 1 ounce. This is possibly a ball from a minion[49]whose shot weight is given in Chambers'Cyclopaedia(1738) as 3 pounds 4 ounces, the difference possibly being occasioned by the Clay Bank specimen's decayed surface. D3.

1. Eye of hoe, iron, possibly a grub hoe similar to no. 2, in an advanced state of decay with the blade represented only by the narrow triangular spine; no trace of a maker's mark. C3.

2. Grub hoe, iron, the eye and part of the blade surviving, the spine thick and narrow, no maker's mark. The form has no published parallel either from Jamestown or Williamsburg. An example with similar shoulders, but with a V-shaped blade edge, was found on the Challis pottery kiln site in James City County in a context of about 1730. [C.S.21F; unpublished.] E4.

3. Broad hoe, iron, with eye and part of the originally D-shaped blade surviving; the spine shallow, short and flat, with clearly impressed maker's initials I H within an oval. Circular and oval marks are common in the 17th century but are rare in the 18th.[46]E4.

4. Hoe blade, iron, from which the eye and spine appear to have been removed. It cannot be ascertained whether the blade is part of a cut-down broad hoe or whether it was always roughly square in form. The latter shape was well represented in a cache of agricultural tools of uncertain date found in excavations at Green Spring in James City County.[47]E4.

5. Stirrup, iron, rectangular footplate with its surface hammered to increase the grip, the sides round-sectioned but flattened towards the leather-loop which is drawn out into ornamental ears. The style was common in the late 17th century. E4.

6. Forming chisel, iron, socketed for attachment to a wooden handle, the socket and shaft square-sectioned, the blade 2¼ inches wide and the cutting edge improved by a welded plate of superior metal extending 1-7/8 inches up the blade. Found behind a wallboard at floor level. B6A.

7. Cooper's chisel, iron, the blade 1¾ inches in width and with a groove running the length of the 1/8-inch broad edge to grip the edge of the hoop while hammering it into place. The shaft is round-sectioned and spreads into a flat mushroom head. C4.

8. Wedge, iron, of large size, rectangular head measuring 2-3/8 inches by 1-7/8 inches, length 7-3/8 inches and weight 4 pounds. The head shows no evidence of heavy usage and consequently there is no clue as to why such an object should have been thrown away. A close parallel (7¼ inches in length) was found at Ste Marie I in Canada on the site of the early Jesuit settlement of 1639-1649.[48]B3A.

9. Spade, iron edge from wooden blade, the upper edge of the metal split and the extended sides possessing small winglike projections, and nails at the ends which together served to attach the iron to the wood. Iron edges for wooden spades are not included in the artifact collections from 18th-century Williamsburg, but were plentiful in various sizes in mid-17th-century contexts at Mathews Manor in Warwick County. [Unpublished.] C3.

10. Projectile, solid iron, cast in a two-piece mold, diameter 2¾ inches, weight 3 pounds 1 ounce. This is possibly a ball from a minion[49]whose shot weight is given in Chambers'Cyclopaedia(1738) as 3 pounds 4 ounces, the difference possibly being occasioned by the Clay Bank specimen's decayed surface. D3.

1. Basin, English delftware, reconstruction on basis of rim, body and base fragments, about 1680-1690. (Fig. 8, no. 4) A3, B1, B3, C3, C4, E2, F2, H3.2. Basin as above, lower body fragments.3. Basin as above, base fragment.4. Mug or jug, lower body fragment, manganese stippled. First half of 17th century(?). (Fig. 8, no. 3.) E4.5. Plate, English delftware, rim and base fragments (also section), decoration in two tones of blue, the fronds outlined in black. London(?). About 1670-1700. A3, E3.6. Plate, English delftware, about 1680-1690. (Fig. 8, no. 1.) E4.7. Tyg, black lead-glazed red ware, double handled; height conjectural. 17th century. (Fig. 8, no. 8.) A3, B3, B6A, C3, C4, E3, E9, F3, G2, G3A, H3, 10.8. Tyg, rim sherd only, brown lead-glazed red ware, thinner than no. 7 and its ribbing not extending as close to the mouth; diameter approximately 4½ 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 legendMR. THOMAS FENTONin 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 foldedand 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.Figure 14.—Iron tools, stirrup, and cannon ball.Figure 15.—Drawings of pottery, glass, and metal objects.11. Rim sherd from pan or wide bowl, red ware with greenish-brown lead glaze, the rim thickened and undercut. This form, and variants on it, were common from the mid-17th century and on through the 18th, and they are therefore impossible to date on stylistic grounds alone. Probably English. C4.12. Rim sherd from large shallow pan, red ware with yellowish-green lead glaze; the rim thickened, folded and undercut, the upper surface flattened and with a pronounced ridge at its angle with the bowl; diameter approximately 1 foot 6 inches. Dating considerations as no. 11. Probably English. E4.13. Rim sherd from storage jar, red ware with brown lead glaze, the rim thickened, folded, and flattened on the top; diameter approximately 10½ 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 3½ 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 oppositeplain at the other, apparently for attachment. E4.Figure 16.—Drawings of tobacco-pipe bowl shapesfrom Clay Bank and Aberdeen Creek.26. Staple or light handle for a small box, the narrow ends perhaps originally clenched and since broken. C3.27. Handle of spoon, pewter, a heart-shaped terminal above two small lobes, the letter M stamped with a well-cut die close to the edge, and a roughly incised cross below it. A late 17th-century terminal form. K11.

1. Basin, English delftware, reconstruction on basis of rim, body and base fragments, about 1680-1690. (Fig. 8, no. 4) A3, B1, B3, C3, C4, E2, F2, H3.

2. Basin as above, lower body fragments.

3. Basin as above, base fragment.

4. Mug or jug, lower body fragment, manganese stippled. First half of 17th century(?). (Fig. 8, no. 3.) E4.

5. Plate, English delftware, rim and base fragments (also section), decoration in two tones of blue, the fronds outlined in black. London(?). About 1670-1700. A3, E3.

6. Plate, English delftware, about 1680-1690. (Fig. 8, no. 1.) E4.

7. Tyg, black lead-glazed red ware, double handled; height conjectural. 17th century. (Fig. 8, no. 8.) A3, B3, B6A, C3, C4, E3, E9, F3, G2, G3A, H3, 10.

8. Tyg, rim sherd only, brown lead-glazed red ware, thinner than no. 7 and its ribbing not extending as close to the mouth; diameter approximately 4½ 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 legendMR. THOMAS FENTONin 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 foldedand 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.

Figure 14.—Iron tools, stirrup, and cannon ball.

Figure 15.—Drawings of pottery, glass, and metal objects.

11. Rim sherd from pan or wide bowl, red ware with greenish-brown lead glaze, the rim thickened and undercut. This form, and variants on it, were common from the mid-17th century and on through the 18th, and they are therefore impossible to date on stylistic grounds alone. Probably English. C4.

12. Rim sherd from large shallow pan, red ware with yellowish-green lead glaze; the rim thickened, folded and undercut, the upper surface flattened and with a pronounced ridge at its angle with the bowl; diameter approximately 1 foot 6 inches. Dating considerations as no. 11. Probably English. E4.

13. Rim sherd from storage jar, red ware with brown lead glaze, the rim thickened, folded, and flattened on the top; diameter approximately 10½ 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 3½ 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 oppositeplain at the other, apparently for attachment. E4.

Figure 16.—Drawings of tobacco-pipe bowl shapesfrom Clay Bank and Aberdeen Creek.

26. Staple or light handle for a small box, the narrow ends perhaps originally clenched and since broken. C3.

27. Handle of spoon, pewter, a heart-shaped terminal above two small lobes, the letter M stamped with a well-cut die close to the edge, and a roughly incised cross below it. A late 17th-century terminal form. K11.

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 pareddown after breaking to create a new mouthpiece and a stem only approximately 2¼ 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 sameX·I·F·Xmark 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 VSstamped 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 VSstamped 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 markm bon the base; a narrow rouletted line around the bowl mouth. Stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch, about 1650-1680.

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 pareddown after breaking to create a new mouthpiece and a stem only approximately 2¼ 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 sameX·I·F·Xmark 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 VSstamped 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 VSstamped 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 markm bon the base; a narrow rouletted line around the bowl mouth. Stem-hole diameter 7/64 inch, about 1650-1680.

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 inContributions 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 asRosewell.[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 asVestry 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 Esqrfor Keeping Two barsterd Children viztJohn & Watkinson Marvil 01333 ½."[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 yeStaires to Goe up in yemidst of yehouse with 3 Large Glass windows Below Stair [] Each to have 3 Double Lights in ymwith 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 magazineCountry 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 7½ in. by 4¼ 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 inAnthropology(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 yeCounty of King and Quine ... to Learn yesaid orphant yeart 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. SeeIvor Noël Hume, "Excavations at Tutter's Neck in James City County, Virginia, 1960-1961" (paper 53 inContributions from the Museum of History and Technology; U.S. National Museum Bulletin 249; Washington: Smithsonian Institution), 1965, fig. 20, no. 8. Hereafter cited asTutter'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. SeeLewis 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, seeW. 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) seeTutter'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.12for 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 alsoD. 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 alsoRosewell, p. 221 (footnote 96).[56]A pipe with similar ornament is in the author's collection of examples from the river Thames at London.

[1]Ivor Noël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell, Gloucester County, Virginia 1957-1959" (paper 18 inContributions 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 asRosewell.

[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 asVestry 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 Esqrfor Keeping Two barsterd Children viztJohn & Watkinson Marvil 01333 ½."

[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 yeStaires to Goe up in yemidst of yehouse with 3 Large Glass windows Below Stair [] Each to have 3 Double Lights in ymwith 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 magazineCountry 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 7½ in. by 4¼ 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 inAnthropology(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 yeCounty of King and Quine ... to Learn yesaid orphant yeart 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. SeeIvor Noël Hume, "Excavations at Tutter's Neck in James City County, Virginia, 1960-1961" (paper 53 inContributions from the Museum of History and Technology; U.S. National Museum Bulletin 249; Washington: Smithsonian Institution), 1965, fig. 20, no. 8. Hereafter cited asTutter'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. SeeLewis 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, seeW. 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) seeTutter'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.

[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.12for 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 alsoD. 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 alsoRosewell, p. 221 (footnote 96).

[56]A pipe with similar ornament is in the author's collection of examples from the river Thames at London.

Back to Index Next