FOOTNOTES:

1. Ring, iron, with evidence of wear at one side; possibly a handle or a chain terminal. T.N. 23.2. Loop, iron, with the ends perhaps originally meeting; possibly a handle or a chain terminal. T.N. 19.3. Horseshoe, iron. Rudimentary key-hold type, much decayed but with slight traces of fullering, probably eight nail holes, four on each side. The lug at left terminal would seem to have been created by the loss of a fragment of the outer edge. This is a typical 17th-century form, but one that continued into the 18th century.[146]T.N. 24.4. Handle from scythe, iron. The wooden shaft was approximately 1-5/8 in. in diameter at point of contact. T.N. 24.5. Part of snaffle bit, jointed mouthpiece lozenge-shaped junction of bit and rein loop. T.N. 23.6. Fragment of iron pot, with two molded cordons on the body. T.N. 30.7. Leg from iron pot, five-sided and tapering to a point.[147]Base of pot approximately 1/8 in. thick. T.N. 8.8. Leg with trifid or cloven foot, from iron pot. Legs of this type narrow above the foot and spread again towards the point of junction with the pot base. It was at the narrow midsection that the illustrated leg broke. The form was common in the 17th century. T.N. 18.9. Tapering iron strap of uncertain purpose. Two small nail holes at the broad end and two larger holes down the length of strap. T.N. 19.Figure 17.—Objectsof iron, brass, bone, and glass. One-half.10. Strap similar to the above. Slightly constricted at midsection but otherwise without taper; positioning of nail holes as in no. 9. The strap is bent in opposite directions at either end, the bend at the right extremity passing through the line of the nail holes, indicating that the bending occurred when the object was used for a purpose other than that for which it was originally intended. T.N. 23.11. Shoe buckle, iron. Badly decayed, but traces of both iron tines and back loop remain. The frame sides were probably originally only 3/16 in. to ¼ in. wide. T.N. 23. Shoe buckles of iron are very rarely encountered.12. Harness ornament, brass. Originally silver-plated or tin-plated, of shell form; five tangs that protrude from the back—four in the area of the shell and one at the tail—were folded over to grip the leather, fragments of which still survived when the fitting was found. The form was common in the 18th century,[148]but most examples found in Virginia are much less angular than is this example. T.N. 17.13. Harness fitting, brass, with rectangular loop at right angles to the ornamental plate, probably a strap retainer. T.N. 15.14. Bone tube or nozzle, possibly part of a syringe. Internal bore spreads from 1/8 in. at the narrow, broken end, to 3/8 in. at the other end. The increase in bore begins at a point ¾ in. from the wide end. The latter terminates on the exterior in a collar above six encircling grooves, below which the tube is trumpet-shaped and ornamented with two shallow incised rings. T.N. 17.15. Bone tube of uncertain purpose. Trimmed at the narrow end to fit within a collar or extension; the wider end spreading and convex, the interior of this end with spiral groove to create threading to house a screw-ended plug or extension. T.N. 17.16. Wineglass stem. Heavy and solid inverted baluster with small fortuitous tear; the lead metal a smoky gray with an almost frosted appearance resulting from surface decay.[149]The bowl, though large, was comparatively thin at its junction with the stem and probably, therefore, was of funnel form. Late 17th century. T.N. 22.17. Light wineglass. Pale straw-colored metal;[150]inverted baluster stem is hollow and gently tooled into quatrefoil form at its junction with the bowl,[151]the latter setting firmly into the top of the stem. The conical foot with central pontil mark is thin and was undoubtedly folded. This is an important 3-piece glass of a type sometimes attributed to Hawley Bishop, George Ravenscroft's successor at the Henley-on-Thames glasshouse.[152]About 1680-1700. T.N. 30.18. Wineglass stem. Sparkling lead metal; the stem comprising a solid, inverted baluster beneath a massive cushion knop, the base of the bowl nestling firmly within the latter. Late 17th century to early 18th century.[153]T.N. 4.

1. Ring, iron, with evidence of wear at one side; possibly a handle or a chain terminal. T.N. 23.

2. Loop, iron, with the ends perhaps originally meeting; possibly a handle or a chain terminal. T.N. 19.

3. Horseshoe, iron. Rudimentary key-hold type, much decayed but with slight traces of fullering, probably eight nail holes, four on each side. The lug at left terminal would seem to have been created by the loss of a fragment of the outer edge. This is a typical 17th-century form, but one that continued into the 18th century.[146]T.N. 24.

4. Handle from scythe, iron. The wooden shaft was approximately 1-5/8 in. in diameter at point of contact. T.N. 24.

5. Part of snaffle bit, jointed mouthpiece lozenge-shaped junction of bit and rein loop. T.N. 23.

6. Fragment of iron pot, with two molded cordons on the body. T.N. 30.

7. Leg from iron pot, five-sided and tapering to a point.[147]Base of pot approximately 1/8 in. thick. T.N. 8.

8. Leg with trifid or cloven foot, from iron pot. Legs of this type narrow above the foot and spread again towards the point of junction with the pot base. It was at the narrow midsection that the illustrated leg broke. The form was common in the 17th century. T.N. 18.

9. Tapering iron strap of uncertain purpose. Two small nail holes at the broad end and two larger holes down the length of strap. T.N. 19.

Figure 17.—Objectsof iron, brass, bone, and glass. One-half.

10. Strap similar to the above. Slightly constricted at midsection but otherwise without taper; positioning of nail holes as in no. 9. The strap is bent in opposite directions at either end, the bend at the right extremity passing through the line of the nail holes, indicating that the bending occurred when the object was used for a purpose other than that for which it was originally intended. T.N. 23.

11. Shoe buckle, iron. Badly decayed, but traces of both iron tines and back loop remain. The frame sides were probably originally only 3/16 in. to ¼ in. wide. T.N. 23. Shoe buckles of iron are very rarely encountered.

12. Harness ornament, brass. Originally silver-plated or tin-plated, of shell form; five tangs that protrude from the back—four in the area of the shell and one at the tail—were folded over to grip the leather, fragments of which still survived when the fitting was found. The form was common in the 18th century,[148]but most examples found in Virginia are much less angular than is this example. T.N. 17.

13. Harness fitting, brass, with rectangular loop at right angles to the ornamental plate, probably a strap retainer. T.N. 15.

14. Bone tube or nozzle, possibly part of a syringe. Internal bore spreads from 1/8 in. at the narrow, broken end, to 3/8 in. at the other end. The increase in bore begins at a point ¾ in. from the wide end. The latter terminates on the exterior in a collar above six encircling grooves, below which the tube is trumpet-shaped and ornamented with two shallow incised rings. T.N. 17.

15. Bone tube of uncertain purpose. Trimmed at the narrow end to fit within a collar or extension; the wider end spreading and convex, the interior of this end with spiral groove to create threading to house a screw-ended plug or extension. T.N. 17.

16. Wineglass stem. Heavy and solid inverted baluster with small fortuitous tear; the lead metal a smoky gray with an almost frosted appearance resulting from surface decay.[149]The bowl, though large, was comparatively thin at its junction with the stem and probably, therefore, was of funnel form. Late 17th century. T.N. 22.

17. Light wineglass. Pale straw-colored metal;[150]inverted baluster stem is hollow and gently tooled into quatrefoil form at its junction with the bowl,[151]the latter setting firmly into the top of the stem. The conical foot with central pontil mark is thin and was undoubtedly folded. This is an important 3-piece glass of a type sometimes attributed to Hawley Bishop, George Ravenscroft's successor at the Henley-on-Thames glasshouse.[152]About 1680-1700. T.N. 30.

18. Wineglass stem. Sparkling lead metal; the stem comprising a solid, inverted baluster beneath a massive cushion knop, the base of the bowl nestling firmly within the latter. Late 17th century to early 18th century.[153]T.N. 4.

ENGLISH DELFTWARE

1. Bowl with everted rim ornamented with crudely overlapping ovals and diamonds in blue; interior of bowl decorated with rings of the same color. The conjectural base and foot are derived from larger bowls of similar form found in excavations at Williamsburg. The glaze is thick, and very white. Late 17th century to early 18th century. T.N. 30.2. Rim sherd from bowl of form similar to the above, but the blue decoration on the interior of the bowl and the rim plain. T.N. 23.3. Hemispherical bowl. The foot conjectural, decorated in blue on the exterior with a stylized foliate border made up almost entirely from groups of straight lines. There is a trellis border above the missing foot, and the interior is decorated with a double blue line at the same height, and with a single line 5/8 in. below the rim. This last is decorated with red, imitating the red-brown slipped line that frequently occurs on Chinese exportporcelain. Second quarter of 18th century. T.N. 17; one sherd from T.N. 16.Figure 18.—English delftware, Indian pottery, and stonewares. One-fourth.4. Drug jar. Flat and slightly everted rim, straight body section, and spreading base; the bottom slightly domed and the glaze thin. Ornamented in pale blue with groups of horizontal lines and a body zone decorated with linked ovals created by the drawing of two overlapping wavy lines. Probably of London manufacture and of 17th-century date.[154]T.N. 30.5. Porringer. Slightly everted rim and handle with heart-shaped aperture; body slightly bulbous and incurving to a straight foot; the glaze thick and gray. Probably of London manufacture.[155]Late 17th century to early 18th century. T.N. 23.6. Shallow ointment pot or jar. Rim flattened, undercut, and slightly everted; base markedly domed, thick pinkish-white glaze. Almost certainly of London manufacture and dating from latter part of 17th century. T.N. 30.7. Ointment pot. Thin, slightly everted rim over a bulbous body; the foot slightly spreading beneath it and slightly conical beneath; the glaze thick and gray. 18th century. T.N. 23.8. Saucer. Conjectural reconstruction derived from base and rim sherds. The base thick; the foot solid and only slightly raised, but the rim thin and with a much more even finish. The piece has a thick white glaze with a slight pink cast and is haphazardly splashed with blue. The technique would appear to be the reverse of the London copies of Nevers faïence whereon white dots are splashed over a blue ground.[156]This object appears to be without parallel in published sources, but may tentatively be given the same dating as the London white on blue, i.e., about 1680-1690.[157]T.N. 30.9. Pedestal base from a small salt. Base conical within; glaze thick and very white; bowl decorated internally with profile portrait of a cavalier. This extremely unusual item was, by a remarkable coincidence, paralleled by an identical fragment found by the writer on the foreshore of the River Thames at Queenhithe in London. The two are shown together in figure 11. About 1660-1680.[158]T.N. 23.10. Large dish or charger reconstructed on the basis of base and rim fragments. Diameter approximately 1 ft. 3 in. The rim turns gently downward beyond the wide marly, and the foot is squat and slightly spread. The glaze is thick and white, and the rim decoration takes the form of broad rings of blue enclosing a marly zone ornamented with an alternating lozenge and diamond motif created from two rows of interlocking arcs, the upper painted in orange and the lower in blue. The decoration of the center of the dish is uncertain, but was painted in the same two colors, perhaps in a stylized pomegranate design. Such dishes are frequently decorated on the rim edges with dashes of blue that give them the name "blue dash chargers,"[159]but there is sufficient glaze surviving on this example to indicate that there was no such ornament. Another somewhat unusual feature is that the back of the dish is tin-glazed; the majority of such dishes were coated on the reverse with a thin yellow or yellowish-green lead glaze. Such dishes were frequently used as wall or dresser ornaments and not for use at table; consequently, the footrings are generally pierced for suspension. No suspension holes occur on the small sections of the footring that survive on this example. The dish is believed to be of London manufacture on the evidence of wasters found in the Borough of Southwark,[160]London (see fig. 10), though the style is clearly of Dutch origin.[161]About 1670-1690. T.N. 30.[162]11. Rim fragment from plate. The glaze slightly pink, narrow marly decorated with alternating lozenge and diamond motif in light blue (see no. 10) bordered by a single and double line of the same color. At least two concentric circles adorned the floor of the plate, but no evidence of the central design survives. Early 18th century. T.N. 23.12. Pedestal foot and base of salt or cup. The foot conical and shelved internally; the bowl flat-based and with the rolled terminal of a small handle at one side; the glaze somewhat gray. The foot decorated with three somewhat irregularly drawn rings in light blue; the bowl ornamented with rudimentary floral devices; and the handle terminal decorated with two horizontal bars of dark blue, perhaps beneath a vertical, stalked flower. Late 17th century(?). T.N. 24.INDIAN POTTERY13. Bowl with flattened and slightly everted rim. Colono-Indian[163]pottery, pebble-or stick-burnished, with pink surface; extensive tool marks on the exterior; the ware flecked with red ocher and few traces of shell. T.N. 23, T.N. 24.[164]14. Shallow bowl or pan with flattened and everted rim. Colono-Indian pottery; the ware buff and heavily shell-tempered and retaining traces of surface burnishing. T.N. 23.15. Rim and wall fragment of bowl with roughly flattened and everted rim. Colono-Indian pottery, the body pale buff and finely shell-tempered. T.N. 19.16. Rim sherd from bowl of local Indian pottery. Lip thickened and slightly incurving; body pink to buff and coarsely shell-tempered; the exterior stick-burnished. T.N. 19.17. Rim and wall fragment of cup or small bowl, the rim slightly everted by tooling beneath it. Colono-Indian pottery; body pinkish buff with traces of red ocher in the clay; exterior surface highly burnished. It is possible that the fragment came from a vessel comparable to that shown in figure 12, which was found in excavations at Williamsburg.[165]T.N. 23.BROWN SALT-GLAZED STONEWARES18. Body and handle terminal fragments from pint (?) tankard. Mottled purplish-brown exterior and reddish-brown interior; the rim conjectural and the lower body and basal section modeled on no. 19. Probably of English manufacture, London or Bristol.[166]T.N. 1, T.N. 4.19. Basal and wall fragments of pint (?) tankard. Similar in form to the above. Two fragments present, one with the beginning of the red slip that becomes mottled brown in firing, a feature that normally extends from the midsection upwards to the rim. The lower body is gray, as is the interior; the foot is ornamented with a ridge, cordon, and double ridge. T.N. 17.20. Rim sherd of quart (?) tankard. Burnt; the rim thinned from the inside and ornamented on the outside with a single groove; dark purplish-brown mottling on the exterior, a little of the slip from which extends over the interior of the rim. T.N. 23.21. Jug or drinking pot. Bulbous body with good quality tooling at the shoulder; handle with single groove down the spine; the base and neck conjectural, but modeled after the forms produced by Dwight of Fulham in the late 17th century.[167]The ware is a pale gray and appears white beneath the internal salt glaze. It is possible that this is an example of the use of the white salt-glazed body conceived by Dwight, and that it may have come from his factory. The refined clay enables the ware to be thinly and finely potted. T.N. 1.22. Neck, shoulder, and handle-terminal fragmentsof jug. The neck ornamented with multiple grooving; the handle terminal pressed into the body with one finger; the glaze a rich purplish brown, reddish brown inside.[168]A common form manufactured in London at the close of the 17th century and made elsewhere, including Yorktown, certainly through the second quarter of the 18th century.[169]T.N. 23.GERMAN SALT-GLAZED STONEWARE23. Large (Westerwald) tankard, base and lower body sherds only. Stylized foliate and geometric ornament incised and filled with cobalt on an extremely pale-gray body; multiple cordons and grooves above the base; two concave bands filled with blue; the base slightly rising and scored with haphazard lines before firing. T.N. 23.

2. Rim sherd from bowl of form similar to the above, but the blue decoration on the interior of the bowl and the rim plain. T.N. 23.

3. Hemispherical bowl. The foot conjectural, decorated in blue on the exterior with a stylized foliate border made up almost entirely from groups of straight lines. There is a trellis border above the missing foot, and the interior is decorated with a double blue line at the same height, and with a single line 5/8 in. below the rim. This last is decorated with red, imitating the red-brown slipped line that frequently occurs on Chinese exportporcelain. Second quarter of 18th century. T.N. 17; one sherd from T.N. 16.

Figure 18.—English delftware, Indian pottery, and stonewares. One-fourth.

4. Drug jar. Flat and slightly everted rim, straight body section, and spreading base; the bottom slightly domed and the glaze thin. Ornamented in pale blue with groups of horizontal lines and a body zone decorated with linked ovals created by the drawing of two overlapping wavy lines. Probably of London manufacture and of 17th-century date.[154]T.N. 30.

5. Porringer. Slightly everted rim and handle with heart-shaped aperture; body slightly bulbous and incurving to a straight foot; the glaze thick and gray. Probably of London manufacture.[155]Late 17th century to early 18th century. T.N. 23.

6. Shallow ointment pot or jar. Rim flattened, undercut, and slightly everted; base markedly domed, thick pinkish-white glaze. Almost certainly of London manufacture and dating from latter part of 17th century. T.N. 30.

7. Ointment pot. Thin, slightly everted rim over a bulbous body; the foot slightly spreading beneath it and slightly conical beneath; the glaze thick and gray. 18th century. T.N. 23.

8. Saucer. Conjectural reconstruction derived from base and rim sherds. The base thick; the foot solid and only slightly raised, but the rim thin and with a much more even finish. The piece has a thick white glaze with a slight pink cast and is haphazardly splashed with blue. The technique would appear to be the reverse of the London copies of Nevers faïence whereon white dots are splashed over a blue ground.[156]This object appears to be without parallel in published sources, but may tentatively be given the same dating as the London white on blue, i.e., about 1680-1690.[157]T.N. 30.

9. Pedestal base from a small salt. Base conical within; glaze thick and very white; bowl decorated internally with profile portrait of a cavalier. This extremely unusual item was, by a remarkable coincidence, paralleled by an identical fragment found by the writer on the foreshore of the River Thames at Queenhithe in London. The two are shown together in figure 11. About 1660-1680.[158]T.N. 23.

10. Large dish or charger reconstructed on the basis of base and rim fragments. Diameter approximately 1 ft. 3 in. The rim turns gently downward beyond the wide marly, and the foot is squat and slightly spread. The glaze is thick and white, and the rim decoration takes the form of broad rings of blue enclosing a marly zone ornamented with an alternating lozenge and diamond motif created from two rows of interlocking arcs, the upper painted in orange and the lower in blue. The decoration of the center of the dish is uncertain, but was painted in the same two colors, perhaps in a stylized pomegranate design. Such dishes are frequently decorated on the rim edges with dashes of blue that give them the name "blue dash chargers,"[159]but there is sufficient glaze surviving on this example to indicate that there was no such ornament. Another somewhat unusual feature is that the back of the dish is tin-glazed; the majority of such dishes were coated on the reverse with a thin yellow or yellowish-green lead glaze. Such dishes were frequently used as wall or dresser ornaments and not for use at table; consequently, the footrings are generally pierced for suspension. No suspension holes occur on the small sections of the footring that survive on this example. The dish is believed to be of London manufacture on the evidence of wasters found in the Borough of Southwark,[160]London (see fig. 10), though the style is clearly of Dutch origin.[161]About 1670-1690. T.N. 30.[162]

11. Rim fragment from plate. The glaze slightly pink, narrow marly decorated with alternating lozenge and diamond motif in light blue (see no. 10) bordered by a single and double line of the same color. At least two concentric circles adorned the floor of the plate, but no evidence of the central design survives. Early 18th century. T.N. 23.

12. Pedestal foot and base of salt or cup. The foot conical and shelved internally; the bowl flat-based and with the rolled terminal of a small handle at one side; the glaze somewhat gray. The foot decorated with three somewhat irregularly drawn rings in light blue; the bowl ornamented with rudimentary floral devices; and the handle terminal decorated with two horizontal bars of dark blue, perhaps beneath a vertical, stalked flower. Late 17th century(?). T.N. 24.

INDIAN POTTERY

13. Bowl with flattened and slightly everted rim. Colono-Indian[163]pottery, pebble-or stick-burnished, with pink surface; extensive tool marks on the exterior; the ware flecked with red ocher and few traces of shell. T.N. 23, T.N. 24.[164]

14. Shallow bowl or pan with flattened and everted rim. Colono-Indian pottery; the ware buff and heavily shell-tempered and retaining traces of surface burnishing. T.N. 23.

15. Rim and wall fragment of bowl with roughly flattened and everted rim. Colono-Indian pottery, the body pale buff and finely shell-tempered. T.N. 19.

16. Rim sherd from bowl of local Indian pottery. Lip thickened and slightly incurving; body pink to buff and coarsely shell-tempered; the exterior stick-burnished. T.N. 19.

17. Rim and wall fragment of cup or small bowl, the rim slightly everted by tooling beneath it. Colono-Indian pottery; body pinkish buff with traces of red ocher in the clay; exterior surface highly burnished. It is possible that the fragment came from a vessel comparable to that shown in figure 12, which was found in excavations at Williamsburg.[165]T.N. 23.

BROWN SALT-GLAZED STONEWARES

18. Body and handle terminal fragments from pint (?) tankard. Mottled purplish-brown exterior and reddish-brown interior; the rim conjectural and the lower body and basal section modeled on no. 19. Probably of English manufacture, London or Bristol.[166]T.N. 1, T.N. 4.

19. Basal and wall fragments of pint (?) tankard. Similar in form to the above. Two fragments present, one with the beginning of the red slip that becomes mottled brown in firing, a feature that normally extends from the midsection upwards to the rim. The lower body is gray, as is the interior; the foot is ornamented with a ridge, cordon, and double ridge. T.N. 17.

20. Rim sherd of quart (?) tankard. Burnt; the rim thinned from the inside and ornamented on the outside with a single groove; dark purplish-brown mottling on the exterior, a little of the slip from which extends over the interior of the rim. T.N. 23.

21. Jug or drinking pot. Bulbous body with good quality tooling at the shoulder; handle with single groove down the spine; the base and neck conjectural, but modeled after the forms produced by Dwight of Fulham in the late 17th century.[167]The ware is a pale gray and appears white beneath the internal salt glaze. It is possible that this is an example of the use of the white salt-glazed body conceived by Dwight, and that it may have come from his factory. The refined clay enables the ware to be thinly and finely potted. T.N. 1.

22. Neck, shoulder, and handle-terminal fragmentsof jug. The neck ornamented with multiple grooving; the handle terminal pressed into the body with one finger; the glaze a rich purplish brown, reddish brown inside.[168]A common form manufactured in London at the close of the 17th century and made elsewhere, including Yorktown, certainly through the second quarter of the 18th century.[169]T.N. 23.

GERMAN SALT-GLAZED STONEWARE

23. Large (Westerwald) tankard, base and lower body sherds only. Stylized foliate and geometric ornament incised and filled with cobalt on an extremely pale-gray body; multiple cordons and grooves above the base; two concave bands filled with blue; the base slightly rising and scored with haphazard lines before firing. T.N. 23.

COARSE EARTHENWARES

1. Cream pan of Yorktown (?) earthenware.[170]The rim rolled; spout conjectural, based on others from the same group; base slightly rising; exterior of body above base displaying potting rings and knife work; body containing small quantities of quartz grit, pink-cored and yellow at the edges; exterior unglazed but orange-pink slipped, and the interior lead-glazed a ginger brown mottled with iron. T.N. 24.2. Cream pan. The rim thickened, incurving and undercut; ware as of no. 1, but the internal glaze a darker brown; approximate diameter, 14 in. T.N. 18.3. Cream pan. Similar to no. 1 but with spout (from which the above was copied), and the exterior slip somewhat more orange in color. T.N. 23.4. Cream pan. With spout and rolled rim; the ware red-bodied, flecked with quartz grit and red ocher; exterior a deep red to black; internal glaze a dark greenish brown; approximate diameter, 14¾ in. T.N. 23.5. Cream pan. The rim thickened, incurving, and undercut; body pale buff; exterior with pale-orange slip; internal glaze a lustrous purple, presumably somewhat overfired. Fragments with this colored glaze are among the many possible wasters from Yorktown. Diameter approximately 14 in. T.N. 23.6. Cream pan. Unusual, shouldered rim sherd, perhaps intended to take a cover; red body with ginger-brown glaze; probably English. T.N. 4.7. Storage jar, body fragments only. Decorated with medial grooves and applied trails pressed in piecrust style beneath the missing rim; the body gray-cored and red at the edges, coated with a light-brown glaze flecked here and there with pale green. Presumably English. T.N. 30.8. Rim fragment from small cup or pot. Hard yellow body coated with a pale treacly glaze. Probably Staffordshire. T.N. 18.9. Large cylindrical jar or bowl. The wall vertical, undercut above the slightly spread foot. Hard yellow body as above, coated with thick treacly and streaky brown glaze of a color much later often associated with Bennington. A rim sherd from the same deposit is slightly everted, but since the glaze is much lighter the piece may not belong to the same vessel. Base diameter approximately 10½ in. Probably Staffordshire. An example recently purchased by Colonial Williamsburg (fig. 9) is dated 1721. T.N. 30.10. Storage jar. The rim everted and ridged internally, probably to seat a lid; gravel tempered, pale-pink earthenware; internal dark apple-green glaze.[171]West of England manufacture. T.N. 30.

2. Cream pan. The rim thickened, incurving and undercut; ware as of no. 1, but the internal glaze a darker brown; approximate diameter, 14 in. T.N. 18.

3. Cream pan. Similar to no. 1 but with spout (from which the above was copied), and the exterior slip somewhat more orange in color. T.N. 23.

4. Cream pan. With spout and rolled rim; the ware red-bodied, flecked with quartz grit and red ocher; exterior a deep red to black; internal glaze a dark greenish brown; approximate diameter, 14¾ in. T.N. 23.

5. Cream pan. The rim thickened, incurving, and undercut; body pale buff; exterior with pale-orange slip; internal glaze a lustrous purple, presumably somewhat overfired. Fragments with this colored glaze are among the many possible wasters from Yorktown. Diameter approximately 14 in. T.N. 23.

6. Cream pan. Unusual, shouldered rim sherd, perhaps intended to take a cover; red body with ginger-brown glaze; probably English. T.N. 4.

7. Storage jar, body fragments only. Decorated with medial grooves and applied trails pressed in piecrust style beneath the missing rim; the body gray-cored and red at the edges, coated with a light-brown glaze flecked here and there with pale green. Presumably English. T.N. 30.

8. Rim fragment from small cup or pot. Hard yellow body coated with a pale treacly glaze. Probably Staffordshire. T.N. 18.

9. Large cylindrical jar or bowl. The wall vertical, undercut above the slightly spread foot. Hard yellow body as above, coated with thick treacly and streaky brown glaze of a color much later often associated with Bennington. A rim sherd from the same deposit is slightly everted, but since the glaze is much lighter the piece may not belong to the same vessel. Base diameter approximately 10½ in. Probably Staffordshire. An example recently purchased by Colonial Williamsburg (fig. 9) is dated 1721. T.N. 30.

10. Storage jar. The rim everted and ridged internally, probably to seat a lid; gravel tempered, pale-pink earthenware; internal dark apple-green glaze.[171]West of England manufacture. T.N. 30.

GLASS BOTTLES

11. Wine bottle of early short-necked form. Olive-green metal; flat string-rim; the mouth everted over rim. About 1680-1700. T.N. 30.12. Wine bottle with squat body, short and broad neck, and roughly applied string-rim; olive-green metal. The body type may normally be dated around 1700, but some examples are 10 or 15 years earlier.[172]T.N. 30.13. Wine bottle of olive-green metal. Squatter than the above, but the neck somewhat taller and theshoulder less angular; probably little variation in date.[173]T.N. 30.Figure 19.—Coarse earthenwaresand glass bottles. One-fourth.14. Wine bottle of squat form, olive-green metal. The neck taller than in no. 12 and the string-rim smaller and V-shaped.[174]Seal, on the shoulder, bears the legend "Richard Burbydge 1701." T.N. 30.15. Wine bottle of squat form, olive-green metal. Somewhat bulbous and the shoulder weak, the string-rim broad and flat.[175]A slightly earlier form than no. 14. The bottle has a seal on its shoulder with the initials "FI" (Frederick Jones) stamped from a single matrix.[176]T.N. 30.16. Wine bottle of somewhat unusual form. The metal thin olive green has turned black through decay which has almost entirely destroyed the metal. The body round-shouldered, and bulbous in the early manner; but the neck tall and the string-rim almost round-sectioned rather than V-shaped as one might expect of a bottle of this basic form. Were it not for the soft curve of the body and the shape of the string-rim this bottle might be attributed to the third decade of the 18th century. Note brass wire, still attached to neck, that held cork in place. T.N. 30.17. Wine bottle of half-bottle size. The metal as in no. 16; shoulder angular; neck somewhat writhen with a broad and flat string-rim of 17th-century character. Without the last feature (and its context) this bottle might be thought to date as late as 1725. T.N. 30.18. Wine bottle, olive-green metal. Short cylindrical body with conical basal kick, straight neck, and down-tooled string-rim. Dated examples occur in the late 1730's, but are more common in the following decade. T.N. 23.19. Wine-bottle neck of olive-green metal in an advanced state of decay. Wide mouth with everted lip and large round-sectioned string-rim of unusual character. The angular shoulder suggests that the neck comes from a body comparable to that of no. 12. T.N. 31.20. Pickle jar, everted-mouth fragments only. Olive-green metal in an advanced stage of decay, originally with square body in the manner of the more common case bottles.[177]T.N. 18.

11. Wine bottle of early short-necked form. Olive-green metal; flat string-rim; the mouth everted over rim. About 1680-1700. T.N. 30.

12. Wine bottle with squat body, short and broad neck, and roughly applied string-rim; olive-green metal. The body type may normally be dated around 1700, but some examples are 10 or 15 years earlier.[172]T.N. 30.

13. Wine bottle of olive-green metal. Squatter than the above, but the neck somewhat taller and theshoulder less angular; probably little variation in date.[173]T.N. 30.

Figure 19.—Coarse earthenwaresand glass bottles. One-fourth.

14. Wine bottle of squat form, olive-green metal. The neck taller than in no. 12 and the string-rim smaller and V-shaped.[174]Seal, on the shoulder, bears the legend "Richard Burbydge 1701." T.N. 30.

15. Wine bottle of squat form, olive-green metal. Somewhat bulbous and the shoulder weak, the string-rim broad and flat.[175]A slightly earlier form than no. 14. The bottle has a seal on its shoulder with the initials "FI" (Frederick Jones) stamped from a single matrix.[176]T.N. 30.

16. Wine bottle of somewhat unusual form. The metal thin olive green has turned black through decay which has almost entirely destroyed the metal. The body round-shouldered, and bulbous in the early manner; but the neck tall and the string-rim almost round-sectioned rather than V-shaped as one might expect of a bottle of this basic form. Were it not for the soft curve of the body and the shape of the string-rim this bottle might be attributed to the third decade of the 18th century. Note brass wire, still attached to neck, that held cork in place. T.N. 30.

17. Wine bottle of half-bottle size. The metal as in no. 16; shoulder angular; neck somewhat writhen with a broad and flat string-rim of 17th-century character. Without the last feature (and its context) this bottle might be thought to date as late as 1725. T.N. 30.

18. Wine bottle, olive-green metal. Short cylindrical body with conical basal kick, straight neck, and down-tooled string-rim. Dated examples occur in the late 1730's, but are more common in the following decade. T.N. 23.

19. Wine-bottle neck of olive-green metal in an advanced state of decay. Wide mouth with everted lip and large round-sectioned string-rim of unusual character. The angular shoulder suggests that the neck comes from a body comparable to that of no. 12. T.N. 31.

20. Pickle jar, everted-mouth fragments only. Olive-green metal in an advanced stage of decay, originally with square body in the manner of the more common case bottles.[177]T.N. 18.

1. Harness ornament, plated brass. (See fig. 17, no. 12.) T.N. 17.2. Harness fitting, brass. (See fig. 17, no. 13.) T.N. 15.3. Brass button. Hollow cast; both back and front convex; the back with two molding holes on either side of the flat-sectioned brass loop, which spreads directly from the back without any intermediary shank. Such buttons were common in the second half of the 17th century and the first quarter of the 18th century.[178]Diameter, ¾ in. T.N. 23.4. Brass curtain ring. The shape cast and then roughly filed flat on either side. This method of manufacture is typical of the 17th and 18th centuries. Diameter, 1 in. T.N. 24.5. Ornamental brass band from shaft or hilt of uncertain form. The band has become flattened and folded, and the condition of the metal precludes regaining its original shape. However, the band is almost certainly a truncated cone, ornamented with a roughly cutout and scored foliate decoration at the narrow end and plated with a thin band of silver at the other end. Length, 1-3/16 in. T.N. 18.6. Millefiori or chevron bead of yellow and black glass, almost certainly Venetian.[179]The bead is flattened on its pierced axis and has a diameter of 3/8 in. This example is probably of 17th-century date, but the technique can be traced back to Roman times. T.N. 30.7. Chinese export porcelain-cup fragment. Decorated in underglaze blue, rough chevron ornament below the rim on the interior. Diameter approximately 3 in. T.N. 23.Figure 20.—Miscellaneoussmall finds.8. Lower bowl fragment of lead-glass Romer ornamented with gadrooning or pillar molding. This is undoubtedly the finest glass fragment from the site; it would not have been out of place in the best English household.[180]About 1685. T.N. 30.9. Indian projectile point of honey-colored quartzite. The edges slightly serrated, and the base slightly concave; the tip missing, but total length originally about 43 mm. Holland Type C.[181]T.N. 16.10. Indian projectile point of red quartzite. Eared or corner-notched variety; original length approximately 45 mm. Holland Type O.[182]This is an unstratified item discovered on the bared clay surface on the promontory of Tutter's Neck overlooking the junction of Tutter's Neck and Kingsmill Creeks.

1. Harness ornament, plated brass. (See fig. 17, no. 12.) T.N. 17.

2. Harness fitting, brass. (See fig. 17, no. 13.) T.N. 15.

3. Brass button. Hollow cast; both back and front convex; the back with two molding holes on either side of the flat-sectioned brass loop, which spreads directly from the back without any intermediary shank. Such buttons were common in the second half of the 17th century and the first quarter of the 18th century.[178]Diameter, ¾ in. T.N. 23.

4. Brass curtain ring. The shape cast and then roughly filed flat on either side. This method of manufacture is typical of the 17th and 18th centuries. Diameter, 1 in. T.N. 24.

5. Ornamental brass band from shaft or hilt of uncertain form. The band has become flattened and folded, and the condition of the metal precludes regaining its original shape. However, the band is almost certainly a truncated cone, ornamented with a roughly cutout and scored foliate decoration at the narrow end and plated with a thin band of silver at the other end. Length, 1-3/16 in. T.N. 18.

6. Millefiori or chevron bead of yellow and black glass, almost certainly Venetian.[179]The bead is flattened on its pierced axis and has a diameter of 3/8 in. This example is probably of 17th-century date, but the technique can be traced back to Roman times. T.N. 30.

7. Chinese export porcelain-cup fragment. Decorated in underglaze blue, rough chevron ornament below the rim on the interior. Diameter approximately 3 in. T.N. 23.

Figure 20.—Miscellaneoussmall finds.

8. Lower bowl fragment of lead-glass Romer ornamented with gadrooning or pillar molding. This is undoubtedly the finest glass fragment from the site; it would not have been out of place in the best English household.[180]About 1685. T.N. 30.

9. Indian projectile point of honey-colored quartzite. The edges slightly serrated, and the base slightly concave; the tip missing, but total length originally about 43 mm. Holland Type C.[181]T.N. 16.

10. Indian projectile point of red quartzite. Eared or corner-notched variety; original length approximately 45 mm. Holland Type O.[182]This is an unstratified item discovered on the bared clay surface on the promontory of Tutter's Neck overlooking the junction of Tutter's Neck and Kingsmill Creeks.

U.S. Government Printing Office: 1966

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402—Price 70 cents

FOOTNOTES:[57]I am indebted to Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., for permitting the partial excavation of the site, for its generosity in offering to present the bulk of the artifact collection to the United States National Museum, and for its financial assistance in the preparation of this report. I am also much indebted to Audrey Noël Hume and John Dunton who represented the full extent of our field team, and to the latter for his work in the preservation of the iron and other small finds. My gratitude is also extended to A. E. Kendrew, senior vice president of Colonial Williamsburg, and to E. M. Frank, resident architect, the late S. P. Moorehead, architectural consultant, and Paul Buchanan, all of Colonial Williamsburg, for their help in the interpretation of the architectural remains. Further thanks are extended to Thaddeus Tate of the College of William and Mary for his valued council throughout the operation and for reading and commenting on the final report. I also greatly appreciate comments made by C. Malcolm Watkins, curator of cultural history at the Smithsonian Institution, in regard to the European artifacts; the help with the Indian material provided by Ben C. McCary, president of the Archeological Society of Virginia; and suggestions for historical sources made by H. G. Jones, state archivist, North Carolina. Finally, my thanks are extended to Alden Eaton who first found the site and without whose interest another relic of Virginia's colonial past would have been lost.[58]"Mesuage, in Common law, is used for a dwelling-house, with Garden, Courtilage, Orchard, and all other things belonging to it" (E. Phillips,The New World of Words, London, 1671).[59]William Waller Hening,Statutes at Large ... A Collection of All the Laws of Virginia ..., vol. 4 (Richmond, 1820), p. 371.[60]Papers of the Jones Family of Northumberland County, Virginia, 1649-1889 (MSS. Division, Library of Congress), vol. 1.[61]"Patents Issued During the Royal Government,"William and Mary College Quarterly(January 1901), ser. 1, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 143. In the 17th century prior to the building of the College of William and Mary, College Creek was known as Archer's Hope Creek, after the settlement of Archer's Hope at its mouth.[62]There was a patent dated February 6, 1637, to "Humphry Higgenson" for 700 acres "called by the name of Tutteys neck, adj. to Harrop ... E. S. E. upon a gr. swamp parting it from Harrop land, W. S. W. upon a br. of Archers hope Cr. parting it from Kingsmells neck, W. N. W. upon another br. of sd. Cr. parting it from land of Richard Brewsters called by the name of the great neck alias the barren neck & N. N. W into the Maine woods." Richard Brewster's 500 acres were described as beginning "at the great Neck alias the barren neck, adj. to Tutteys Neck a br. of Archers hope Cr. parting the same, S. upon a br. of sd. Cr. parting it from Kingsmells Neck...."Cavaliers and pioneers. Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants 1623-1800, abstracted and edited by Neil M. Nugent (Richmond: Dietz Printing Co., 1934), vol. 1, pp. 80, 81.[63]On July 19, 1646, a patent was granted to Richard Brewster for "750 acres, Land & Marsh, called the great Neck of Barren Neck, next adjoining to lutteyes neck." "Patents Issued ...,"William and Mary College Quarterly(July 1901), ser. 1, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 94.[64]"Notes from Records of York County,"Tyler's Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine(July 1924), vol. 6, no. 1, p. 61.[65]"Virginia Gleanings in England,"Virginia Magazine of History and Biography(October 1904), vol. 12, no. 2, p. 179.[66]"List of Colonial Officers,"Virginia Magazine of History and Biography(January 1901), vol. 8, no. 3, p. 328; and "Lightfoot Family,"William and Mary College Quarterly(October 1894), ser. 1, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 104.[67]"Patents Issued ...,"William and Mary College Quarterly(January 1904), ser. 1, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 186. For similar spelling see note 7, above.[68]"Escheat, in Common-law, signifieth lands that fall to a Lord within his Manor, by forfeiture, or the death of his Tenant without Heirs; it cometh from the French word Escheire, to fall" (Phillips,New World of Words).[69]On August 14, 1710, Richard Burbydge was among those who signed a report on the inspection of the vesselJamaica Merchant, lying at anchor in the upper district of the James River, at the precept of Governor Spotswood. The inspectors were sworn by Capt. John Geddes, a justice of the peace for James County. (Calendar of Virginia State Papers and other Manuscripts, 1652-1781, edit. Wm. P. Palmer, M.D., Richmond, 1875, vol. 1, p. 141.) This is the only reference to Burbydge that has been found.[70]L. H. Jones,Captain Robert Jones of London and Virginia(Albany, 1891), p. 34.[71]"Virginia Quit Rent Rolls, 1704,"Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 31, no. 2 (April 1923), p. 157; vol. 31, no. 3 (July 1923), p. 222; vol. 32, no. 1 (January 1924), p. 72.[72]Colonial Records of North Carolina, edit. William L. Saunders (Raleigh 1886), vol. 1, p. 590.[73]Alonzo T. Dill, "Eighteenth Century New Bern,"North Carolina Historical Review(January 1945), vol. 22, no. 1, p. 18.[74]"Bruton Church,"William and Mary College Quarterly(January 1895), ser. 1, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 180.[75]Hening,Statutes at Large, vol. 3 (Philadelphia, 1823), p. 431.[76]Papers of the Jones Family ..., vol. 1.[77]Colonial Records of North Carolina, vol. 1, p. 680.[78]Ibid., pp. 837, 838.[79]Ibid., p. 787.[80]Ibid., p. 866.[81]Ibid., p. 864.[82]Hugh T. Lefler and Albert R. Newsome,The History of a Southern State, North Carolina(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1954), pp. 56-60.[83]Colonial Records of North Carolina, vol. 1, p. 864.[84]"Notes from the Journal of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726,"William and Mary College Quarterly(April 1913), ser. 1, vol. 21, no. 4, p. 249.[85]Hening,Statutes at Large, vol. 4 (Richmond, 1820), p. 371.[86]Papers of the Jones Family ..., vol. 1.[87]"Diary of John Blair. Copied from an Almanac for 1751, Preserved in Virginia Historical Society,"William and Mary College Quarterly(January 1899), ser. 1, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 151, note 2.[88]Conway Robinson, "Notes from Council and General Court Records,"Virginia Magazine of History and Biography(October 1906), vol. 14, no. 2, p. 188, note 3.[89]"Bray Family,"William and Mary College Quarterly(April 1905), ser. 1, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 266.[90]Ibid.[91]Hening,Statutes at Large, vol. 4 (Richmond, 1820), p. 371.[92]"Bray Family," pp. 266-267.[93]Hening,Statutes at Large, vol. 8 (Richmond, 1821), pp. 460-464.[94]Inventory of William Allen, in Surry County Wills, no. 6, 1830-1834, pp. 341-344.[95]Calendar of Virginia State Papers, vol. 1, p. 39.[96]The will of Roger Jones is preserved in the Public Records Office in London, but it is published in full inL. H. Jones,Captain Robert Jones, pp. 196-200.[97]L. H. Jones,Captain Robert Jones, p. 34.[98]Dill, "Eighteenth Century New Bern," p. 18.[99]Samuel A. Ashe,History of North Carolina(Greensboro: C. L. Van Noppen, 1908), vol. 1, pp. 200-204; andLeflerandNewsome,History of a Southern State, pp. 63-64.[100]Colonial Records of North Carolina, vol. 2, p. 472.[101]Ibid., p. 475.[102]Text of the will is given inL. H. Jones,Captain Robert Jones, pp. 200-205.[103]Hugh Jones,The Present State of Virginia[1724], edit. Richard L. Morton (Virginia Historical Society, 1956), p. 104.[104]"The Cocke Family of Virginia,"Virginia Magazine of History and Biography(October 1897), vol. 5, no. 2, p. 192.[105]Two concrete fenceposts have been set up on the north-south axis of the residence, the posts being driven immediately beyond the respective chimney foundations. Two additional posts have been erected on the east-west axis of the kitchen.[106]As the work progressed, access to the site became increasingly difficult, necessitating the abandoning of transport farther and farther from the scene of operations. However, in the winter of 1960-1961, after all save the last trench had been dug, the Chesapeake Corporation crew drove a new road through the neck, a road which in fact cut right through the middle of the archeological area. By great good fortune the road passed between the two buildings without doing much more damage than had already been done by the earlier bulldozing.[107]The builders had made use of oystershell mortar. Specimen bricks ranging in color from pale salmon to a purplish red have the following measurements: 8-7/8 in. by 4¼ in. by 2¼ in. and 8-7/8 in. by 4-1/8 in. by 2½ in.[108]The "T.N." number in parentheses represents the field number of the Tutter's Neck deposit.[109]A house of similar character was photographed at Yorktown in 1862; seeA. Lawrence KocherandHoward Dearstyne,Shadows in Silver(New York: Scribner, 1954), p. 82, fig. 3, no. 17. The Bracken House in Williamsburg also is similar; seeMarcus Whiffen,The Eighteenth-Century Houses of Williamsburg(Williamsburg, 1960), p. 57, and figs. 5, 6.[110]Negroes belonging to the estate of Frederick Jones are listed in Papers of the Jones Family, vol. 1, November 29, 1723.[111]Oystershell mortar was used. Sample bricks are pale salmon to overfired red and measure 8 in. by 3-7/8 in. by 2½ in. and 8¾ in. by 3¾ in. by 2½ in.[112]Ivor Noël Hume, "The Glass Wine Bottle in Colonial Virginia,"Journal of Glass Studies(Corning Museum, 1961), vol. 3, p. 99, fig. 3, type 6.[113]SeeF. H. Garner,English Delftware(London: Faber and Faber, 1948), p. 15 and fig. 30a.[114]SeeC. Malcolm Watkins, "North Devon Pottery and Its Export to America in the 17th Century" (paper 13 inContributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 12-18, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1963).[115]Adrian Oswald, "A Case of Transatlantic Deduction,"Antiques(July 1959), vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 59-61.[116]For an example of comparable shape and date, see figure 6 ofIvor Noël Hume, "German Stoneware Bellarmines—An Introduction,"Antiques(November 1958), vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 439-441.[117]J. C. Harrington, "Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes,"Quarterly Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia(September 1954), vol. 9, no. 1, no pagination.Audrey Noël Hume, "Clay Tobacco Pipe Dating in the Light of Recent Excavations," ibid. (December 1963), vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 22-25.Lewis H. Binford, "A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples,"Southeastern Archeological Newsletter(June 1962), vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 19-21.[118]SeeIvor 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), p. 222, fig. 35, no. 7, and p. 220.[119]Adrian Oswald, "The Archaeology and Economic History of English Clay Tobacco Pipes,"Journal of the British Archaeological Association(London, 1960), 3d series, vol. 23, p. 83.[120]Oswald, loc. cit. (footnote 59).[121]Noël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 220, footnote 96.[122]See:J. F. Blacker,The A B C of English Salt-Glaze Stoneware from Dwight to Doulton(London: S. Paul & Co., 1922), p. 34ff.; andIvor Noël Hume, "Bellarmines and Mr. Dwight,"Wine and Spirit Trade Record(December 17, 1956), pp. 1628-1632.[123]C. Malcolm WatkinsandIvor Noël Hume, "The 'Poor Potter' of Yorktown" (paper 54 inContributions from the Museum of History and Technology, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 249, by various authors), Washington: Smithsonian Institution, in press.[124]The earliest known importation is indicated inBoston News-Letterof January 17, 1724 (G. F. Dow,The Arts and Crafts in New England, 1704-1775, Topsfield, Massachusetts: The Wayside Press, 1927, p. 82).[125]The common term "wine bottle" is used here for the sake of convenience, though it should be realized that bottles were not specifically shaped to contain wine but were used for any and all liquids from beer to oil.[126]Adrian Oswald, "English Clay Tobacco Pipes,"Archeological News Letter(April 1951), vol. 3, no. 10, p. 158. The type is attributed to the period about 1700-1750, with the distribution mainly in the southwest of England.[127]SeeNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 220, footnote 96.[128]SeeJ. C. Harrington, "Tobacco Pipes from Jamestown,"Quarterly Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia(June 1951), vol. 5, no. 4, no pagination.[129]SeeJ. F. Hayward,English Cutlery(London: Victoria and Albert Museum handbook, 1956), pp. 15-16, pl. 13b.[130]Ibid., p. 16, pl. 17c.[131]For a similar example, seeJ. Paul Hudson,New Discoveries at Jamestown(Washington: National Park Service, 1957), p. 34, second knife from bottom.[132]The 18th-century shanks tend to be bulbous either below the shoulder or at the midsection.[133]A complete spoon with this type terminal was found in excavations at Green Spring Plantation near Jamestown; seeLouis R. Caywood,Excavations at Green Spring Plantation(Yorktown, Virginia: Colonial National Historical Park, 1955), pl. 11, "G.S. 153." For a Scottish silver spoon with this type terminal seeThe Connoisseur(April 1910), vol. 26, no. 104, andCatalogue of the Guildhall Museum(London, 1908), pl. 81, no. 16.[134]A spoon handle with a shaft of similar type was found at Jamestown. It bears the mark of Joseph Copeland, a pewterer of Chuckatuck, Virginia, in 1675. SeeJohn L. Cotter,Archeological Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia(Washington: National Park Service, 1958), pl. 87, fig. at right.[135]SeeCatalogue of the Guildhall Museum, pl. 71, fig. 3 (for bowl shape) and fig. 5 (for mark).[136]As the 18th century progressed, loops tended to be more round-sectioned. By the end of the colonial period most loops display their greatest width on the same plane as that of the blade. SeeNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 198, fig. 21, no. 13.[137]For a similar example seeHudson,New Discoveries at Jamestown, p. 57.[138]SeeH. C. Mercer,Ancient Carpenters' Tools(Doylestown, Pa.: Bucks County Historical Society, 1951), p. 182.[139]SeeNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 198, fig. 21, no. 14.[140]Both the baglike shape of the lock and the hinged keyhole cover are indicative of a date in the late 17th century or early 18th century.[141]Hudson,New Discoveries at Jamestown, p. 26.[142]A similarly headed object, but slotted at the other end to hold a linchpin, was found at Jamestown and considered to be an item of marine hardware.Hudson,New Discoveries at Jamestown, p. 85.[143]For similar example seeNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 224, no. 8.[144]For similar example seeHudson,New Discoveries at Jamestown, p. 20, fig. at top left.[145]Another example with similar frame, but with a broader tang and no ornamental ridge, was found in the same context.[146]SeeNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 224, no. 10, andArchaeology in Britain(London: Foyle, 1953), p. 107, fig. 23, no. 17.[147]It is possible that this leg originally spread out into a foot in the style of no. 6. SeeHudson,New Discoveries at Jamestown, p. 30, fig. at left.[148]For similar examples, seeNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 200, fig. 22, nos. 6, 7.[149]For a parallel of the stem form only, seeGeorge Bernard Hughes,English, Scottish and Irish Table Glass from the Sixteenth Century to 1820(London: Batsford, 1956), fig. 35, no. 1. A rather similar baluster shape, about 1695, is shown inE. M. Elville, "Starting a Collection of Glass,"Country Life(June 11, 1959), vol. 125, no. 3256, p. 1329, fig. 1. A tavern glass, attributed to the period 1685-1690, whose baluster has a large tear, but which otherwise is a good parallel, is shown inThe Antique Dealer and Collector's Guide(April 1954), p. 29, fig. at left.[150]The metal was tested for lead with positive results.[151]A slightly larger stem from a glass of similar form was found outside the kitchen in deposit T.N. 1; not illustrated.[152]For a glass of comparable form, but of soda metal, seeG. B. Hughes, "Old English Ale Glasses,"Wine and Spirit Trade Record(April 15, 1954), p. 428 and fig. 1.[153]For a similar stem shape attributed to the last decade of the 17th century seeA. Hartshorne,Old English Glasses(London, 1897), p. 245, pl. 34.[154]The association of color and style of decoration coupled with the relationship of diameter to height as displayed here is generally indicative of early date. In the 18th century, jars of this diameter tended to be taller, less spread at the base, and with the blue decoration much darker.[155]Waste products from London delftware kilns were used to build up the north foreshore of the River Thames between Queenhithe and Dowgate in the City of London. Among the many fragments recovered from this source were biscuit porringer handles of a type similar to the Tutter's Neck example. The manner in which the rim is folded over the handle seems to be a London characteristic, Bristol examples more often being luted straight to the rim. The Thames material was deposited in the late 17th century and probably came from a pottery on the Bankside on the south side of the river.[156]A very small porringer rim sherd of this ware was found at Tutter's Neck in context T.N. 24; not illustrated.[157]SeeGarner,English Delftware, p. 15, fig. 30a.[158]Dating based on the Carolian appearance of the figure.[159]E. A. Dowman,Blue Dash Chargers and other Early English Tin Enamel Circular Dishes(London: T. Werner Laurie Ltd., 1919).[160]From a kiln site found during building operations for Hay's Wharf between Toolley Street and Pickelherring Street in 1958.[161]SeeErnst Grohne,Tongefässe in Bremen seit dem Mittelalter(Bremen: Arthur Geist, 1949), p. 120, Abb. 78, Abb. 80a.[162]The smaller base fragment was found in stratum T.N. 17, a much later context than the rest. If this fragment does come from the same dish, it must be assumed that the fragments were scattered and that the sherd was moved in fill dug from an earlier deposit.[163]A name coined to describe pottery made by the Pamunkey Indians and others in the 18th century that was copied from English forms and sold to the colonists, presumably for use by those who could not afford European wares. SeeIvor Noël Hume, "An Indian Wave of the Colonial Period,"Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia(September 1962), vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 2-14.[164]The bowl was important in that the presence of its fragments deep in both T.N. 23 and T.N. 24 indicated that both Pits D and E were filled at approximately the same time.[165]Colonial Williamsburg archeological collection, 10C-58-10B.[166]Brown stonewares similar to those commonly attributed to Fulham, but more correctly called London, were manufactured at Yorktown by William Rogers in the second quarter of the 18th century. See footnote 67.[167]A comparable vessel, ornamented with medallion containing Tudor rose and initials of Charles II, is illustrated inBlacker,The A B C of English Salt-Glaze Stoneware, p. 35.[168]A similar example from a context of 1763-1772 is illustrated byNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," fig. 29, no. 1.[169]Adrian Oswald, "A London Stoneware Pottery, Recent Excavations at Bankside,"The Connoisseur(January 1951), vol. 126, no. 519, pp. 183-185.[170]Op. cit. (footnote 67).[171]A close parallel that was found at Lewes, Delaware, is illustrated inWatkins, "North Devon Pottery," p. 45, fig. 25.[172]SeeSheelah Ruggles-Brise,Sealed Bottles(London: Country Life, 1949), pl. 4, fig. at lower left, andW. A. Thorpe, "The Evolution of the Decanter,"The Connoisseur(April 1929), vol. 83, no. 332, p. 197, fig. 2.[173]Another example is illustrated byNoël Hume, "The Glass Wine Bottle," op. cit. (footnote 56), fig. 3, type 3.[174]Ibid., fig. 3, type 6, illustrates a similar example.[175]Ibid., fig. 3, type 5, shows another example.[176]All other Jones seals from T.N. 30 and T.N. 31 were stamped from combinations of single-letter matrices. See fig. 6.[177]A similar though slightly smaller neck came from T.N. 16, and a square base, probably from an ordinary case bottle, was among the surface finds. Another example is illustrated inNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 181, fig. 11, no. 13.[178]Noël Hume,Archaeology in Britain, p. 108.[179]Colorful beads of this character were frequently used as Indian trade goods and are found in Indian graves in Virginia and elsewhere. A long-established legend that beads were manufactured at the Jamestown glasshouse is without archeological evidence. Although many beads have been found on the shores of the James River near Jamestown, there is reason to suppose that all those of European form were imported.[180]See Hughes,English, Scottish and Irish Table Glass, p. 195 and fig. 134.[181]C. G. Holland, "An Analysis of Projectile Points and Large Blades," appendix toClifford Evans,A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archeology(Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 160, Washington, 1955), p. 167.[182]Ibid., p. 171.

[57]I am indebted to Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., for permitting the partial excavation of the site, for its generosity in offering to present the bulk of the artifact collection to the United States National Museum, and for its financial assistance in the preparation of this report. I am also much indebted to Audrey Noël Hume and John Dunton who represented the full extent of our field team, and to the latter for his work in the preservation of the iron and other small finds. My gratitude is also extended to A. E. Kendrew, senior vice president of Colonial Williamsburg, and to E. M. Frank, resident architect, the late S. P. Moorehead, architectural consultant, and Paul Buchanan, all of Colonial Williamsburg, for their help in the interpretation of the architectural remains. Further thanks are extended to Thaddeus Tate of the College of William and Mary for his valued council throughout the operation and for reading and commenting on the final report. I also greatly appreciate comments made by C. Malcolm Watkins, curator of cultural history at the Smithsonian Institution, in regard to the European artifacts; the help with the Indian material provided by Ben C. McCary, president of the Archeological Society of Virginia; and suggestions for historical sources made by H. G. Jones, state archivist, North Carolina. Finally, my thanks are extended to Alden Eaton who first found the site and without whose interest another relic of Virginia's colonial past would have been lost.

[58]"Mesuage, in Common law, is used for a dwelling-house, with Garden, Courtilage, Orchard, and all other things belonging to it" (E. Phillips,The New World of Words, London, 1671).

[59]William Waller Hening,Statutes at Large ... A Collection of All the Laws of Virginia ..., vol. 4 (Richmond, 1820), p. 371.

[60]Papers of the Jones Family of Northumberland County, Virginia, 1649-1889 (MSS. Division, Library of Congress), vol. 1.

[61]"Patents Issued During the Royal Government,"William and Mary College Quarterly(January 1901), ser. 1, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 143. In the 17th century prior to the building of the College of William and Mary, College Creek was known as Archer's Hope Creek, after the settlement of Archer's Hope at its mouth.

[62]There was a patent dated February 6, 1637, to "Humphry Higgenson" for 700 acres "called by the name of Tutteys neck, adj. to Harrop ... E. S. E. upon a gr. swamp parting it from Harrop land, W. S. W. upon a br. of Archers hope Cr. parting it from Kingsmells neck, W. N. W. upon another br. of sd. Cr. parting it from land of Richard Brewsters called by the name of the great neck alias the barren neck & N. N. W into the Maine woods." Richard Brewster's 500 acres were described as beginning "at the great Neck alias the barren neck, adj. to Tutteys Neck a br. of Archers hope Cr. parting the same, S. upon a br. of sd. Cr. parting it from Kingsmells Neck...."Cavaliers and pioneers. Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants 1623-1800, abstracted and edited by Neil M. Nugent (Richmond: Dietz Printing Co., 1934), vol. 1, pp. 80, 81.

[63]On July 19, 1646, a patent was granted to Richard Brewster for "750 acres, Land & Marsh, called the great Neck of Barren Neck, next adjoining to lutteyes neck." "Patents Issued ...,"William and Mary College Quarterly(July 1901), ser. 1, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 94.

[64]"Notes from Records of York County,"Tyler's Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine(July 1924), vol. 6, no. 1, p. 61.

[65]"Virginia Gleanings in England,"Virginia Magazine of History and Biography(October 1904), vol. 12, no. 2, p. 179.

[66]"List of Colonial Officers,"Virginia Magazine of History and Biography(January 1901), vol. 8, no. 3, p. 328; and "Lightfoot Family,"William and Mary College Quarterly(October 1894), ser. 1, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 104.

[67]"Patents Issued ...,"William and Mary College Quarterly(January 1904), ser. 1, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 186. For similar spelling see note 7, above.

[68]"Escheat, in Common-law, signifieth lands that fall to a Lord within his Manor, by forfeiture, or the death of his Tenant without Heirs; it cometh from the French word Escheire, to fall" (Phillips,New World of Words).

[69]On August 14, 1710, Richard Burbydge was among those who signed a report on the inspection of the vesselJamaica Merchant, lying at anchor in the upper district of the James River, at the precept of Governor Spotswood. The inspectors were sworn by Capt. John Geddes, a justice of the peace for James County. (Calendar of Virginia State Papers and other Manuscripts, 1652-1781, edit. Wm. P. Palmer, M.D., Richmond, 1875, vol. 1, p. 141.) This is the only reference to Burbydge that has been found.

[70]L. H. Jones,Captain Robert Jones of London and Virginia(Albany, 1891), p. 34.

[71]"Virginia Quit Rent Rolls, 1704,"Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 31, no. 2 (April 1923), p. 157; vol. 31, no. 3 (July 1923), p. 222; vol. 32, no. 1 (January 1924), p. 72.

[72]Colonial Records of North Carolina, edit. William L. Saunders (Raleigh 1886), vol. 1, p. 590.

[73]Alonzo T. Dill, "Eighteenth Century New Bern,"North Carolina Historical Review(January 1945), vol. 22, no. 1, p. 18.

[74]"Bruton Church,"William and Mary College Quarterly(January 1895), ser. 1, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 180.

[75]Hening,Statutes at Large, vol. 3 (Philadelphia, 1823), p. 431.

[76]Papers of the Jones Family ..., vol. 1.

[77]Colonial Records of North Carolina, vol. 1, p. 680.

[78]Ibid., pp. 837, 838.

[79]Ibid., p. 787.

[80]Ibid., p. 866.

[81]Ibid., p. 864.

[82]Hugh T. Lefler and Albert R. Newsome,The History of a Southern State, North Carolina(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1954), pp. 56-60.

[83]Colonial Records of North Carolina, vol. 1, p. 864.

[84]"Notes from the Journal of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726,"William and Mary College Quarterly(April 1913), ser. 1, vol. 21, no. 4, p. 249.

[85]Hening,Statutes at Large, vol. 4 (Richmond, 1820), p. 371.

[86]Papers of the Jones Family ..., vol. 1.

[87]"Diary of John Blair. Copied from an Almanac for 1751, Preserved in Virginia Historical Society,"William and Mary College Quarterly(January 1899), ser. 1, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 151, note 2.

[88]Conway Robinson, "Notes from Council and General Court Records,"Virginia Magazine of History and Biography(October 1906), vol. 14, no. 2, p. 188, note 3.

[89]"Bray Family,"William and Mary College Quarterly(April 1905), ser. 1, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 266.

[90]Ibid.

[91]Hening,Statutes at Large, vol. 4 (Richmond, 1820), p. 371.

[92]"Bray Family," pp. 266-267.

[93]Hening,Statutes at Large, vol. 8 (Richmond, 1821), pp. 460-464.

[94]Inventory of William Allen, in Surry County Wills, no. 6, 1830-1834, pp. 341-344.

[95]Calendar of Virginia State Papers, vol. 1, p. 39.

[96]The will of Roger Jones is preserved in the Public Records Office in London, but it is published in full inL. H. Jones,Captain Robert Jones, pp. 196-200.

[97]L. H. Jones,Captain Robert Jones, p. 34.

[98]Dill, "Eighteenth Century New Bern," p. 18.

[99]Samuel A. Ashe,History of North Carolina(Greensboro: C. L. Van Noppen, 1908), vol. 1, pp. 200-204; andLeflerandNewsome,History of a Southern State, pp. 63-64.

[100]Colonial Records of North Carolina, vol. 2, p. 472.

[101]Ibid., p. 475.

[102]Text of the will is given inL. H. Jones,Captain Robert Jones, pp. 200-205.

[103]Hugh Jones,The Present State of Virginia[1724], edit. Richard L. Morton (Virginia Historical Society, 1956), p. 104.

[104]"The Cocke Family of Virginia,"Virginia Magazine of History and Biography(October 1897), vol. 5, no. 2, p. 192.

[105]Two concrete fenceposts have been set up on the north-south axis of the residence, the posts being driven immediately beyond the respective chimney foundations. Two additional posts have been erected on the east-west axis of the kitchen.

[106]As the work progressed, access to the site became increasingly difficult, necessitating the abandoning of transport farther and farther from the scene of operations. However, in the winter of 1960-1961, after all save the last trench had been dug, the Chesapeake Corporation crew drove a new road through the neck, a road which in fact cut right through the middle of the archeological area. By great good fortune the road passed between the two buildings without doing much more damage than had already been done by the earlier bulldozing.

[107]The builders had made use of oystershell mortar. Specimen bricks ranging in color from pale salmon to a purplish red have the following measurements: 8-7/8 in. by 4¼ in. by 2¼ in. and 8-7/8 in. by 4-1/8 in. by 2½ in.

[108]The "T.N." number in parentheses represents the field number of the Tutter's Neck deposit.

[109]A house of similar character was photographed at Yorktown in 1862; seeA. Lawrence KocherandHoward Dearstyne,Shadows in Silver(New York: Scribner, 1954), p. 82, fig. 3, no. 17. The Bracken House in Williamsburg also is similar; seeMarcus Whiffen,The Eighteenth-Century Houses of Williamsburg(Williamsburg, 1960), p. 57, and figs. 5, 6.

[110]Negroes belonging to the estate of Frederick Jones are listed in Papers of the Jones Family, vol. 1, November 29, 1723.

[111]Oystershell mortar was used. Sample bricks are pale salmon to overfired red and measure 8 in. by 3-7/8 in. by 2½ in. and 8¾ in. by 3¾ in. by 2½ in.

[112]Ivor Noël Hume, "The Glass Wine Bottle in Colonial Virginia,"Journal of Glass Studies(Corning Museum, 1961), vol. 3, p. 99, fig. 3, type 6.

[113]SeeF. H. Garner,English Delftware(London: Faber and Faber, 1948), p. 15 and fig. 30a.

[114]SeeC. Malcolm Watkins, "North Devon Pottery and Its Export to America in the 17th Century" (paper 13 inContributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 12-18, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1963).

[115]Adrian Oswald, "A Case of Transatlantic Deduction,"Antiques(July 1959), vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 59-61.

[116]For an example of comparable shape and date, see figure 6 ofIvor Noël Hume, "German Stoneware Bellarmines—An Introduction,"Antiques(November 1958), vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 439-441.

[117]J. C. Harrington, "Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes,"Quarterly Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia(September 1954), vol. 9, no. 1, no pagination.Audrey Noël Hume, "Clay Tobacco Pipe Dating in the Light of Recent Excavations," ibid. (December 1963), vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 22-25.Lewis H. Binford, "A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples,"Southeastern Archeological Newsletter(June 1962), vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 19-21.

[118]SeeIvor 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), p. 222, fig. 35, no. 7, and p. 220.

[119]Adrian Oswald, "The Archaeology and Economic History of English Clay Tobacco Pipes,"Journal of the British Archaeological Association(London, 1960), 3d series, vol. 23, p. 83.

[120]Oswald, loc. cit. (footnote 59).

[121]Noël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 220, footnote 96.

[122]See:J. F. Blacker,The A B C of English Salt-Glaze Stoneware from Dwight to Doulton(London: S. Paul & Co., 1922), p. 34ff.; andIvor Noël Hume, "Bellarmines and Mr. Dwight,"Wine and Spirit Trade Record(December 17, 1956), pp. 1628-1632.

[123]C. Malcolm WatkinsandIvor Noël Hume, "The 'Poor Potter' of Yorktown" (paper 54 inContributions from the Museum of History and Technology, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 249, by various authors), Washington: Smithsonian Institution, in press.

[124]The earliest known importation is indicated inBoston News-Letterof January 17, 1724 (G. F. Dow,The Arts and Crafts in New England, 1704-1775, Topsfield, Massachusetts: The Wayside Press, 1927, p. 82).

[125]The common term "wine bottle" is used here for the sake of convenience, though it should be realized that bottles were not specifically shaped to contain wine but were used for any and all liquids from beer to oil.

[126]Adrian Oswald, "English Clay Tobacco Pipes,"Archeological News Letter(April 1951), vol. 3, no. 10, p. 158. The type is attributed to the period about 1700-1750, with the distribution mainly in the southwest of England.

[127]SeeNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 220, footnote 96.

[128]SeeJ. C. Harrington, "Tobacco Pipes from Jamestown,"Quarterly Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia(June 1951), vol. 5, no. 4, no pagination.

[129]SeeJ. F. Hayward,English Cutlery(London: Victoria and Albert Museum handbook, 1956), pp. 15-16, pl. 13b.

[130]Ibid., p. 16, pl. 17c.

[131]For a similar example, seeJ. Paul Hudson,New Discoveries at Jamestown(Washington: National Park Service, 1957), p. 34, second knife from bottom.

[132]The 18th-century shanks tend to be bulbous either below the shoulder or at the midsection.

[133]A complete spoon with this type terminal was found in excavations at Green Spring Plantation near Jamestown; seeLouis R. Caywood,Excavations at Green Spring Plantation(Yorktown, Virginia: Colonial National Historical Park, 1955), pl. 11, "G.S. 153." For a Scottish silver spoon with this type terminal seeThe Connoisseur(April 1910), vol. 26, no. 104, andCatalogue of the Guildhall Museum(London, 1908), pl. 81, no. 16.

[134]A spoon handle with a shaft of similar type was found at Jamestown. It bears the mark of Joseph Copeland, a pewterer of Chuckatuck, Virginia, in 1675. SeeJohn L. Cotter,Archeological Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia(Washington: National Park Service, 1958), pl. 87, fig. at right.

[135]SeeCatalogue of the Guildhall Museum, pl. 71, fig. 3 (for bowl shape) and fig. 5 (for mark).

[136]As the 18th century progressed, loops tended to be more round-sectioned. By the end of the colonial period most loops display their greatest width on the same plane as that of the blade. SeeNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 198, fig. 21, no. 13.

[137]For a similar example seeHudson,New Discoveries at Jamestown, p. 57.

[138]SeeH. C. Mercer,Ancient Carpenters' Tools(Doylestown, Pa.: Bucks County Historical Society, 1951), p. 182.

[139]SeeNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 198, fig. 21, no. 14.

[140]Both the baglike shape of the lock and the hinged keyhole cover are indicative of a date in the late 17th century or early 18th century.

[141]Hudson,New Discoveries at Jamestown, p. 26.

[142]A similarly headed object, but slotted at the other end to hold a linchpin, was found at Jamestown and considered to be an item of marine hardware.Hudson,New Discoveries at Jamestown, p. 85.

[143]For similar example seeNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 224, no. 8.

[144]For similar example seeHudson,New Discoveries at Jamestown, p. 20, fig. at top left.

[145]Another example with similar frame, but with a broader tang and no ornamental ridge, was found in the same context.

[146]SeeNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 224, no. 10, andArchaeology in Britain(London: Foyle, 1953), p. 107, fig. 23, no. 17.

[147]It is possible that this leg originally spread out into a foot in the style of no. 6. SeeHudson,New Discoveries at Jamestown, p. 30, fig. at left.

[148]For similar examples, seeNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 200, fig. 22, nos. 6, 7.

[149]For a parallel of the stem form only, seeGeorge Bernard Hughes,English, Scottish and Irish Table Glass from the Sixteenth Century to 1820(London: Batsford, 1956), fig. 35, no. 1. A rather similar baluster shape, about 1695, is shown inE. M. Elville, "Starting a Collection of Glass,"Country Life(June 11, 1959), vol. 125, no. 3256, p. 1329, fig. 1. A tavern glass, attributed to the period 1685-1690, whose baluster has a large tear, but which otherwise is a good parallel, is shown inThe Antique Dealer and Collector's Guide(April 1954), p. 29, fig. at left.

[150]The metal was tested for lead with positive results.

[151]A slightly larger stem from a glass of similar form was found outside the kitchen in deposit T.N. 1; not illustrated.

[152]For a glass of comparable form, but of soda metal, seeG. B. Hughes, "Old English Ale Glasses,"Wine and Spirit Trade Record(April 15, 1954), p. 428 and fig. 1.

[153]For a similar stem shape attributed to the last decade of the 17th century seeA. Hartshorne,Old English Glasses(London, 1897), p. 245, pl. 34.

[154]The association of color and style of decoration coupled with the relationship of diameter to height as displayed here is generally indicative of early date. In the 18th century, jars of this diameter tended to be taller, less spread at the base, and with the blue decoration much darker.

[155]Waste products from London delftware kilns were used to build up the north foreshore of the River Thames between Queenhithe and Dowgate in the City of London. Among the many fragments recovered from this source were biscuit porringer handles of a type similar to the Tutter's Neck example. The manner in which the rim is folded over the handle seems to be a London characteristic, Bristol examples more often being luted straight to the rim. The Thames material was deposited in the late 17th century and probably came from a pottery on the Bankside on the south side of the river.

[156]A very small porringer rim sherd of this ware was found at Tutter's Neck in context T.N. 24; not illustrated.

[157]SeeGarner,English Delftware, p. 15, fig. 30a.

[158]Dating based on the Carolian appearance of the figure.

[159]E. A. Dowman,Blue Dash Chargers and other Early English Tin Enamel Circular Dishes(London: T. Werner Laurie Ltd., 1919).

[160]From a kiln site found during building operations for Hay's Wharf between Toolley Street and Pickelherring Street in 1958.

[161]SeeErnst Grohne,Tongefässe in Bremen seit dem Mittelalter(Bremen: Arthur Geist, 1949), p. 120, Abb. 78, Abb. 80a.

[162]The smaller base fragment was found in stratum T.N. 17, a much later context than the rest. If this fragment does come from the same dish, it must be assumed that the fragments were scattered and that the sherd was moved in fill dug from an earlier deposit.

[163]A name coined to describe pottery made by the Pamunkey Indians and others in the 18th century that was copied from English forms and sold to the colonists, presumably for use by those who could not afford European wares. SeeIvor Noël Hume, "An Indian Wave of the Colonial Period,"Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia(September 1962), vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 2-14.

[164]The bowl was important in that the presence of its fragments deep in both T.N. 23 and T.N. 24 indicated that both Pits D and E were filled at approximately the same time.

[165]Colonial Williamsburg archeological collection, 10C-58-10B.

[166]Brown stonewares similar to those commonly attributed to Fulham, but more correctly called London, were manufactured at Yorktown by William Rogers in the second quarter of the 18th century. See footnote 67.

[167]A comparable vessel, ornamented with medallion containing Tudor rose and initials of Charles II, is illustrated inBlacker,The A B C of English Salt-Glaze Stoneware, p. 35.

[168]A similar example from a context of 1763-1772 is illustrated byNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," fig. 29, no. 1.

[169]Adrian Oswald, "A London Stoneware Pottery, Recent Excavations at Bankside,"The Connoisseur(January 1951), vol. 126, no. 519, pp. 183-185.

[170]Op. cit. (footnote 67).

[171]A close parallel that was found at Lewes, Delaware, is illustrated inWatkins, "North Devon Pottery," p. 45, fig. 25.

[172]SeeSheelah Ruggles-Brise,Sealed Bottles(London: Country Life, 1949), pl. 4, fig. at lower left, andW. A. Thorpe, "The Evolution of the Decanter,"The Connoisseur(April 1929), vol. 83, no. 332, p. 197, fig. 2.

[173]Another example is illustrated byNoël Hume, "The Glass Wine Bottle," op. cit. (footnote 56), fig. 3, type 3.

[174]Ibid., fig. 3, type 6, illustrates a similar example.

[175]Ibid., fig. 3, type 5, shows another example.

[176]All other Jones seals from T.N. 30 and T.N. 31 were stamped from combinations of single-letter matrices. See fig. 6.

[177]A similar though slightly smaller neck came from T.N. 16, and a square base, probably from an ordinary case bottle, was among the surface finds. Another example is illustrated inNoël Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell," p. 181, fig. 11, no. 13.

[178]Noël Hume,Archaeology in Britain, p. 108.

[179]Colorful beads of this character were frequently used as Indian trade goods and are found in Indian graves in Virginia and elsewhere. A long-established legend that beads were manufactured at the Jamestown glasshouse is without archeological evidence. Although many beads have been found on the shores of the James River near Jamestown, there is reason to suppose that all those of European form were imported.

[180]See Hughes,English, Scottish and Irish Table Glass, p. 195 and fig. 134.

[181]C. G. Holland, "An Analysis of Projectile Points and Large Blades," appendix toClifford Evans,A Ceramic Study of Virginia Archeology(Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 160, Washington, 1955), p. 167.

[182]Ibid., p. 171.

Contributions fromThe Museum of History and Technology:Paper 54

THE "POOR POTTER" OF YORKTOWN

C. Malcolm WatkinsandIvor Noël Hume

Back to Index Next